You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The fascinating if not troubling story of Caster Semenya is in the news again:
BBC - Caster Semeneya is Female
It's fascinating because it throws into sharp relief the notion that all elite level sporting achievement is down to genetic advantage (when comparing those competing at that level with those that aren't), and therefore begs the question above, at what point does a genetic advantage become unfair if at all? Semenya clearly enjoys an advantage, perhaps like the Williams sisters do, so shouldn't that be something we celebrate like we do any time the stronger person wins in competition?
It's troubling because one can only imagine the turmoil that an athelete must go through having to prove their gender, even though it is clearly an important question to ask. I'm not sure we can accept someone's word for it but introducing a test for testosterone levels would be worrying and divisive.
When the governing body decide so.
Can it be an unfair advantage if its purely through genetics?
F1 has at least tried to manage this through spending caps. Many other sports give rich (mostly white/western) nations an advantage when results are heavily influenced by developments in equipment.
When your second.
Can it be an unfair advantage if its purely through genetics?
Well that's the point that seems to be being debated. The IAAF seem to want to rule that that is the case whereas the RSA government and the ASA say otherwise.
If you decide that someone has a genetic advantage, i.e. an unusually high testosterone level in an otherwise 'female' athelete, where does that leave someone like say Chris Froome, with an unusually high hematacrit count?
The moment you start to analyse why someone has an advantage you begin to realise that all elite level atheletes are genetically gifted compared to everyone else. Either you give up on the idea of 'elite' as being important in sporting competition or else you accept that people like Semenya are always going to dominate their arena.
Personally I'm with Semenya on this - let her run, let her win.
Well...
The demonstrable advantage that has up until now been deemed an unfair advantage, is that which males, who are generally stronger, have over females in sports where strength plays a major role. So, males and females have competed separately.
(I know this supposition opens other worm-cans, but let's accept it for now)
The issue here (as I understand it) is defining 'male' and 'female', because it's increasingly clear that gender, and I'm just talking 'physical' gender here, not what someone may 'identify' as (again another worm-can for another discussion), is not as binary as was once thought. The presence or not of dangly-bits is no longer a definitive measure.
So,
So,
Exactly. So really, we need to open that can of worms otherwise we aren't going to solve the conundrum.
Eloquently put by the way Simon. I like your somethingion.
An almost impossible one to answer.
I mean, I feel genetically disadvantaged from having a career in Pro Basketball on account of not being 7 foot tall, and they should ban these genetic freaks from competing 😉
Really interesting case, no idea what the "correct" outcome would be.
...introducing a test for testosterone levels would be worrying and divisive.
They've already introduced the test and the IAAF are requiring female athletes with elevated levels to medically reduce their testosterone if they want to compete as women.
The simple answer is that as long as you are not breaking the regulations of the sport, a "demonstrable advantage" is not an unfair advantage. I think the root of the current problem is that the traditional regulatory classification of "male" and "female" is too simplistic, given our modern understanding of the wide spectrum that gender really covers. There are lots of complex combinations of chromosomal structures and physical characteristics that can result in many different intersex conditions.
We use male and female as a simple classification for creating classes of competition, because these categories divide the majority of the population into groups with distinctly different levels of performance. However, that's a very broad generalisation that doesn't hold true for everyone (even if you are not considering intersex individuals).
Under the currrent rules, I think that if Semenya is officially classified as a woman, she should be allowed to compete in that category as she is, and it is wrong to force her to artificially limit her natural performance through artificial medical intervention.
There's a further question about whether the current regulations are actually fit for purpose, given our deeper understanding of human physiology, and whether there should be different ways of grouping "similar" competitors. Masters sport uses multiple age bands. Paralympic sport has multiple classifications based on combinations of different characteristics (which introduces its own problems). You could conceivably classify athletes without disabilities in a similar way, using characteristics such as testosterone level. That would be a very complicated and thorny project, however.
Misleading headline misquote tastic 😀
A problem which is easily solved by getting rid of women's sport and having all human beings competing on a level playing field.
Clearly I'm not being serious, but ultimately if we accept that these is a continuum rather than two distinct groups that is the only answer which won't be unfair to some.
What is it the makes her female though? I guess we don't know her biology as a certainty, but how many of these traits can someone have and still be considered female for sporting purposes?
XY chromosomes
Testes
No ovaries/uterus
Male levels of testosterone
As far as I understand it, what makes DSD people veer away from the above pointers of their sex is high/low levels of hormones. So why do hormones trump the four (more obvious - in my opinion) ways of determining which category they should be competing in sport?
