Posted on 05/02/2019 10:28:23 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It is not Semenya’s fault to be born intersex. But completing against females is Semenya’s fault. It is flat out cheating (morally, even if weak rules allow it). The IAAF’s hormone-level solution is a good step, hopefully it knocks out cheater Semenya, but it’s still dodges the central issue . Non females should be banned entirely from women’s athletics.
The 800 is a tough event. Takes balls to win it.
I think that is a reasonable argument, but so is the opposing argument.
The purpose of female athletics is to allow naturally challenged people a chance to compete on equal terms. In this case, the “challenge” is that the female body has characteristics that make it less athletic than the male body.
It is that characteristic that defines whether you can compete in the “female” category, which in a few cases is not what you grew up as.
I don’t know that this woman isn’t a woman, some reports suggest an intersex component here, and that in some more developed countries she may have been made into a male.
But this is not unlike the special olympics, which has a detailed set of rules for qualification; nobody questions whether a person has a disability, but if your disability does not “disable” you in the right ways, you won’t get to compete. The idea is to define a class of people who, if they all trained equally, might have a somewhat equal chance of victory.
I would note however that nothing about sports is really “fair”. Genetics defines limits; being short cuts you out of most professional sports for example, but we haven’t created an under 5’ 6” professional basketball league.
Frankly, I’m not sure why should wouldn’t at least TRY the treatments, and see how much it impacts her. Cutting her testosterone levels now back to the limit for the competition certainly should not put her at a DISADVANTAGE, she’d still has as much as any of her competitors, plus she has years of better muscle and bone development because of it. If she really is “the best”, she will be the best with the treatment — and if she didn’t really have the skills to be the best, then we’ll know that.
I’m pretty sure nobody would stop her from competing against other men; it is not often that the “male” leagues have express prohibitions against females.
I’m with you on this.
This is like some Vonnegut story where everyone had to
be MADE equal. Harrison Begerion? Sp?
I found this picture of her and her wife interesting -- in that if she looked more "female" the placement of the hand would raise eyebrows.
Non-female Semenya has previously been forced to compete more fairly, by taking drugs to suppress the output/effect of “her” testes. During those times, Semenya was a non-factor in competitions.
Semenya is basically a no-talent hack, would barely make varsity on a boys HS team. “Her” only claim to fame is beating females as a non-female.
When born in rural South Africa, Semenya didn’t have a penis, so “girl” it was.
When subjected to a modern medical evaluation - low and behold, internal testes. So intersex, not female.
Not really. This is just her physiology. Not that different from Michael Phelps whose body they found out doesn’t produce as much lactic acid, thus his muscles don’t fatigue as easily, giving him a clear advantage. If there was self modification involved in this fine, but it’s just what her body does, used to be called a God given advantage.
Olympic Womens event with no medals for a female.
Silver medalist Margaret Wambui
Beauty and the Beasts. The fastest female on the track, Melissa Bishop of Canada, goes home without a medal.
Absurd.
Why not let Michael Phelps, or any other male swimmer, compete against women. Their advantages are God-given after all?
My opposing argument is that Michael Phelps is competing for the title of the best swimmer of all. There is no “special category” to put him in.
Castor is competing not for the “best runner”, but merely for “the best runner of a group with defined handicap”, in this case, being female.
So it can make sense to define the parameters for inclusion in this lower-quality competition, so it is “fair” to the participants. We wouldn’t let a guy compete, for no reason other than the guy doesn’t meet the definition.
Now the sport has made the definition of qualification include a specific maximum testosterone level, because they have decided that THIS is what distinguishes their group, not merely “not having a penis”.
Just like the special olympics defines what qualifies you for “special” status, and if your disability doesn’t qualify, you don’t get to compete.
But actual men who ‘identify’ as women can still compete.
Cruel Farce: Years of training and max effort not enough for the world's best female 800 meter runners, as they finish behind three testosterone-soaked testes-owning intersex runners.
The consequence will be that most winners will now be women with testosterone levels right at, but not over, the limit, since they’ll have the advantage. Setting the limit will become a political battle, no doubt. A high limit equals androgynous winners and a low limit means winners who are more feminine. The leftists who sit on the various governing bodies will of course want higher limits.
They applaud the USADA that busted Lance Armstrong and praise God that the USADA had no jurisdiction over the European riders.............LOL!
A true case on hermaphroditism if “she” has a naturally occurring vagina and undescended testes. Does “she” have a penis? Awful to have been born that way. Not his/her fault, but not sure if competing with women was copacetic. Was it ok for Michael Phelps, who was born with webbed toes, to win all his medals? Many athletes have naturally more ability than average. But I think this person, having undescended testes, obviously makes much more testosterone than females. But then, you have to know that a guy with no penis would have been persecuted unmercifully by other guys growing up. He was probably assigned female gender at birth. Complicated issue.
None of those links support your idiotic statements about “internal testes” or the lack of “XX” chromosomes. You’re the Adam Schiff of biology.
You do present an interesting opposing argument. It illustrates well the difficulty of sorting out this circumstance in a way that’s fair for everybody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.