Man or Woman?

[sixpackshaker]

Yes and I'm sure her lower testosterone, shorter legs and hundred other physical differences will allow her to be a real competitor with men who can heal faster, gain muscle mass faster and have increased stamina.

But that is the advantage she has over these other 'World Class' Athletes is that she has a good chanceof being an 18 year old boy (that is a World Class Athlete.) Let her keep working out and compete as a man when she gets stronger and faster through her mid twenties.

 

[strawman]

True. But there is a reason for it: there's no reason to test for cheating before someone kicks everyone else's a**. Had she come in third, there would be reason to suspect cheating....but no reason to root it out since she was gaining too much of an untoward advantage from it.

But there is no reason to suspect cheating in this case. Like I said she doesn't fit the standard phenotype for XY women nor is there any link between XY giving athletes an advantage over normal XX women so unless you are proposing that all winners automatically get genetically tested or have to prove that they are genetically women you are changing the rules after the race is run.

It is quite well known in the athletics community that winners receive additional scrutiny above and beyond all other competitors.

Further, it is well known (and allowed in the rules) that other teams may complain and request that additional testing be done on those that won. One reason is cost - if no one is complaining, why test everyone? Why not limit the testing to just the top 5% and reduce your costs by 95%? There's nothing inherently unfair about this.

No rules have changed, this is standard operating procedure in professional athletics.

Even if there was no reason to doubt someone's sex, another team may still demand such tests.

In some (most?) cases the ruling body will refuse.

Often, even if it already knows the answer, they will do the testing anyway simply to satisfy everyone that the ruling body has closed the case, and the rankings stand.

This is no different than Lance Armstrong getting 10-50x more doping tests during nearly all of his tour du france races than most other racers - France itself object to an American winning all the time, so even though nothing was ever found (save for some spurious b testing that isn't official) they will still continue to test him more than anyone else - because he's winning and represents a threat to their national pride.

The rules have not changed. The practices have not changed. The culture has not changed. The politics have not changed.

The only reason this is news is because she's leaving her competitors in the dust, breaking records, and lady looks like a dude.

Once the test results are done, and the officials ratify the race results, we can all go home. Until then it's merely entertaining news.

-Adam

 

[sixpackshaker]

True. But there is a reason for it: there's no reason to test for cheating before someone kicks everyone else's a**. Had she come in third, there would be reason to suspect cheating....but no reason to root it out since she was gaining too much of an untoward advantage from it.

But there is no reason to suspect cheating in this case. Like I said she doesn't fit the standard phenotype for XY women nor is there any link between XY giving athletes an advantage over normal XX women so unless you are proposing that all winners automatically get genetically tested or have to prove that they are genetically women you are changing the rules after the race is run.

http://soccerlens.com/the-15-greatest-s ... ime/29838/

Stella Walsh had a pretty ingenious sports hack: ambiguous genitalia! Walsh was an Olympic competitor for Poland, winning the gold in the 100m sprint in 1932, and the silver in 1936. Walsh set 18 world records in her life, but accusations that she was male dogged her for years, and she was forced to undergo a gender check at the 1936 Olympics. Which she apparently passed, despite the fact that when she was autopsied following her death it was found that she had male genitalia, along with female characteristics. Further investigation revealed that she had both an XX and an XY pair of chromosomes.


Dora Ratjen was a German athlete who competed in the 1936 Olympics in the High Jump. Not much of a story really, except for one thing: Dora was actually Hermann, a man who was coerced by the Hitler Youth into tightly binding his genitals and competing against women. The German Olympic team struggled in the previous Olympic games, and so it was thought entering a man here and there on the women’s side of things might remedy the situation. But German men couldn’t even beat the women of other countries, as Ratjen finished fourth, failing to medal.

STELLA!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Stephens

 

[Dubyamn]

It is quite well known in the athletics community that winners receive additional scrutiny above and beyond all other competitors.