Once you consult this handy little chart, it's clear that this athlete is more GI Joe than Barbie so must be a man.
This is worth a read, should be full text public access
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643412/
The prevalence of DSD in eleite female athletes is markedly higher than the general population - genetic selection in action. Controversy has raged on the threshold for testosterone since it was introduced. It's based on flawed inference in the tail of distributions, coupled with a dogmatic belief in cause and effect that will always be subject to variability.
I'm a big semeneya fan. By contrast, I was in the same hotel as the England Rugby team yesterday. My 70 kilos 179 frame looks rather modest compared to Courteney Lawes! It's not just DSD.
I’m just talking ‘physical’ gender here
The word is SEX
The prevalence of DSD in eleite female athletes is markedly higher than the general population
The incidence of myoglobin deficiency in elite male atheletes competing in strength based events is also markedly higher; in fact i read that it was universal.
When you start to spend some time thinking about it, the heroism in success at elite level sport starts to fade a little. You begin to realise that it doesn't look massively different to eugenics.
This is an interesting (if long read)
Humiliating indeed
"Though those claims were never substantiated, in 1966 international sports officials decided they couldn’t trust individual nations to certify femininity, and instead implemented a mandatory genital check of every woman competing at international games. In some cases, this involved what came to be called the “nude parade,” as each woman appeared, underpants down, before a panel of doctors; in others, it involved women’s lying on their backs and pulling their knees to their chest for closer inspection."
Is there a higher prevalence of top tennis players who are left handed over the general population?
Have we been here before?
Apparently not but I suspect you already knew that?
The Sports Gene was an interesting read; it argues that most sports are dominated by people with a particular physical advantage related to that sport.
My post above includes a link to a New York Article titled 'The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes'
Its just showing a picture (with no-text) so not obvious it's a link. Attempt at displaying just a textual hyperlink below
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html
all elite level sporting achievement is down to genetic advantage
You have to have suitable genes plus train and practice like a lunatic. Having good genes and sitting on the sofa doesn't work.
You have to have suitable genes plus train and practice like a lunatic. Having good genes and sitting on the sofa doesn’t work.
The 'hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard' mantra; sure, that is true. The interesting part though is that you can do something about working hard, you can't alter your genes.
Our society has grown up in a way that raises the good fortune of genetics to a heroic level. We (mostly) only celebrate the sporting heroes blessed by eugenics; we don't collectively celebrate the weekend warriors.
I spent a few years racing time trials and got to know a few people on that circuit. The person who really stood out for me - who really inspired me to try harder - was the forty something woman who having had no previous background in sporting endevours, had four years earlier decided she was going to get on a bike and see what she could do. She was truly inspirational. Her times never caused anyone to take a second look but just talking to her would inspire me.
Let men and women compete against each other. That'll sort it.
This is all about women who are man-like, after all.
A problem which is easily solved by getting rid of women’s sport and having all human beings competing on a level playing field.
aracer - sod off!
If I want to watch Kornicova playing tennis, Bengtsson pole vaulting, Chicherova high jumping, Klishina long jumping, Lalova sprinting, Broerson doing heptathlon, Rodic in triple jump - no way do I want to be seeing the hairy arsed males competing against them.
The beauty of the sports being separated gives us the opportunity to sit with a beer and perve marvel at the outstanding ability of those taking part......
The Ladies can have the Wimbledon mens final.
.
Nice article in the Sunday Times yesterday by Navratilova. She shares my view that a lifetime of testosterone and male development confers an unfair advantage once one declares as female, testosterone suppressents notwithstanding. She also got into debate, if thats the right word (well abuse really), with the trans winner of the US masters track, in which the third placed rider complained of unfairness. It's behind a paywall, but been widely reported. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/martina-navratilova-blasts-cheating-transgender-women-in-sport-8fmjbnh99
Re-reported here https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments
By contrast, on the back page of the Sports section, David Walsh hopes Caster loses her case. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/walsh-caster-semenya-2p377rbvd
The notion of a fair genetic playing field is spurious. See basketball, for example, with higher levels of HGH during growth, so I just don't agree with his position. Caster has done nothing wrong but is genetically advantaged. Lucky her (for various values of luck). Just as weighlifters and basketball players have doe nothing wrong but have an advantage. I'd rather like Greg Lempond's VO2 max as well, or CHarlie's higher haematocrit. That's genetics. That's life.
