# Intersex athletes in Women's sport



## Crackle (23 Aug 2016)

OK I don't really know where to put this but as I'm coming at this from a sporting perspective I've gone for pro cycling even though it's not primarily about cycling either. It is though extremely thought provoking about all womens' sport including cycling.

The other thing to say is I don't yet fully grasp all of the issues, so if my terminology seems clumsy, that's why.

What brought it to my attention was the women's 800m in Rio and the picture of Semenya reaching out but being ignored by Bishop and Sharp. I know the controversy surrounding Semenya but I didn't know all of it and I thought, well Sharp finished 6th so 5th if Semenya was excluded as she once effectively was under IAAF intersex rules and treatment. And then I looked at the other podium finishers and I began to see just how deep this issue ran, as both are also rumoured to be intersex.

Rumour is something that is currently part and parcel of the intersex issue because no current boundaries of female gender exist. Defining a gender boundary is not so simple as saying xx=women, xy=man. This, by the way, excludes how someone might identify, which is a whole different issue and here I mean gender category for the purposes of competing in sport.

So how can it not be simple. Well the issue isn't new for a start nor is it straightforward. This BBC article gives a pretty good overview of both the current situation as to why Semenya is now competing freely again and the history of sport and gender (Another view from a slightly more inflammatory source is here).

There are a couple of things worth noting in the BBC article, one is the testosterone cut off and how in athletes there is a wide overlap of testosterone in male and female athletes which we don't see in the normal population, two is that in 2013, female athletes from developing countries have already had extensive genital surgery and how the governing bodies and the IAAF had, until the Chand case, normalised the idea that such surgery and drug treatments should even be considered as ethical, by enforcing a cut-off limit for testosterone which has now been argued to be arbitrary and unethical (see the Chand CAS ruling). Hand in hand with this is the way the women concerned have been exposed and vilified, sometimes reading about governing bodies concerns in the papers before any official contact. Naturally they've found their life in tatters with a few attempting suicide.

So a divide exists where intersex athletes and their supporters argue that what nature has given them is no different from someone having a high VO2 max or long legs or big lungs or better oxygenation and those who wish to protect the gender boundaries of sport.

There is little doubt of the effects of Testosterone where it is effective, as it isn't always in intersex athletes (see María José Martínez-Patiño case), measured in runners as about a 12% difference between the sexes, touched on in the BBC article and in greater depth by Joanna Harper and seen in Semeneya's times when she was taking drugs to suppress her testosterone levels compared to when she wasn't.

I'm not generally a fan of Ross Tucker but this interview between Tucker and Joanna Harper, mentioned further up, is a long and worthy read covering most of the relevant issues.

So I find myself slightly shocked at the extent of this issue which I had not previously appreciated and just how much of an effect it has on women's sport and at the same time I don't see an easy answer. For my own part I think it's important to protect the gender boundaries for all, including intersex because as Harper put it,_ If we value women’s equality, it is imperative that we protect the ability of all women to succeed in sports_. At the same time though, how can you impose a definition on what constitutes a gender boundary. Well the IAAF has got two years to come up with that one and how to then manage it and right now there's no real agreement how.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2016)

Great post. A South African friend of mine shared a long article on Semenya, from which I have extracted the following scientific points about gender which were new to me:

"Caster Semenya is a South African woman (‪#‎TeamSA‬) who will begin her run for gold in the 800 on Wednesday. You may remember her because she's been embroiled in controversy ever since 2009 when she burst onto the track scene as an 18-year old. The storm isn't because of doping but because of her sex (as in male and female). As we move on here, keep two things in mind about sex and gender. First, gender is a social construct - whether YOU perceive yourself to be male or female. Caster is NOT transgender. She did NOT change from a man to a woman. Second, sex (as opposed to gender) is a biological trait and not as simple as most believe it is. Sex is not binary - male or female. There is a spectrum people fall onto with sex and MOST fall more or less as what we classify male or female. Caster is different.

At base, most tend to think of sex as body parts. It isn't. A more advanced understanding looks to genetics - more specifically chromosomes. In school, we learned that XY is male and XX is female. But it isn’t always so. Why? We must go deeper. There are genes on each chromosome that can affect sex. You can have an XY female and an XX male. This is what's known as intersex. It's 100% genetics. In fact, it happens to about 1 in 20,000 people in the U.S. That's about 16,000 total people in our country. People can also get EXTRA chromosomes, making them XXY (Klinefelter’s syndrome) or XYY, even XXXXX.

Caster has hyperandrogenism - an intersex condition characterized by naturally-occurring high levels of testosterone (High-T). Instead of a uterus, she has internal testes that never descended. In most all other ways, she’s a woman, except for this. She didn’t choose it. And Caster doesn’t take steroids (exogenous testosterone). She produces it naturally in her body (endogenous testosterone). Physically, women with high-T can develop with the look of a man - for example, large muscles and a deep voice, both of which Caster has. The issue with Caster is that testosterone can also be a significant positive factor in athletic performance.

...

This isn't Caster's fault. She was truly and absolutely born this way. It's 100% genetic. This woman just loves to run and compete. That's it. Caster’s fastest time is still two full seconds off the world record set in 1983. In fact, her best 800 time is only the 12th best ever run by a woman in the 800. We just happen to be in a period of time where the world’s best female 800m runners aren’t putting up historically fast times so she’s excelling in her placing."