Further, it is well known (and allowed in the rules) that other teams may complain and request that additional testing be done on those that won. One reason is cost - if no one is complaining, why test everyone? Why not limit the testing to just the top 5% and reduce your costs by 95%? There's nothing inherently unfair about this.

Yes but we're not talking testing her urine for drugs. We are talking a genetic test for something that she had no way of knowing ahead of time.

If you can have your medal yanked for a medical condition that you don't even know you have it is unfair to be tested after you ran and won. Also let's not get into the ethics of revealing genetic information to the entire world. No laws will protect her from any discrimination that she recieves if she is revealed to be a genetic male.

No rules have changed, this is standard operating procedure in professional athletics.

Genetic testing is SOP in professional athletics? Since when?

Even if there was no reason to doubt someone's sex, another team may still demand such tests.

In some (most?) cases the ruling body will refuse.

Often, even if it already knows the answer, they will do the testing anyway simply to satisfy everyone that the ruling body has closed the case, and the rankings stand.

Name one other time that athletes have had to undergo Genetic testing in order to prove their sex.

This is no different than Lance Armstrong getting 10-50x more doping tests during nearly all of his tour du france races than most other racers - France itself object to an American winning all the time, so even though nothing was ever found (save for some spurious b testing that isn't official) they will still continue to test him more than anyone else - because he's winning and represents a threat to their national pride.

Yes and of course doping and the like has a shown effect on athlete's performance being an XY female has never been shown to give any such advantages.

The rules have not changed. The practices have not changed. The culture has not changed. The politics have not changed.

The only reason this is news is because she's leaving her competitors in the dust, breaking records, and lady looks like a dude.

They're genetically testing somebody and will display those results for the whole world to see on no clear evidence or reasonable suspicion. They are ruining a career and a life over something that she has absolutely no control over. The practices have changed and the culture has changed if this is at all acceptable.

Once the test results are done, and the officials ratify the race results, we can all go home. Until then it's merely entertaining news.

-Adam

Nope unfortunately not. If this goes forward every sports governing body will have the right to demand genetic tests from it's competitors and unfortunately no country has laws that protect against any possible discrimination or abuse that can arise from these tests which will become more common place as people start demanding them for every winner that violates their national pride.

 

[@Li3n]

Wait, as i understood the testing took place before the race, the results are just taking a while...

 

[strawman]

It is quite well known in the athletics community that winners receive additional scrutiny above and beyond all other competitors.

Further, it is well known (and allowed in the rules) that other teams may complain and request that additional testing be done on those that won. One reason is cost - if no one is complaining, why test everyone? Why not limit the testing to just the top 5% and reduce your costs by 95%? There's nothing inherently unfair about this.

Yes but we're not talking testing her urine for drugs. We are talking a genetic test for something that she had no way of knowing ahead of time.

If you can have your medal yanked for a medical condition that you don't even know you have it is unfair to be tested after you ran and won. Also let's not get into the ethics of revealing genetic information to the entire world. No laws will protect her from any discrimination that she recieves if she is revealed to be a genetic male.

Yes, there is a performance difference between xx and xy humans. If you believe that this is in dispute, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Genetic testing HAS been done for sport questions before now, and will continue to be something people may ask to be tested in the future.

It doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race. Her prior knowledge of her condition is not a factor. She signed agreements prior to the competition that essentially state that she believes she is eligible, but if found not to be, regardless of her own knowledge or complicity, then she will be stripped of any titles or awards granted from the competition.

Go ahead and rage all you want about the injustice of it, but at the end of the day there's a legal standard that she signed on to, and they are following it. You can petition them if you feel it's unfair or unjust.

-Adam

 

[Shakey]

t doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race.

But is their definition specific enough to cover this? Supposedly she was born with female genitalia, determined a female on the birth certificate, and raised as a female. To me that screams female no matter what any other test shows.

 

[Chibibar]

t doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race.

But is their definition specific enough to cover this? Supposedly she was born with female genitalia, determined a female on the birth certificate, and raised as a female. To me that screams female no matter what any other test shows.

