IAAF Testosterone Ruling

[hilts]

Bump(allegedly)

Tough one this

 

[Paulpowersleftfoot]

It’s no laughing matter
Must’ve been a right kick in the bollocks

 

[ancoats]

so can she get pregnant by herself ?????

 

[mat]

It's difficult one.

I can't she how she can't argue that she hasn't had and used the advantage she's been given.

 

[chesterbells]

A very sad story about this woman
She was subjected to that much testosterone that her body physically changed and has stayed that way and in her home country she's known and abused as a freak
It is a truly awful situation

Not true.
Or let me re-phrase, from what I’ve read about her, I thought things were much better than that for her. Any evidence/links for your view? Be interested to read them.

 

[domalino]

The main thing I can't get my head around with this ruling is that If a male athlete had a genetic predisposition to producing more testosterone, it would give them a competitive advantage as well, but that's just accepted.

Semenya and Dutee Chand are genetic freaks, but so is Phelps, whose genetics gave him a freakishly long body, short legs, absurdly long arms and giant lungs - or Bolt, who should never be able to run that fast at that height, but his genetics blessed him with an overexpressed ACTN gene which gives him far more fast twitch muscle fibres of a normal 6'5'' bloke, and a short achilles.

Are we really going to now go down the route of picking and choosing which genetic advantages are allowed?

 

[Fame Monster]

The main thing I can't get my head around with this ruling is that If a male athlete had a genetic predisposition to producing more testosterone, it would give them a competitive advantage as well, but that's just accepted.

Semenya and Dutee Chand are genetic freaks, but so is Phelps, whose genetics gave him a freakishly long body, short legs, absurdly long arms and giant lungs - or Bolt, who should never be able to run that fast at that height, but his genetics blessed him with an overexpressed ACTN gene which gives him far more fast twitch muscle fibres of a normal 6'5'' bloke, and a short achilles.

Are we really going to now go down the route of picking and choosing which genetic advantages are allowed?

It's a difficult one as someone has said. But I suppose the IAAF would argue that the levels of testosterone Semenya has disqualifies her from competing as a woman because it is a masculine feature/hormonal profile (unlike more fast twitch fibres for example) and the criteria they use for identifying a person as a woman is more detailed than 'born with a vagina'. I'm not sure I find it convincing however I suppose they're trying to avoid a situation where female sport is dominated by women with the same hormonal profile and many of the same features as that of a man.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The main thing I can't get my head around with this ruling is that If a male athlete had a genetic predisposition to producing more testosterone, it would give them a competitive advantage as well, but that's just accepted.

Semenya and Dutee Chand are genetic freaks, but so is Phelps, whose genetics gave him a freakishly long body, short legs, absurdly long arms and giant lungs - or Bolt, who should never be able to run that fast at that height, but his genetics blessed him with an overexpressed ACTN gene which gives him far more fast twitch muscle fibres of a normal 6'5'' bloke, and a short achilles.

Are we really going to now go down the route of picking and choosing which genetic advantages are allowed?

That's sort of the problem with female sports though. Men's sport is like heavyweight boxing. There are no weight restrictions so it's just whoever is best, and naturally favours those with a genetic advantage. Whereas with women's sport, it's more like the weight classes in boxing, where by definition, you have to meet certain restrictions to compete. Now in the past, those restrictions were pretty obvious. You're a woman, it says so on your birth certificate, so you get to compete as one. But as we learn more about intersex and transgender biology, it's becoming clear that there are certain individuals who don't obviously fit into one group or another. And obviously then you have to come up with a scientifically-informed and fair way of allowing these people to compete fairly.

And it's not a massive surprise that a lot of female athletes are against what certain transgender activists argue for (separate from the Caster Semenya issue), which is to basically allow people to declare themselves a woman and then be allowed to compete as that gender. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise what effect that could have on women's sport, the status and equal rights of which have been pretty hard-earned. We already see widespread cheating in plenty of sports, be it China obviously fielding underage gymnasts, or the state-sponsored doping in Russia. Imagine if all you needed to compete in the women's event was legal recognition as a woman in your home country. Or consider if it was basically made possible for an average male tennis player to compete for the over £2m women's prize money at Wimbledon simply by self-declaring as a woman. So obviously there's a balance to be made between banning intersex and trans athletes, and simply having an anything goes approach. And personally, I think it should as much as possible be biologically based, because the whole reason for separate women's sports in the first place is one of biology.

 

[cleavers]

The absolute irony that the IAAF, who have long punished people for drug taking, now forcing an athlete to take drugs to create a level playing field.

 

[hilts]

It’s such a tough thing to get right this and I think from her personal point of view it’s very cruel.