This lead me to the following article on Yahoo, which covers off the point you make about other genetic differences in athletes:

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/unfair-disadvantage-caster-semenya-must-000000810.html

I would recommend reading the whole article, but the main point I would highlight here is its reference to Michael Phelps' tall height and large feet (by comparison to Ryan Lochte who is shorter) and to Kevin Durant as being taller and therefore closer to the basketball ring. But it's not the differences in and of themselves that make for interesting comment, it's the observation drawn by the author that these genetic advantages are celebrated in these athletes, but Semenya's genetic advantage (if indeed it is an advantage, which is not proven) is reviled. I don't understand why we respond to the spectrum of gender differently to other genetic advantages. It's a shame - certainly Semenya didn't bring this upon herself.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Aug 2016)

She's a woman. She has natural advantages. The suggestion that she should have surgery or take drugs to limit her natural performance is like saying that Usain Bolt should have his legs shortened or Phelps (mentioned above) should have his foot and hand size reduced. It is interesting and instructive that it is only women that we suggest should be 'normalized' through surgery and/or drugs, not men...


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> *She's a woman*. She has natural advantages. The suggestion that she should have surgery or take drugs to limit her natural performance is like saying that Usain Bolt should have his legs shortened or Phelps (mentioned above) should have his foot and hand size reduced. It is interesting and instructive that it is only women that we suggest should be 'normalized' through surgery and/or drugs, not men...


If the choices are "man" or "woman", she clearly is a woman. But by saying "she's a woman", are we not implicitly accepting the view that biological sex is binary, when it clearly isn't?

We've accepted that gender and sexuality are not binary, shouldn't we do the same for sex?


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> .... It is interesting and instructive that it is only women that we suggest should be 'normalized' through surgery and/or drugs, not men...


Also, I think, largely women from the developing world? This is about power and control, and it seems to be not just about the need for men to control women but for white people to control black people.


----------



## theclaud (24 Aug 2016)

swansonj said:


> Also, I think, largely women from the developing world? This is about power and control, and it seems to be not just about the need for men to control women but for white people to control black people.



Also, ones who win stuff.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Aug 2016)

If we choose to define people by gender, then we must accept a binary outcome with no overlap. Either these women run as women or they run as men.

There should be no suppressants on performance which I really do find vile. Observationally, it reminds me of the suppressant of gay men post war.

I'm struggling why (as society) we want to hold people back in this way? Isn't it just natural that these types of people in this sport will rise to the top?

Who is really against these women competing?


----------



## RedRider (24 Aug 2016)

I found this image sad and thought it went to the truth of Semenya's predicament. It made me realise how hard she's worked for her success.


----------



## coffeejo (24 Aug 2016)

My first impressions echo what has already been said: if someone's taking drugs etc to enhance their performance, then take action as it's cheating. However, you can't "cheat" if you're achieving what your body is capable of. I don't think one can argue against talent/genetics, training/equipment and nutrition.


----------



## fimm (24 Aug 2016)

I would encourage people to read the interview between Ross Tucker and Joanna Harper linked to above. Harper has a unique perspective on this as she is a transgender woman who was and is a keen runner both before and after her transition, and also a Sports Scientist (actually I'll quote her description of herself as “_scientist first, an athlete second, and a transgender person third_”.)

I've picked this bit of the interview to quote to try and sum up her views. But you really need to read the whole interview.
"_I would suggest that .. anyone ... who sees themselves as a woman, should be allowed to live as one. I believe that social gender should be entirely determined by self-identification. I was proud to be part of the IOC panel that recommended support for gender self-identification.
I do, however, support the right of athletic federations such as the IOC or IAAF to create a de facto athletic gender by preventing those athletes who carry a large testosterone-based advantage from competing against the vast majority of women.
I would further suggest that, while it might not be a right, success in sports is one of the greatest advancements in women’s lives. If we value women’s equality, it is imperative that we protect the ability of all women to succeed in sports."_


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2016)

This has nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with money.

Sport has always been about beautiful bodies, and, these days, with television close-ups of fully made up women athletes, about beautiful faces. And, by beauty, I mean the kind of beauty that wears skimpy clothes as it adorns and sells products, and, beyond that, the kind of beauty that says 'this is the race of humans we wish ourselves to be'. The modern Olympics are not nice, not clever, but they do get a lot of bums on seats and they do shift a whole heap of products.

That is Sebastian Coe's problem. He's got a really, really big product to sell, and Lynsey Sharp is a better bet than Caster Semenya. Michael Phelps might have freakishly large feet, but his advantage is no hindrance to the selling of the Olympics. As Michael Johnson wisely pointed out, those running with Usain Bolt are competing for second place, but Usain Bolt's easy, outgoing manner is the stuff that shifts broadband and insoles by the bucketload. Coe sees every race as a franchise, and, given that athletics is, put bluntly, on its way out, he's got to make every race pay its way.

We're cyclists. We all know full well that genetics will sort the scorchers from the duffers, and, although one can make a difference with money or drugs, one type of body will almost certainly prevail over another.