This is what I am thinking.

I can understand if HE turn into a SHE via operation and hormones and such. Thus that is a total different story (cause the person knew) but from birth until now, the person in question was a she (physically at least) but the genetic testing showing suppose to be a "he" I think after this, the Olympic would have to rewrite the rules to cover this stuff for the next competition.

 

[@Li3n]

the question isn't one of gender or sex, but of having an unfair advantage... and the rules are older then you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_ver ... _in_sports


also, wiki has sources that say she was tested before the race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

 

[Rob King]

It's all very interesting to see people defending her because she had no knowledge that something could be wrong. That's a very individual-centered thing to do. If you cease to empathize for a moment, and forget to look at things from her perspective, it becomes very clear that she is an outlier among the athletes. While being an outlier isn't grounds enough to be suspended from the race, if she is an outlier with an unfair advantage then all bets are off.

I'm not condemning it, or coming down on the other side of the issue. I'm just commenting. Societies with heavy belief in individuality seem to make things more complicated.

 

[Norris]

While I understand the apparent unfairness of penalizing her for something she had no knowledge of, it doesn't change the fact that a rule was broken. It doesn't matter if you don't know that you are breaking it, you still broke it and you still get the penalty.

 

[Shakey]

It's all very interesting to see people defending her because she had no knowledge that something could be wrong. That's a very individual-centered thing to do. If you cease to empathize for a moment, and forget to look at things from her perspective, it becomes very clear that she is an outlier among the athletes. While being an outlier isn't grounds enough to be suspended from the race, if she is an outlier with an unfair advantage then all bets are off.

I'm not condemning it, or coming down on the other side of the issue. I'm just commenting. Societies with heavy belief in individuality seem to make things more complicated.

But where do you draw a line with unfair advantages? Like I said before, there are people with abnormally large hearts and lungs who completely dominate not because they trained harder or committed themselves more, but because they have a bigger organs that allow themselves to push their body farther and harder than it should be. Should they be banned too to make it an even playing field?

From what we know this isn't someone who is hiding their true gender to gain an advantage. This isn't someone who changed genders and now has an advantage. This is someone who is naturally better because they are different. She is according to her sexual organs, a female. I'm not empathizing, just wondering why one natural physical advantage can be tolerated and another not be.

 

[SeraRelm]

I just read Crone's comment.

 

[Dubyamn]

Yes, there is a performance difference between xx and xy humans. If you believe that this is in dispute, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Nice bending of the arguement. Unfortunately your statement is a complete non sequitur since the arguement is that there is no difference between a XX female and an XY female. For that you have no evidence to believe that there is a difference.

Genetic testing HAS been done for sport questions before now, and will continue to be something people may ask to be tested in the future.

Yes and it was a ridiculous violation of people's rights and it will continue to be in the future.

It doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race. Her prior knowledge of her condition is not a factor. She signed agreements prior to the competition that essentially state that she believes she is eligible, but if found not to be, regardless of her own knowledge or complicity, then she will be stripped of any titles or awards granted from the competition.

Except that she is female homo sapian. She has a uterus, ovaries a vagoo and could have a child. The rule is absolutely absurd and has no basis in fact or scientific reasoning.

 

[Rob King]

It doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race. Her prior knowledge of her condition is not a factor. She signed agreements prior to the competition that essentially state that she believes she is eligible, but if found not to be, regardless of her own knowledge or complicity, then she will be stripped of any titles or awards granted from the competition.

Except that she is female homo sapian. She has a uterus, ovaries a vagoo and could have a child. The rule is absolutely absurd and has no basis in fact or scientific reasoning.

Actually, this was going to be a question I asked, until I forgot it. CAN she have children? I don't know what the implications of this hypothetical genetic condition are, so ... I was just wondering.