The notion of a fair genetic playing field is spurious.
Unless you have different categories it is, yes. You could categorise in similar way to paralympics, a race for those with testosterone between n and n, a race for those with VO2 max between n and n, basketball for those between Ncm and Ncm height etc,.
Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap...
with testosterone between n and n, a race for those with VO2 max between n and n, basketball for those between Ncm and Ncm height etc,.
Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap
A bit like golf?
I was also going to post a link here about Navratilova's comments. Quite how people think she is in the wrong, I don't know....
Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap…
There are only about 20,000 genes in the human genome, but it's an n-factorial problem. I could be Olympic champion in my genetic make-up - I have no identical twin after all 😉 One of the fundamental truths I was taught as a child is "Life's not fair". It's a tough lesson, but it is true. Wanting it to be fair consumes a lot of people's energy. I prefer to marvel at those genetically gifted and try to be the best my limited VO2 max can be. At 179cm I was never going to be a basketball player of any note after all.
The mechanistic link between current testosterone levels and performance is actually surprisingly poor. The link between testosterone levels as a teenager and adult muscle mass across genders, is of course very well established.
aracer – sod off!
If I want to watch Kornicova playing tennis, Bengtsson pole vaulting, Chicherova high jumping, Klishina long jumping, Lalova sprinting, Broerson doing heptathlon, Rodic in triple jump – no way do I want to be seeing the hairy arsed males competing against them.
I'm thinking you might have missed my point 😂
The question is, just how hairy arsed women would you like to watch?
They're way ahead of you, aracer!
Fun fact: Princess Anne was the only female athlete at the Olympics she competed in not to be tested for her sex.
I've read far to much on this case and the fact is that someone will not be happy whatever the outcome. I have huge sympathy with Semenya as she is at the centre of this, but there is a much bigger game at play here around women's sport in general.
The issue is that women's sport needs a definition of "female", and any definition will likely handicap some of the current participants. Either you risk alienated the majority of the female populous by removing most (all?) of the restrictions and so meaning many will simply not be able to complete, or you alienate people like Semenya. Those citing that genetics always carries an advantage make a fair point, the counter of which is that, in effect, the male category is the open one, the female category needs some kind of controls.
It boils down to a simple questions with an astonishingly complex answer "how do you define "female"?
Very much tongue in cheek, Mrs Lunge's view is that if you can run without a sports bra you're not female. Semenya doesn't wear one apparently.
In a world heading towards self-id any definition is moot.
The presence or not of dangly-bits is no longer a definitive measure.
IIRC Semenya (most ironic surname ever, surely?), has testicles?
In my mind at least, that draws a bollock shaped line in the sand right there.
We have Paralympics, we have Olympics for male and female competitors - how about introducing a Trans-Olympics or Inter-Olympics?, for those who don't relate their sexuality as binary, or perhaps, you know, have balls and no womb or ovaries but want to be female. Like Caster.
is that if you can run without a sports bra you’re not female
What about men who need a sports bra when they run?, have I been competing in the wrong classification all this time??
^^^ Loving The Daily Mash article. On the ball(s) as always.
I think the debate is only going to rage on and the more sports scientists can test for particular genes, hormone levels or identifiers, the more specialised people are going to become for certain sporting roles. They will be to identify earlier and earlier in a childs life what genetic advantage they will have, no doubt at 10 years of age soon, they will be able to say whether a child will be a natural prop-forward, a Tour winning cyclist, a gymnast or basketball player.
This of course then becomes open to abuse, can you imagine those countries that have previously been excused of using PED's on a state sanctioned level on athletes or who have been abusive to young gymnasts/ ballet dancers / tennis players, being able to genetically manipulate those children that already have an aptitude for a particular sport, how do you start to test for that?
Just ban competition. That'll solve the issue.
it argues that most sports are dominated by people with a particular physical advantage related to that sport.
Wow, took a whole book to get there?!
In other news, cheetahs are faster than pigs, elephants are stronger than rabbits.
Nice article in the Sunday Times yesterday by Navratilova. She shares my view that a lifetime of testosterone and male development confers an unfair advantage once one declares as female, testosterone suppressents notwithstanding.
Is this the Martina Navratolova that was slim and femine when young but progressively started to look like a bloke throughout her career ?? Not many women have as masculine looking arms as her...
When you start to spend some time thinking about it, the heroism in success at elite level sport starts to fade a little. You begin to realise that it doesn’t look massively different to eugenics.