Lynsey Sharp has a genetic makeup that will take her (with the help of more government cash than most athletes can dream of) to the 800 metre Olympic final. We now know it will not win her the gold medal, although since she's slower than Kelly Holmes and about five hundred other runners at this distance that may be no bad thing. That's a cross she'll have to bear, just as we have come to terms with the knowledge that, however much we spend on our fancy bicycles, we'll never ever get up a hill like Darwin Atapuma. We can cry about it or we make the most of what we've got. My advice to Ms. Sharpe is that, in a world dominated by appearances crying is not a good look, and that she should make the most of what she's got, and console herself with the limited commercial opportunities that a sixth place will bring to her. She might even reflect on the embarrassment she caused others.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2016)

fimm said:


> I would encourage people to read the interview between Ross Tucker and Joanna Harper linked to above. Harper has a unique perspective on this as she is a transgender woman who was and is a keen runner both before and after her transition, and also a Sports Scientist (actually I'll quote her description of herself as “_scientist first, an athlete second, and a transgender person third_”.)


and paid for by the IAAF


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Aug 2016)

fimm said:


> I would encourage people to read the interview between Ross Tucker and Joanna Harper linked to above. Harper has a unique perspective on this as she is a transgender woman who was and is a keen runner both before and after her transition, and also a Sports Scientist (actually I'll quote her description of herself as “_scientist first, an athlete second, and a transgender person third_”.)



You do realise that transgender has got nothing to do with this, and that being transgender gives Harper no special insight into Semanya's situation? Her arguments stand or fall on their own merits not on her positionality.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

You can make this issue about many things and many things have been mentioned and are entirely relevant. Money, power, control, societal standards etc... it's pretty hard to separate any of them or anyone flying their particular flag. My own thinking on the matter is almost certainly a product of who I am and my circumstances.

I'm not sure that comparison to men's sport is entirely relevant, this seems pertinent only to women's sport because men are already at the top of the sporting tree, having all the advantages of chemistry and physique. It's for that reason you couldn't have unisex competition. As the running example has already made clear, top elite male athletes are going to be 12% faster. So you have to divide sport and currently it's divided along gender lines, xy, xx. But as we now see but has always been the case, this is far from satisfactory, the trouble is, the only water it really muddies is women's sport.

If you strip things back then sport is something which acts as an inspiration to us, a motivator and an enjoyable experience. It keeps us fit, healthy, it gives us role models and it's a source of pride, to list but a few of its benefits. We need sport for these basic things. I go back to what Harper said about equality in sport being intrinsic to equality in society. By allowing intersex athletes to compete on equal terms you're undermining that equality and removing some of the motivations which make people, women, do sport. It's no longer seen as equal by the vast majority of people. And we are talking of a majority here. Intersex athletes account for a tiny portion of the population but are hugely over-represented in sport it seems. At the same time barring intersex athletes or putting an arbitrary limit on their abilities is no solution. So where do you go?

Ultimately if you found a way of separating intersex from xx and xy you teeter on the brink of separating all sports people on the grounds of chemical disposition, medical syndrome, oxygenation levels, leg length, you name it. I think you need to do it. Sport should reflect society and it should reflect society for exactly the reasons of equality already mentioned. I also think it's necessary to protect and validate those who are intersex and currently hide their condition in order to avoid the kind of ridicule and vilification that Semenya is experiencing.


----------



## Dogtrousers (24 Aug 2016)

I'm completely unqualified to comment on this, and struggling to form an opinion of any sort. However, seeing that, as far as I know (happy to be corrected) there is no current equivalent of Semenya in Road or Track Cycling, shouldn't this be in one of the other forums?


----------



## MontyVeda (24 Aug 2016)

User13710 said:


> Does 'equality in sport' really mean 'equal chance of winning' though? There must be athletes, male and female, competing at all levels, including the Olympics, who know they have next to no chance of beating the rest of the field. *Why do they continue to take part?*


because it's not the winning, it's the taking part... according to my mum.


----------



## MontyVeda (24 Aug 2016)

Taking part can be stressful and emotional... crying is just a release when it's all over


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm completely unqualified to comment on this, and struggling to form an opinion of any sort. However, seeing that, as far as I know (happy to be corrected) there is no current equivalent of Semenya in Road or Track Cycling, shouldn't this be in one of the other forums?


Well which forum would you put it in and how do you know there's no equivalent in cycling? That's kinda one of the points. Intersex athletes are not exactly carrying banners proclaiming their sex.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

User13710 said:


> Exactly. And not breaking down and crying because someone else was a bit faster than you in the end.


We're talking about competitive sport.


----------



## Dogtrousers (24 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> Well which forum would you put it in and how do you know there's no equivalent in cycling? That's kinda one of the points. Intersex athletes are not exactly carrying banners proclaiming their sex.


Is there an intersport forum?

I dunno. It's not a big deal, it just doesn't seem to be about cycling at all. 

Don't worry, If I don't like it I'll just stop reading it or do an ignore-thread.

As you were.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 Aug 2016)

User13710 said:


> There must be athletes, male and female, competing at all levels, including the Olympics, who know they have next to no chance of beating the rest of the field. Why do they continue to take part?



At some level, they did have a chance of winning. And did win, a lot.