From what we know this isn't someone who is hiding their true gender to gain an advantage. This isn't someone who changed genders and now has an advantage. This is someone who is naturally better because they are different. She is according to her sexual organs, a female. I'm not empathizing, just wondering why one natural physical advantage can be tolerated and another not be.

Again, this sort of gets into the whole who-cares-her-intentions? It would be worse if she knew about this, or planned it, and kept silent. If that were the case, this would be a simple matter of throwing her out, and we wouldn't have a three page thread on it. I realize that she's a victim of this situation more than anyone else, but her intentions shouldn't factor into the call at all. Her biology, and how the committee decides that her biology fits into the Male/Female divide in sports, is what's in question

Let me throw a hypothetical at you, though. Imagine we discovered some island culture somewhere in the world where traditonal gender roles were reversed. Men stayed at home and took care of the kids, while the women went off to hunt and do hard labor. If they entered athletes into the Olympics, in what category would they compete? Biology has given the men superior bodies, but if we had to identify them separately from their bodies, we might call them women.

Or maybe that's not a good one. How about another? Imagine in two hundred years, if gender roles the world over were thrown out the window. How would we divide the athletes then, if not by biology?

What I'm saying is: how you identify doesn't matter. If this woman can have children, then I'm conflicted as to what her biology says. If she can't ... I'm less conflicted, but still conflicted. I haven't been familiar with this genetic condition that we keep talking about for longer than two days.

This is all fascinating to watch, though, for the simple reason that it's a bit of a canary-in-the-coal-mine for what is surely the inevitability of future generations defining and classifying people by their genes.

Sorry if this post was ramble-ey. I just worked a very mentally draining 12 hours, am up later than I should be.

 

[klew]

Imagine in two hundred years, if gender roles the world over were thrown out the window. How would we divide the athletes then, if not by biology?

By then, we'll be having the Olympics in space (apologies to non-US people), which will be so cool no one will care about gender.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmaaOSJ7XEU:2ba7cprl][/youtube:2ba7cprl]

 

[Rob King]

By then, we'll be having the Olympics in space (apologies to non-US people), which will be so cool no one will care about gender.

Is it bad that I've already thought about this long and hard?

My conclusion is that athletes from different planets probably won't be able to compete against each-other properly. A Martian would be at a disadvantage on earth, because of the greater gravity, and if atmospheres are even slightly different, it could throw everything out of whack.

 

[AshburnerX]

By then, we'll be having the Olympics in space (apologies to non-US people), which will be so cool no one will care about gender.

Is it bad that I've already thought about this long and hard?

My conclusion is that athletes from different planets probably won't be able to compete against each-other properly. A Martian would be at a disadvantage on earth, because of the greater gravity, and if atmospheres are even slightly different, it could throw everything out of whack.

However, new sports could become possible... now where is the XKCD strip...

 

[strawman]

She has a uterus, ovaries a vagoo and could have a child.

I hadn't read that. If this is true then I would be surprised if they invalidated her race results.

-Adam

 

[JONJONAUG]

Except that she is female homo sapian. She has a uterus, ovaries a vagoo and could have a child. The rule is absolutely absurd and has no basis in fact or scientific reasoning.

Looks to me like CAIS, but don't take my word for it. This means no babies (not that I can think of any intersex condition off the top of my head where an XY female can reproduce).

Also, this thread is stupid (I blame the school system for limiting their teaching of gender differentiation to "XX=female, XY=male"). Shakey's got it right with comparing this to having a big heart or lungs. Any condition that causes someone with XY chromosomes to appear female would also eliminate any advantages that males would have in sporting competitions. While it might make it easier for her to train or compete, there are plenty of other ways someone can have a slight biological advantage over their competitors (and that's what this would be, VERY slight). Singling her out for this is like going up to a basketball player and saying "you can't compete here, you're too tall".

There's also the distinct possibility that she has XX sex chromosomes and this is all just a bunch of hoopla.

