Should Caster Semenya be allowed to compete?

Daryl wrote:Point 1, check that there is no cheating with banned substances.
Point 2, check that the competitors are women. By inspection and if needed, no Y chromosome.
Point 3, shut up and let them compete.

If you ban people for this, then where do you stop?

If you ban people for this, then where do you stop?

If you do allow it. Then where does it stop? A valid question which begets a more overarching concern of where do you draw the line for qualified applicants?

Would gender reassignments be legal? Why not? Legally, she's a female now. Today, Caster. Tomorrow, gender reassigned males will fight for their right to compete in female competitions. Is it fine for Bruce Jenner to run in a female race now? Why not? She's legally Caitlyn Jenner now, a female. And let's not forget the legal ramifications of allowing Caster to compete on the precedent that might allow females that are currently undergoing sex reassignment and taking legal testosterone increasing drugs to be allowed to compete.

It is because, the onus of responsibility is to protect the sport, not the athlete. Is it fair that other female runners should have to run alongside Usain Bolt?


Should a man born with an extra functioning arm and fist be allowed to box?

Would it be fair for a 10th grader to go out on the basketball court with 5th graders? Why not, unfair advantage?

Would it be okay if Supergirl competes? Why not, she only has high levels of yellow sun in her system. Caster has high levels of yellow sun.

Remember, the SPIRIT OF THE GAMES.

As kids we all know the Spirit. Let's get off the court and let the little kids play.

TAINT THE SPORT. SPOIL THE ART.
— A. Spoilsport.

cthia wrote:Would gender reassignments be legal?

The International Olympic Committee says yes https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/ ... ism-en.pdf

Thank you!

It's as Daryl wrote: the only possible objective scientific standard that says 'THIS IS WOMAN' is the lack of a Y-chromosome. And please do read Grashtel's linked article - not even the IOC keeps to that standard.

The fact is that even if Semenya is intersex instead of strictly female, as some critics insist, her anatomical structures, DNA and self-identification is all female. Her elevated levels of testosterone does not disqualify her, because then any athlete with naturally-enhanced physical features should be disqualified.

What standard then applies? Who decides upon that standard? What about those athletes who do not meet that standard? And most importantly, what right do we have to exchange exceptional for average?

This is sport; it's all about mental and physical exceptionalism. To exclude the exceptional because the average cannot keep up will violate the very notion of competitive sport.

Just an example. I am 5'11'' tall and when I was younger I used to be a very good rugby-player. However, the average height of professional rugby-players is well over six feet, and the average weight is betwee 30kg and 50kg heavier than my own scrawny 67kg. I never stood a chance, despite my passion for the game and my high skill level. I tried, but the truth is that rugby is a game for huge blokes. And I'm not huge.

Rugby has evolved over time. 40 years ago I might have stood a chance. Had I reached my prime today, I might have been competitive in the seven-a-side version of the game, which does favour smaller and faster players. It was not to be, however, and it would have been futile to get bitter about my physical shortcomings.

You don't get it. You're missing the boat entirely. There is no need to test her for any type chromosome. The judge should have ruled against it without even needing those results. She has abnormally elevated levels of testosterone. That deserves a negative ruling alone.

High levels of testosterone is not a "physical advantage" in and of itself. As bulkier muscles are to a weight lifter. It provides a far greater advantage than that.

It translates into a physical advantage by intensifying almost all the emotional as well as physical features which reflect masculinity - when a man’s testosterone levels rises.

It's not the equivalent of fatter profile tires on your race car. But high octane fuel to regular in your tank. Huge difference.

Besides, having bulkier muscles doesn't guarantee an advantage in a particular sport. My high school gf was a year younger than I, and could blow my doors off in a 100 meter sprint. She ran track. I was quarterback of the football team and much bulkier and muscular. Testosterone multiplies your pre-existing physical effect. So, if I raised my teste levels and she raised hers by the same amount, she'd just leave me further in a race.

And again, you are still forgetting the Spirit of the Games. And the responsibility to save the sport. The Games are for entertainment of the fans. Ask the Romans, they'll lend you their ear. Without the fans you have no Games.

As a fan, I don't want to watch Games where someone has an insane advantage. It would only be entertaining for a very short time if Wilt Chamberlain took passes under a goal and constantly dunked on some first graders. I can handle unfair. But insane, I draw the line. It is not entertaining. I (fan) go. We (fans) go. Where left you (sponsor)?

Save The Games.

Grashtel wrote:

cthia wrote:Would gender reassignments be legal?

The International Olympic Committee says yes https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/ ... ism-en.pdf

I rest my case.

Well, I think we've made our respective positions clear. Not much use elaborating further. But yeah, thank you for participating.

cthia wrote:Would it be fair for a 10th grader to go out on the basketball court with 5th graders? Why not, unfair advantage?

Let's keep things on the same level (same age/grade, instead of mismatching in your flawed metaphor), shall we?

Should my oldest boy have been banned from playing on his Jr. High basketball team against players from other schools because genetics gave him 6 inches of extra height over anyone anywhere else in the school district?

Same thing applies to the football team he was on later that year.

I'm sorry, but banning people simply because they fall outside the "normal" curve stinks of the "normalizing" I see nowadays in schools and little league sports, where "everyone is a winner". Even the losers. Get a D in English? That's okay, we'll just bump that up to a C so that you won't feel so bad. Your team came in last place? No problem - here's a trophy.