At the Olympics, for some winning at the Olympics is their target. For many though, the Olympics is a reward, not a target. They may have won all their national tournaments, and be the fastest, strongest, or whatever of their nation. While they may not have a chance at winning the Olympics. Just being there and competing is a fantastic honour, and a reward for their performance at their national level.


----------



## theclaud (24 Aug 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm completely unqualified to comment on this, and struggling to form an opinion of any sort. However, seeing that, as far as I know (happy to be corrected) there is no current equivalent of Semenya in Road or Track Cycling, shouldn't this be in one of the other forums?



I see what you mean, but actually I think it's a good place to have posted it, as the Pro Cycling board takes women's sport seriously. There are ways it could spin off which are best taken to SC&P, and thank fark it's not in the Cafe, but at least it sets off here on a thoughtful footing.


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2016)

400bhp said:


> ...
> Who is really against these women competing?


(A) sports bureaucrats, mainly male, white, and older, whose raisin d'etre is controlling things, and who need to stop people doing things in order to show that they are controlling
(B) some other female athletes, in the present situation it would seem mainly white, who have been given a category of their own so that they don't compete against people with the genetic advantage of being male, and would now like the category changing so as to exclude people with other genetic advantages, so as to maximise their own chances of winning
(C) the sort of spectator who watches woman's sport mainly to ogle fit bodies, and would rather the bodies on show conformed to conventional standards of femininity and didn't challenge any comfy sexist stereotypes

(Several TMNs, I've only just been able to post this)


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2016)

Can I just say that I feel distinctly uncomfortable with third parties labelling the athletes concerned "intersex", which strikes me as (a) offensive and (b) prejudging the issue.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

swansonj said:


> Can I just say that I feel distinctly uncomfortable with third parties labelling the athletes concerned "intersex", which strikes me as (a) offensive and (b) prejudging the issue.


I think it's a valid term regarding sex. It's not a valid term regarding identity. Semenya is a woman but her sex is intersex as she has male and female characterisitcs. I don't think it's necessary to go into details but it doesn't mean the same thing for all people who might be characterised intersex.


----------



## Buddfox (24 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> If you strip things back then sport is something which acts as an inspiration to us, a motivator and an enjoyable experience. It keeps us fit, healthy, it gives us role models and it's a source of pride, to list but a few of its benefits. We need sport for these basic things. I go back to what Harper said about equality in sport being intrinsic to equality in society. By allowing intersex athletes to compete on equal terms you're undermining that equality and removing some of the motivations which make people, women, do sport. It's no longer seen as equal by the vast majority of people. And we are talking of a majority here. Intersex athletes account for a tiny portion of the population but are hugely over-represented in sport it seems. At the same time barring intersex athletes or putting an arbitrary limit on their abilities is no solution. So where do you go?



I'm struggling with this point. I quite agree that sport is an inspiration, a motivator etc. but I don't follow the assertion that equality in sport is intrinsic to equality in society. Neither sport not society are equal, in particular sport - that's probably it's most defining characteristic. The sport I've competed at the highest level in is rowing. I had a shot at U23 lightweight but realised after a couple of years of intense effort that I wasn't going to make the required standard. Did I give up rowing? No. Did it lessen my enjoyment of rowing? No. Not being the best at something applies to most of us, and I don't see any less motivation from participants just because they're not winning the Olympics.

As regards Caster Semenya, as a black person from South Africa, I actually take pleasure from seeing her take advantage of her natural talents over the money and privilege of other athletes. Happy to cut Sharpe some slack when commenting in the aftermath of a race, but she's certainly got this wrong.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

Buddfox said:


> I'm struggling with this point. I quite agree that sport is an inspiration, a motivator etc. but I don't follow the assertion that equality in sport is intrinsic to equality in society. Neither sport not society are equal, in particular sport - that's probably it's most defining characteristic. The sport I've competed at the highest level in is rowing. I had a shot at U23 lightweight but realised after a couple of years of intense effort that I wasn't going to make the required standard. Did I give up rowing? No. Did it lessen my enjoyment of rowing? No. Not being the best at something applies to most of us, and I don't see any less motivation from participants just because they're not winning the Olympics



I was kind of hoping somebody would pick up on this. I've asserted it twice after quoting what Harper said and I took it to mean that role models in sport are one of the things that drive us to our own personal sporting achievements. Our role models don't necessarily have to win, it's often more complex than that, how they conduct themselves, the hurdles they've overcome etc... So in that sense they reflect society. Our role models have come from the same place as us but at the same time our identification with them is based on societal norms. If we see those norms being challenged, our role models competing against odds that are stacked against them our sense of outrage, fair play and our standards are challenged, we react to this as sport suddenly does not reflect our society.

That is what I meant and if it sounds muddy it's because it is, I'm still exploring what effect Intersex athletes really have, not on sport but on us, on society and ultimately I think that's what it's about to most people who don't have their fingers in the sporting till or a hand on the rudder of the IAAF who's motivations, as already said, might be entirely different in this.

As an aside, I think Elite sport as a sportsperson is ruthless in a way that perhaps society is not. Or perhaps it still is, that's an entirely different thought line.


----------



## Bollo (24 Aug 2016)

On the subject of arbitrary boundaries, it's something that's largely accepted for para-athletes as they compete in categories that attempt to equalise the impact of their disability. I'm sure there are plenty of edge cases where an athlete's competitiveness would depend on the judgement of a panel as much as their natural ability.