If you think about it for a few seconds, you realise that elite sport doesn't have anything to with eugenics. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"!
Maybe they can devise a system when sports have catagories based on testosterone (and whatever else are critical markers) so that, within those catagories there could be men and women of similar levels competing.
This would mean that non-DSD women would generally be competing against each other rather than having to 'fight' against impossible odds.
This would increase the level of competition within the categories, to the benefit of everyone - spectators included as it is always better to see a close match than a walkover - witness the tennis in the first week of wimbledon verses the second where the seeds generally just cruise through the first week.
Any regulation needs to apply as clearly and as fairly as it can to as wide a group as possible. If a small number of athletes fall outside that then that is regretful, but "the needs of the many..." etc
Having said that, I'm glad it's not my call
It's taken me a while to get to an opinion on this. Here goes:-
Sport is good
Competitive sport is good as it gives a 'purpose' to doing sport and when done well is entertaining/inspiring to watch.
In many sports people with male traits have have a natural advantage over females and would dominate (aside - I checked my local town athletics club records - in every event apart from Flo Jo's rather dubious 100m record the male club record is better than the women's world record).
But we still want women to be able compete and win stuff so we'll have an open event and a women's event.
Science tells us that not having a todger is not of itself a definition of being a women.
Let the scientists give us a set of criteria and everyone who meets them gets to enter the women's event. This may also include those born male who have now transitioned and are deemed to have had too much of an advantage in their early development.
Everyone else still gets to play and compete in sport but enters the open event.
@turnerguy That would destroy grassroots sport. agree with Nickc.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”!
Agree
A handful of the Scottish ultra marathons now include a 'Non-binary' category that runners can choose to enter.
Change is possible.
The issue is that women’s sport needs a definition of “female”,
Just circumvent the whole issue and instead of categorizing people by gender/sex (which is impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction), categorize them but their chromosomal make-up. in many cases that will align perfectly with existing athletes categories.
People who don't fit with one of the two main chromosomal make-ups compete in the XY category.
At grass roots level there would rarely be any need to test.
Anyone who thinks that's not the best option is free to suggest an alternative - but I bet they can't!
I don't get it - she is a female, right? (serious question)
Any regulation needs to apply as clearly and as fairly as it can to as wide a group as possible. If a small number of athletes fall outside that then that is regretful, but “the needs of the many…” etc
That's the sort of reasoning that kept people with disabilities out of sport for years. I don't think anyone would suggest dismantling Paralympic sport and just requiring athletes with disabilities to compete in open categories. I think we should start from a position of inclusion for all in sport.
People who don’t fit with one of the two main chromosomal make-ups compete in the XY category.
At grass roots level there would rarely be any need to test.
Anyone who thinks that’s not the best option is free to suggest an alternative – but I bet they can’t!
How would you determine chromosomal makeup at grassroots level without testing everyone?
Anyway, you can be chromosomally 'female', but physiologically and hormonally 'male', so that proposal doesn't advance us from the current situation. Intersex conditions cover a wide array of different combinations of chromosomal and physiological characteristics, so I don't think there is a simple way of answering this question.
I don’t get it – she is a female, right? (serious question)
That's the crux of things really, how you define female will determine the answer to that question.
I don't think details of her physiology are in the public domain, for obv reasons, but it is widely assumed she has an intersex condition with hyperandrogenism - male levels of hormones such as testosterone. Whatever the details are, she can win an Olympic final at training pace. When levels were monitored and capped for a time (before being overturned by legal challenge from another athlete) she could not compete.
Hence the intractable debate - we're not talking about someone right at one end of the normal distribution, like all gifted pro athletes are, it's another distribution entirely.
I don’t get it – she is a female, right?
Yes, I believe that under the current regulations of her sport, Semenya is female. She also considers herself female, and is legally female.
The IAAF are imposing additional rules for female athletes which force her to medically lower her natural testosterone levels, and she is contesting this regulation.
Anyway, you can be chromosomally ‘female’, but physiologically and hormonally ‘male’, so that proposal doesn’t advance us from the current situation. Intersex conditions cover a wide array of different combinations of chromosomal and physiological characteristics, so I don’t think there is a simple way of answering this question.
As I said you're not using chromosomes to determine gender/sex your categories *are* chromosomal. As I said in the bit of my post which you snipped:
Just circumvent the whole issue and instead of categorizing people by gender/sex (which is impossible to define to everyone’s satisfaction), categorize them but their chromosomal make-up.