 

[Icarus]

It doesn't matter whether she knew or not. If she is not a female homo sapien according to the definition listed in the race rules and regulations, then she was ineligible to race. Her prior knowledge of her condition is not a factor. She signed agreements prior to the competition that essentially state that she believes she is eligible, but if found not to be, regardless of her own knowledge or complicity, then she will be stripped of any titles or awards granted from the competition.

Except that she is female homo sapian. She has a uterus, ovaries a vagoo and could have a child. The rule is absolutely absurd and has no basis in fact or scientific reasoning.

That argument is just as baseless as the one that says she's a guy. No-one knows for sure that she's 100% female so your "could have a child" comment is just conjecture. Stick to what is known as facts, please. The test hasn't been fully done yet, so we'll just need to wait for the results, even if it's more than likely she's 100% female with just a high level of testosterone (I wonder, is there an advantage to taking testosterone as an athlete?).

In any case, this is a tough one. She does have a very male look and I read she had considerable hair growth all over her body (including her face) and has a more male physiology. If it does turn out she's partially male in whatever way, how do you decide where to draw the line? How do you decide how far these male parts affect her performance? In any case, you got to feel bad for her because she obviously just worked hard to get where she is, and she didn't chose to look/be like this.

 

[Norris]

Yes and it was a ridiculous violation of people's rights and it will continue to be in the future.

So wait, it is an invasion of people's rights to check to be sure they are actually following the rules of an event they CHOSE to participate in?

 

[Dubyamn]

So wait, it is an invasion of people's rights to check to be sure they are actually following the rules of an event they CHOSE to participate in?

So if you choose to participate in something you automatically sacrifice all rights? And the rules can be followed with a private doctor's visit preforming a genetic test and publishing it for the whole world to see is just far to invasive for no real benefit.

 

[SeraRelm]

What it boils down to is this. What were you born with and do you still have those parts?

Case closed. She may have a "genetic advantage" or she may not, but that could be said for any high performance athlete. Are football players tested because they're big? Are jockeys tested because they're short? I don't care what chromosomes she has. If she was born a woman, lived her life as a woman and competed as a woman, then fuck you, she's a woman and she mopped the floor with those others.

-- Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:21 am --

On the other hand...

 

[figmentPez]

So, which future are we headed for? One where every athlete is genetically tested, and then put into classes based on their genetic potential? Possibly have their performance modified by a difficulty number based on what their genes say they're capable of? Got a genetic condition that makes you gain weight and have less muscle strength? You get your time x 0.85! Got a genetically high red blood cell count and muscle fiber growth suited to marathons? You get your time in the marath x 1.32! (but only x1.24 in the 100m dash.)

Or maybe well head towards Achillies' Choice where all the top athletes are drugged up and cybernetically altered to the point where where their life expectancy is cut drasctically short, but men and women compete against each other? (and they get to rule the world when they win, too)

Both of those options sound pretty freaky, hopefully there are others that offer better choices than simply classing athletes by sex or gender.

 

[Espy]

By then, we'll be having the Olympics in space (apologies to non-US people), which will be so cool no one will care about gender.

Is it bad that I've already thought about this long and hard?

My conclusion is that athletes from different planets probably won't be able to compete against each-other properly. A Martian would be at a disadvantage on earth, because of the greater gravity, and if atmospheres are even slightly different, it could throw everything out of whack.

Just one of the many problems, of hosting an olympic event in space.

 

[@Li3n]

What it boils down to is this. What were you born with and do you still have those parts?

Case closed. She may have a "genetic advantage" or she may not, but that could be said for any high performance athlete. Are football players tested because they're big? Are jockeys tested because they're short? I don't care what chromosomes she has. If she was born a woman, lived her life as a woman and competed as a woman, then fuck you, she's a woman and she mopped the floor with those others.

But what if she's really a Skrull?!

 

[Shegokigo]

Oh this is just getting hilarious.....

 

[@Li3n]

MAn, i should have known that mentioning them will draw them here... death to the skrulls.

 

[Denbrought]

Ahahaha. Man, Zen is gonna love this bot :3