I don't think the idea translates easily though as the pool of intersex athletes (judged by whatever criteria?!) would still be relatively small, even before you overcome all the cultural/marketability/money issues.

Interesting thread.


----------



## Buddfox (24 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> I was kind of hoping somebody would pick up on this. I've asserted it twice after quoting what Harper said and I took it to mean that role models in sport are one of the things that drive us to our own personal sporting achievements. Our role models don't necessarily have to win, it's often more complex than that, how they conduct themselves, the hurdles they've overcome etc... So in that sense they reflect society. Our role models have come from the same place as us but at the same time our identification with them is based on societal norms. If we see those norms being challenged, our role models competing against odds that are stacked against them our sense of outrage, fair play and our standards are challenged, we react to this as sport suddenly does not reflect our society.
> 
> That is what I meant and if it sounds muddy it's because it is, I'm still exploring what effect Intersex athletes really have, not on sport but on us, on society and ultimately I think that's what it's about to most people who don't have their fingers in the sporting till or a hand on the rudder of the IAAF who's motivations, as already said, might be entirely different in this.
> 
> As an aside, I think Elite sport as a sportsperson is ruthless in a way that perhaps society is not. Or perhaps it still is, that's an entirely different thought line.



And Caster Semenya as a role model is one of the reasons why I support her right to compete. I can't even imagine the challenges she has faced just to get on the start line, let alone to deal with questions over her sex etc.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

Bollo said:


> On the subject of arbitrary boundaries, it's something that's largely accepted for para-athletes as they compete in categories that attempt to equalise the impact of their disability. I'm sure there are plenty of edge cases where an athlete's competitiveness would depend on the judgement of a panel as much as their natural ability.
> 
> I don't think the idea translates easily though as the pool of intersex athletes (judged by whatever criteria?!) would still be relatively small, even before you overcome all the cultural/marketability/money issues.
> 
> Interesting thread.


I had paralympics in mind as an example of how to decide sub-divisions but I can't see how it would work when applied to able bodied athletes and it's probably a can of worms you don't want to open.


----------



## Darren Gregory (24 Aug 2016)

Just finished reading this thread after wandering upon it while browsing. Fascinating subject. 

I saw Semanya race during the olympics (on the telly I might add, not fortunate enought to go in person!) but I have to say it was the first time I can recal hearing about her. I am however aware of the existence of intersex condition but certainly no expert.

I cannot say I have an answer to the many questions raised, it certainly is a complicated issue. As others have said if you start punishing someone or limiting someone like Semenya for having a genetic condition where do you draw the line? Yes many atheletes may win or be succesful for non genetic reasons, training, equipment etc but as stated earlier are we going to ban Phelps because his feet are too big?

Going back to the Olypics and the Semenya race that I saw which I think someone posted an image of earlier I couldn't help but be impressed with Semenya's attitude immediately after the race, she came across as very humble, at least certainly the footage I saw.

Finally I think that unlike some threads on this and other forums those posting have been incredibly well behaved dicussing a complicated and potentially infalmatory subject.


----------



## fimm (24 Aug 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You do realise that transgender has got nothing to do with this, and that being transgender gives Harper no special insight into Semanya's situation? Her arguments stand or fall on their own merits not on her positionality.


I do realise that Semenya is not transgender. However I think that Harper's experience of having her own running times fall off by 12% once she started taking medication to reduce her testosterone (something repeated in a study she did of other male to female transgender athletes) is relevant; and I think her views on the situation have more merits than mine.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

Buddfox said:


> And Caster Semenya as a role model is one of the reasons why I support her right to compete. I can't even imagine the challenges she has faced just to get on the start line, let alone to deal with questions over her sex etc.


It's easy to forget, when you talk about the advantages of excess testosterone, that that alone won't get you to Olympic athlete level. it's also easy to forget the context when athletes don't come from the same society you mix in and the challenges that that brings.

I read a couple of reactions from S. Africans who see nothing wrong with Semenya competing and are quite aggrieved at the furore surrounding their athlete which brings us back to what was stated earlier about this being a white Western male issue of control and power.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> Sport should reflect society and it should reflect society for exactly the reasons of equality already mentioned.


well said, but I would amend it slightly to 'sport should reflect society at its best'. And that means not excluding those who don't conform to a type.


----------



## coffeejo (24 Aug 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> well said, but I would amend it slightly to *'sport should reflect society at its best'*. And that means not excluding those who don't conform to a type.


This is one of the reasons I like the Olympics and Paralympics as they do at least try to bring this sentiment to life. The Refugees' Team springs to mind as an example.


----------



## snorri (24 Aug 2016)

Came across this cartoon this morning and couldn't quite translate it with the help of my Dutch/English dictionary.




A friend in the Netherlands tells me the picture is of a man consulting his sex-change surgeon. He asks "And you do sex change operations that allow me to retain my car parking ability?


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

snorri said:


> Came across this cartoon this morning and couldn't quite translate it with the help of my Dutch/English dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> A friend in the Netherlands tells me the picture is of a man consulting his sex-change surgeon. He asks "And you do sex change operations that allow me to retain my car parking ability?


Wow snorri. That's pretty right field for this thread. I'm only going to let you get away with that because you're a Legendary member.