If you're naturally physiologically and hormonally stronger than everyone else in the XX category congratulations, you're gonna clean up!
How would you determine chromosomal makeup at grassroots level without testing everyone?
People self identify according to what they think they probably are. If there's doubt and it causing problems you'd need to check. Just like (say) drugs in grassroot sport. Nobody is ever tested, but they could be if there were doubt and someone cared.
I don’t get it – she is a female, right? (serious question)
Believe any classification you like - but she was born without a womb or ovaries, and has internal testicles (producing 4x more testosterone than average women).
Those are all the facts I need to form a pretty solid conclusion.
Hermaphrodite is the scientific conclusion following her initial testing. I totally agree that this subject is one of the hugest grey areas, but I can't support Caster competing in a traditionally binary sport, with all the accolades that would come with success in that sport, when she is half way to Linfords lunchbox.
My thinking would be if she's a woman, and I've no reason to particularly doubt that, it's fair game, you are going to get freaks of nature, they just happen.
The concept of transgender men wanting to compete in womens sports and generally live life fully as a woman is mental if you ask me, and fairly unreasonable for them to expect as much. All power to them, they can self identify as what they like, but there are limits I'd think.
Non event if common sense is applied.
Birth is everything. It is physical excellence that makes some athletes better than others. That can be bloody long legs, a skinny body or big lungs. It can even be a brain that copes with stress or one that has will were to train. Some people are lucky some are not. The world is a tough place. Live with it.
I see an issue where artificial use of drug. hormones or what ever can change things but with modern tech surely we can find a persons natural levels, even if it means time out of competition.
Any imbecilic complications such as being born with a willy but not wanting it are irrelevant. Tough luck. Do your own thing if you wish but don't expect the world to make room for every little variation from standard. If its natural, its fine. If not, its not. Why make life complicated? The more loop holes the more scope there is for either argument or rule breaking.
Did it happen or am I believing the tabloids but was there an athlete looking at amputation to gain some benefit in normal competition? Vague notion that's all.
If van athlete is a genuine 50/50 then they should compete in sports that don't have classes decided by sex. Try clay pigeon shooting. Again tough. At worst they should be placed in the worst case scenario IE if mens races are tougher, run as man.
If van athlete is a genuine 50/50 then they should compete in sports that don’t have classes decided by sex. Try clay pigeon shooting. Again tough. At worst they should be placed in the worst case scenario IE if mens races are tougher, run as man.
So if a person who is classed as female has an intersex condition that doesn't give them a performance advantage, you would ban them from their preferred sport or make them compete against men?
If you think about it for a few seconds, you realise that elite sport doesn’t have anything to with eugenics.
Eugenics is a movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race.
Elite level sport celebrates the achievements of atheletes whose prowess at that level (relative to the rest of us) is solely down to their genetic advantage. In that celebration is the idealisation of the perfect human form.
I think they look rather alike.
Eugenics is a movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race...
You didn't include the rather important part of the definition,
...by excluding (through a variety of morally criticized means) certain genetic groups judged to be less desirable and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior.
Celebrating the achievements of elite sport does not involve removing the "genetically inferior" from the population, and conflating the two things is just muddle headed. In fact, I would argue that elite Paralympic sport actually celebrates the achievement of people who would have been murdered by eugenecists in Nazi Germany.
Celebrating the achievements of elite sport does not involve removing the “genetically inferior” from the population, and conflating the two things is just muddle headed. In fact, I would argue that elite Paralympic sport actually celebrates the achievement of people who would have been murdered by eugenecists in Nazi Germany.
I think you’re being overly polite there, but I totally agree with this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47301007
Interesting semi related article about Navratilova being sacked off by an american LBGT sports advocacy group for her remarks about transgender athletes.
I thought this line was interesting
"This is not the first time we have approached Martina on this topic. In late December, she made deeply troubling comments across her social media channels about the ability for trans athletes to compete in sport. We reached out directly offering to be a resource as she sought further education, and we never heard back."
I guess in the murky world of news/fake news that's a comment grasping to be considered the definitive truth in a rather binary manner in a topic area that seems be all about the grey. Does anyone have the right to consider their view on the subject to be unequivocally correct yet?
Based on what I've seen people who have transitioned from female to male after puberty have a physical advantage, which is unfair in sports such as running, cycling etc. Nobody gets hurt, but what about contact sports such as boxing?