People who support those sort of notions say that it's to help with self-esteem. IMO, it's better to lose and try harder to win, then maybe someday win, than it is to be made to feel like a winner, even if you lose. Also, IMO, this is why kids nowadays act so entitled and spoiled. Usually, if I fail at something, I try harder to get it right, and I sure as hell feel better about it and myself, than I would had it just been a gimme.

In sports, there are winners, and there are losers, usually many more of the latter than the former. That isn't the spirit of sports - it's the NATURE of sports. How one acts as a loser is what the SPIRIT of sports is. Also, how one acts as a winner defines the spirit of sports. There's no challenge in the sport if there's no one better than you to aspire to beat. If nature just happened to give you an advantage, why be punished for it? Because what you are saying is that anyone with a natural advantage shouldn't participate in anything that that advantage helps with.

cthia wrote:Would it be fair for a 10th grader to go out on the basketball court with 5th graders? Why not, unfair advantage?

MaxxQ wrote:Let's keep things on the same level (same age/grade, instead of mismatching in your flawed metaphor), shall we?

Hey, you stole my line. Whose line is it anyway! LOL

MaxxQ continued wrote:Should my oldest boy have been banned from playing on his Jr. High basketball team against players from other schools because genetics gave him 6 inches of extra height over anyone anywhere else in the school district?

Same thing applies to the football team he was on later that year.

No, he should not have been banned because birth gave him an extra 6 inches. I've already addressed that. A half foot in height doesn't necessarily mean Jack-Schit. He still has to learn to shoot properly, run with those longer legs w/o tripping over his laces, dribble and shoot a free throw. That is NOT the type of performance edge gained from boosted teste levels.

MaxxQ continued wrote:I'm sorry, but banning people simply because they fall outside the "normal" curve stinks of the "normalizing" I see nowadays in schools and little league sports, where "everyone is a winner". Even the losers. Get a D in English? That's okay, we'll just bump that up to a C so that you won't feel so bad. Your team came in last place? No problem - here's a trophy.

People who support those sort of notions say that it's to help with self-esteem. IMO, it's better to lose and try harder to win, then maybe someday win, than it is to be made to feel like a winner, even if you lose. Also, IMO, this is why kids nowadays act so entitled and spoiled. Usually, if I fail at something, I try harder to get it right, and I sure as hell feel better about it and myself, than I would had it just been a gimme.

In sports, there are winners, and there are losers, usually many more of the latter than the former. That isn't the spirit of sports - it's the NATURE of sports. How one acts as a loser is what the SPIRIT of sports is. Also, how one acts as a winner defines the spirit of sports. There's no challenge in the sport if there's no one better than you to aspire to beat. If nature just happened to give you an advantage, why be punished for it? Because what you are saying is that anyone with a natural advantage shouldn't participate in anything that that advantage helps with.

Then let them lose gracefully. Not unfairly. And let them win fairly, not "ungracefully."

There is "normal." "Outside normal." "Abnormal."

* Ask yourself why athletes are not allowed to use performance-enhancing substances. Is it because all athletes can't afford it or have access to it? NO! It is because it damages the sport by creating an insane advantage between contestants. Elevated testesterone levels do as well. Same situation. Yet she gets to run on a technicality? No more sense of fair play?

Then why segregate men and women in the first place?

Well then, lets compromise. To semi-paraphrase Harrington, "If you're going to hammer me as a fan, then hammer me hard."

Let's allow doping. Let's allow increased hormone levels. Let's allow genetic enhancements. Let's allow gene tampering. Let's allow mechanical and digital enhancements. Let's allow drug popping in between sets. Lets allow outright men to run in the female events - (oops, this one's already possible.)

Now, lets book its opening night in a circus. Not a lot of seating capacity in a circus.

* Also, in the case of doping, its health issue.

The GAMES will fall into ill repute if measures are not taken now to protect them.

First the NFL. Then America's past time of baseball is tainted by steroids and has lost fans.

Diminished GAMES and lost fans are on the horizon.

There's also the threat of lost Olympians, as they will forego competing against super-man/girl. Oops, that's already happened as well - entire countries of athletes have been banned. Tainting the GAMES

As I said previously, no y chromosome, and no artifical drugs. Anything else is subjective. Too high a natural level of testesterone is how much? Anyway hard core feminists refer to males as testesterone poisoned humans.

Nico wrote:So, for the uninformed, Caster Semenya is a top female track athlete from South Africa, who won gold in the 800m at the WC 2010. This caused a serious controversy because of her masculine bodytype and naturally elevated testosterone levels.

Critics argued that the enhanced strength and endurance caused by her testosterone levels should disqualify her from competing in competitive athletics, as more 'traditional' female athletes are disadvantaged.

What do you think?

Personally, my opinion is that this is just another example of society trying to prescribe to women what the ideal female form should be. Semenya is undoubtedly female and as such should be allowed to compete as she wishes. As long as she does not use performance-enhancing substances no one should be allowed to tell her whether she may compete or not.

Never heard of the individual and frankly I do not care about sports all that much in the first place. The sports page is used as a bird cage liner and never read. I am more concerned about corrupt unethical individuals in elected offices. More concerned about law and order and the elimination of diseases... Just MHO for what it is worth. Sports bore me and I would rather watch paint dry... Give me a good book by a good author..