----------



## snorri (24 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> Wow snorri. That's pretty right field for this thread. I'm only going to let you get away with that because you're a Legendary member.


Woops! I thought it was a humorous take on male insecurity in these changing times, but please delete if you feel it is likely to cause offence.


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Aug 2016)

swansonj said:


> Can I just say that I feel distinctly uncomfortable with third parties labelling the athletes concerned "intersex", which strikes me as (a) offensive and (b) prejudging the issue.


Judging by the amount of used condoms around the Olympic village after 2012 I'd suggest most athletes are intersex ....


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2016)

The Guardian has a similar take on what many on here have already said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/caster-semenya-is-the-one-at-a-disadvantage

What's shocking is Coe's assertion that they will be able to force athletes to have treatment for hyperandrogenism. If that's the way the IAAF and IOC are going then I think they're on a collision course with CAS.


----------



## summerdays (25 Aug 2016)

Mod note: It's a difficult thread to place but I think it fits into Pro-cycling best as it about competitive sport.


----------



## Bollo (25 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> The Guardian has a similar take on what many on here have already said.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/caster-semenya-is-the-one-at-a-disadvantage
> 
> What's shocking is Coe's assertion that they will be able to force athletes to have treatment for hyperandrogenism. If that's the way the IAAF and IOC are going then I think they're on a collision course with CAS.


I'm usually all over the Guardian like a left-wing rash but missed this. 'Force' is a strong word; 'coerce' or 'blackmail' are probably more appropriate. There are difficult issues here, but Coe's just a vile human being.


----------



## Buddfox (25 Aug 2016)

And picking up a point dellzeqq made earlier but I really think that the IAAF is the organisation with the issue, not the IOC. I am not sure other sports would have reacted the same way.


----------



## swansonj (25 Aug 2016)

User13710 said:


> It's a difficult issue, yes, but isn't that the only term available at the moment?


I do not have a better alternative to offer. 

My discomfort with"intersex" is that it's an "other" definition - one that establishes that "them" are different to "us". If sex is binary, then these folk are either male or female. If sex is not binary, then we all occupy positions on a spectrum and are all alike in that. What we seem to be constructing here is a system where most of us comfortably sit as either male or female on a binary system, and that is the norm, with a minority who don't fit our system and are labelled as other. 

The obvious riposte is that this merely reflects the biological reality and unfortunately for these people they are in fact biologically aberrant. The logical conclusion would then seem to be that they should compete in the Paralympics not the Olympics. No-one has yet been prepared to vocalise that (though the alternative of enforced surgery seems equally obnoxious), though I don't doubt quite a few think that. And I don't want our language or our classification system to encourage that. 

I guess my real discomfort is that we depersonalise a very personal and individual thing by discussing it in impersonal and categorical medical language. 

Personally, I've never been entirely comfortable with the split (often insisted upon on these threads) between sex and gender, and I prefer to see them both as an intertwined continuum.


----------



## Crackle (25 Aug 2016)

Buddfox said:


> And picking up a point dellzeqq made earlier but I really think that the IAAF is the organisation with the issue, not the IOC. I am not sure other sports would have reacted the same way.


I think it's also about governing bodies. There is a Canadian transgender cyclist, name temporarily forgotten, who was excluded from the Canadian Olympic team a while ago.


----------



## Crackle (25 Aug 2016)

Yes it was Kristin Worsley

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/g...allenge-in-gender-verification-suit-1.3377266

This article is a little out of date but the point of it was that it was the IOC enforcing Androgen levels. The Pechstein case referred to was upheld so CAS still holds sway in sporting disputes.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (25 Aug 2016)

While looking for the mentioned cyclist, I came across this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Dumaresq

Which seems like the UCI backed the cyclist against complaints from a local organisation and permitted them to carry on cycling. But this seems to counter the above statement. There is one cyclist here with testosterone levels who is healthy and within the mandated limits, and then another who (or whose doctor) claims that testosterone level would make them ill.

Obviously everybody's body is different and what may be healthy levels for one may not be for another. But where do you a draw a line between allowing people to compete, and not having it open to abuse?

It would be nice if a Dr's opinion could be trusted in saying whether an athletes level is safe and normal for them as an individual, and not have to use an arbitrary limit. But as we have seen in the past in many professional sports, there are Drs involved in many doping scandals.

Although this kind of thing shouldn't be happening, I think when professional athletes are involved publicly in these kinds of cases. I believe that it does highlight that these issues are real since most people are very rarely to come across this first hand in their everyday life.


----------



## oldroadman (29 Aug 2016)

Taking a step back slightly from the discussion, worthy though it may be, should a logical extension be that all exceptional people are "suspect". So top level male competitors should be "treated" because they have exceptional heat/lung capacity, exceptional pain tolerance. That way they will be reduced to a "level" defined by international federations, so it's "fairer" for others. If a high standard female competitor has a superior/different genetic makeup does that make them less worthy? There's a bit of a dual standard - men with high testosterone levels and superior engines are "winners", women (in a binary gender sports world) with exceptional ability and higher than the "accepted normal" levels of certain substances, are somehow "cheating normal women".
When anyone defines normal we can reduce everyone to average by intervention to supress what naturally happens in their bodies.
The smell of fear and double standards (especially from IAAF) is very, very unpleasant.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2016)

swansonj said:


> I do not have a better alternative to offer.
> 
> My discomfort with"intersex" is that it's an "other" definition - one that establishes that "them" are different to "us". If sex is binary, then these folk are either male or female. If sex is not binary, then we all occupy positions on a spectrum and are all alike in that. What we seem to be constructing here is a system where most of us comfortably sit as either male or female on a binary system, and that is the norm, with a minority who don't fit our system and are labelled as other.
> 
> ...



I would foresee the same issue again only exacerbated.

Firstly there would still be a lack of clarity as to whether they race in the Men's or Women's events, but also there would be an issue over the actual disability classification. There are ten main impairments to qualify, and the intersex issue does not fit in any of these. There could be further objections if such an athlete was placed in a group where the lack of one of these impairments gave them a perceived advantage.

I remember the controversy where an able bodied person was racing in a wheelchair


----------



## velovoice (29 Aug 2016)

I read recently (can't recall the source but it was quoted in The Week) a summary of the key issues, ending with the suggestion that perhaps what society needs to get its head round is the idea that, generally speaking and regardless of gender, "Olympians are not 'normal'."


----------



## Crackle (29 Aug 2016)

velovoice said:


> I read recently (can't recall the source but it was quoted in The Week) a summary of the key issues, ending with the suggestion that perhaps what society needs to get its head round is the idea that, generally speaking and regardless of gender, "Olympians are not 'normal'."


I think the more you think about this and research it, you're left with the idea that unusual chemistry is what separates Elites from the majority. To divide it on grounds of sex is crude but the fact remains that people expect it to be divided thus.


----------



## oldroadman (29 Aug 2016)

Crackle said:


> I think the more you think about this and research it, you're left with the idea that unusual chemistry is what separates Elites from the majority. To divide it on grounds of sex is crude but the fact remains that people expect it to be divided thus.


As I once heard from an elite sportsperson in another sport not related to cycling "welcome to the world of genetic exception". World class competitors in most sport fall into this category. If they didn't they would not be part of an elite.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2016)

"Normal" means different things in different contexts. In the normalised world of elite sport then outliers like semenya may well fit the normal distribution.

Maybe us lot should run elite sports


----------



## MikeonaBike (5 Sep 2016)

This is an interesting subject. If you were a woman athlete, would you feel comfortable racing against Semenya? The problem would be that you would be unable to compete on equal terms without doping. You could target other 'normal' athletes by committing to training harder and better but that would never put you on an equal footing as Semenya. I think if I were that female athlete, I would not compete in any race unless I felt that I was on a level playing field with all the others. Of course, such an attitude would be difficult for people like Semenya to deal with if athletes refused to compete against them. Such a refusal, though, would be understandable but unlikely to be condoned in public in this PC age.


----------



## MikeonaBike (5 Sep 2016)

User13710 said:


> You seem to be saying that Semenya is 'not normal', but elite athletes are 'not normal' as has already been pointed out by oldroadman. This has nothing at all to do with 'being PC'.


All I was trying to do was to imagine how an athlete may feel about competing against someone who they can never be on equal terms with. Not blaming Semenya at all but it must be very frustrating to believe that the only way to be on equal terms in that situation would be to take drugs to even things up. I agree that in itself, it is not a PC matter but any comments against people such as Semenya are often taken as a PC issue. What would happen if someone was born with webbed feet and hands? Would they be allowed to compete in competitive swimming? A slightly absurd analogy, maybe, but is the point not the same?


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2016)

MikeonaBike said:


> All I was trying to do was to imagine how an athlete may feel about competing against someone who they can never be on equal terms with. Not blaming Semenya at all but it must be very frustrating to believe that the only way to be on equal terms in that situation would be to take drugs to even things up. I agree that in itself, it is not a PC matter but any comments against people such as Semenya are often taken as a PC issue. What would happen if someone was born with webbed feet and hands? Would they be allowed to compete in competitive swimming? A slightly absurd analogy, maybe, but is the point not the same?


see also Usain Bolt.

Some runners are faster, some jumpers can jump further (or higher), some dwile flonkers can dodge the flonk. And the rest of us have to get used to it...


----------



## Crackle (5 Sep 2016)

MikeonaBike said:


> This is an interesting subject. If you were a woman athlete, would you feel comfortable racing against Semenya? The problem would be that you would be unable to compete on equal terms without doping. You could target other 'normal' athletes by committing to training harder and better but that would never put you on an equal footing as Semenya. I think if I were that female athlete, I would not compete in any race unless I felt that I was on a level playing field with all the others. Of course, such an attitude would be difficult for people like Semenya to deal with if athletes refused to compete against them. Such a refusal, though, would be understandable but unlikely to be condoned in public in this PC age.


I don't think being PC, which is a meaningless term, has much to do with it. At it's most basic level it's practical problem requiring a solution but your thoughts and reaction, go to the heart of the matter, which is one of public perception of gender. It's only when you begin to de construct that on athletic terms you realize that gender equality is meaningless and sporting equality is equally meaningless because we are not all the same and in fact it's our differences which make us the sportsperson we are.

The question remains at how we square up that perception with how we practically run sporting competitions. As yet, I haven't seen or still don't have an answer


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Sep 2016)

The trouble is you need some sort of classification system if you are going to have seperate male and female events. If Jimmy Vicaut (7th in the men's 100m) decided to start competing in the woman's event he would win everything, but I imagine it wouldn't be allowed because he is a man...but what defines him as a man.

So if people want segregated sport, some sort of definition needs to be made. My guess is it's going to be an agreed testosterone level.


----------



## Crackle (24 Nov 2016)

A story in road.cc about Jillian bearden who is part of the IOC's transgender testing program.

http://road.cc/content/news/212281-transgender-cyclist-first-female-finisher-arizona-race


----------



## CaadX (24 Nov 2016)

I believe an event catering for athletes with different abilities is called a handicap. I run a summer handicap TT series to cater for different abilities,reason being I wouldn't get the the numbers and competition were it not a handicap. Men and women compete for one trophy and its close. Different level and simplistic maybe but it cannot be that hard to come up with something should the requirment be there.

Looking at it from the opposite end, what's to stop suspect coaches ( surely not ) using intersex for there own advantage and personal gain and maybe at the cost of all others.

We know what happens when a sporting field believes rightly or wrongly that an athlete has a fair or unfair advantage, its been discussed enough in these pages. The majority of contenders would probably find something else to occupy their time and probably again to the dertriment of their sport. I could be wrong, however history tells us otherwise.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Nov 2016)

Handicaps may be a fair way for the athletes themselves, but what about spectators?

Part of the "excitement" of the race is watching the struggle and competitiveness as athletes perform and one gets to the finish line first

I would have thought if you then had to wait for the times to be adjusted and it was then announced that because of the handicap that the third person to cross the line was in fact the winner would detract from this and spoil the sport for spectators


----------



## HF2300 (27 Nov 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> Handicaps may be a fair way for the athletes themselves, but what about spectators?
> 
> Part of the "excitement" of the race is watching the struggle and competitiveness as athletes perform and one gets to the finish line first
> 
> I would have thought if you then had to wait for the times to be adjusted and it was then announced that because of the handicap that the third person to cross the line was in fact the winner would detract from this and spoil the sport for spectators



Well, we have some idea what the effect would be from para sport, where something similar is regularly done up to Olympic level; Jody Cundy's gold in the C4-5 TT, for example, where the results are factored to equalise the two categories.


----------



## CaadX (29 Nov 2016)

Spectators want entertainment from the performers they are paying. That is what you are discussing, entertainment. Sport happens elsewhere not paid and not many spectators. Not very attractive sport, unless you happen to enjoy it.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Nov 2016)

CaadX said:


> Spectators want entertainment from the performers they are paying. That is what you are discussing, entertainment. Sport happens elsewhere not paid and not many spectators. Not very attractive sport, unless you happen to enjoy it.



The OP was about Rio.

At these levels the sport and athletes rely heavily on sponsorship, which in turn relies on popularity and that in turn relies on Spectators and fans


----------



## rich p (30 Nov 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> The OP was about Rio.
> 
> At these levels the sport and athletes rely heavily on sponsorship, which in turn relies on popularity and that in turn relies on Spectators and fans


Have a word with the UCI about the World Champs, will you ..


----------



## HF2300 (30 Nov 2016)

rich p said:


> Have a word with the UCI about the World Champs, will you ..



It might be suggested there was a heavy reliance on finance there as well, albeit not from the spectators...


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Nov 2016)

HF2300 said:


> It might be suggested there was a heavy reliance on finance there as well, albeit not from the spectators...




Which is why I included fans as well


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2017)

Several months on and the IAAF has produced its first report about androgenous athletes and the effect of testosterone on performance

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...undertake-hormone-therapy-for-future-olympics

It looks very much as though they are still leaning towards using testoerone as a cut off and requiring athletes to undergo some form of treatment in order to meet this boundary. So with everything still pending, we still hav to wait and see what the final decision will be but I can't see the stuffed blazers of the IAAF or IOC deviating too much from their view of sex and gender.


----------



## rich p (4 Jul 2017)

Judging by the pathetic size of the criwds at the National champs last weekend, I'm not sure that many people will give a toss either way.


----------



## Bollo (4 Jul 2017)

Crackle said:


> Several months on and the IAAF has produced its first report about androgenous athletes and the effect of testosterone on performance
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...undertake-hormone-therapy-for-future-olympics
> 
> It looks very much as though they are still leaning towards using testoerone as a cut off and requiring athletes to undergo some form of treatment in order to meet this boundary. So with everything still pending, we still hav to wait and see what the final decision will be but I can't see the stuffed blazers of the IAAF or IOC deviating too much from their view of sex and gender.


I read the same article and couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with the idea of "treatment" for something that isn't essentially debilitating.


rich p said:


> .. the criwds ...


Weren't they the arch enemies of Dan Dare? Showin' your age there @rich p.


----------



## Crackle (23 Jan 2018)

It seems the IAAF still haven't managed to find a way through this and seem to have abandoned their original Testosterone cut off in favour of some, yet to be published, new regulations. As the article would have it and it's hard to disagree, they seem to be aiming squarely at Semenya rather than solving a conundrum about gender athletics

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/23/caster-semenya-dutee-chand-iaaf-hyperandrogenic


----------

