I was going to post about this a week ago but I thought I would wait for the story to progress and make the topic more focused. In the meantime I have been thinking about the issues and the opposite has happened.

Some background;
Caster Semenya is a South African runner who recently won the Women's 800m final at the World Athletics Championships in Berlin on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009. She was ordered to undergo a gender verification test by the IAFF.

I would like to hear your thoughts on several issues surrounding these events;

What makes a woman a woman?
The obvious answer would be genitals and breasts, these are external indicators. There are other criteria to consider such as; internal indicators, must a woman have a uterus? Genetics, X and Y chromosomes, XY being male and XX female. The problem here is that are people who are neither XX or XY, they are of other combinations such as XO, XXY, XXY XXXY and also other variations. Genetic anomalies can allow a person to have a male genetic make-up but be physiologically female. If being XX were a sporting classification requirement then many women would not qualify to compete as women. In fact eight athletes failed the tests at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, mostly for exactly this reason, but were all cleared by subsequent physical examinations.
Source

What constitutes an unfair advantage?
Caster Semenya's highly muscular physique has been attributed to her having internal testes which are producing large amounts of testosterone but physiologically she’s a woman by external genitalia. Should this disqualify her from entering competitions as a woman? Without external male genitalia she won’t qualify as a male entrant so she would in effect be banned from competition because of a birth defect. Is this not a dangerous road to go down? If people get banned for physical attributes that give them an advantage then should they introduce a limit on leg length for runners or foot size for swimmers? Should Schumacher have been banned from F1 a few seasons ago as Ferrari was clearly the best car and giving him an advantage?

Should gender testing still be carried out using the methods that Caster Semenya was subjected to?
The American Medical Association has stated that gender testing is ‘humiliating, socially insensitive, and not entirely accurate or effective anyway. The testing is especially difficult and problematic in the case of people who could be considered intersexual. The genetic tests provide potentially inaccurate results and discriminate against women with disorders of sexual development.’ Source
It’s invasive and humiliating and even back in 1966 Princess Anne refused to undergo testing for these reasons during the Montreal Olympics.
The IAAF ceased gender screening for all athletes in 1992, but still retains the option to order screening at their discretion.

Yes, this is indeed both an interesting and difficult subject. As you point out, it's not a new problem, as evidenced by the Eastern European shot-putters, javelin throwers etc. in past Olympics. I seem to remember that then, the issue was more with hormone treatments and supplements rather than a natural chromasome mix-up. However, the fact remains that someone (female, ostensibly) with a natural abundance of testosterone will have an advantage over a woman who carries the normal XX chromasomes. Historically, there have always been hermaphrodites who have confounded our normal classifications of Man and Woman. In this scenario, I really don't know what the powers-that-be should do. At what point does a woman become a man? If she has all the outward manifestations of a female, but is also producing male hormones, does that mean she is no longer a woman?

Badog, it's a can of worms, this one! I don't envy the IAFF who have to make a decision on it. I, for one, really don't know where the line should be drawn, because you could also say that men of African descent have an unfair advantage over caucasian men in sprint events because of their physiology. Which is, broadly speaking, true. However, we don't sanction anyone on account of their race.

Yes, a thorny issue, without a doubt!

I agree. I initially wasn't going to reply to this thread because the issues being dealt with here are rather complex. With that being said I have quite a simple view on the matter.

Regardless of your genetic make-up or external genitalia, if you are producing male hormones at near normal male levels then you have a unfair advantage over females who are producing the normal female levels of testosterone.

Testosterone effects muscle mass and as such it would be an advantage for a female competitor to have significantly higher amounts of it in her blood stream (be it natural or otherwise).

Whilst I think what is happening to this poor woman is quite horrible and embarrassing, i do believe that she has, through no fault of her own, an unfair advantage. What comes next is up to the athletics authorities.

since she has testes making testosteron and since males that use larger amounts of it than normal are disqualified

the answer is simple remove the testes ..there by making her equal with the other women

just a thought but if she wants to compete fairly the only answer........harsh but fair

Testoserone syaponate and nandralone sustinate...Both have been proven over long and exhausive trails to be the cause of gender reassaingnment..they are cancer recovery drugs (and are used by gender reassingment treatments to make the female face more masculine!)and are found to have chest muscle enlargement properties,...hence the use in weight lifting.(chest or pectoralis major)..I think personally its disgusting the way the lady had been treated,but if they are using testosterone for muscle growth then this is going to happen more and more.and before anyone gives it where is the link to prove this ....google testosterone supineate..!

If she is still able to bear a child, then she is undoubtedly female. She was born lucky. (or unlucky?) Like the example of runners having longer legs and swimmers having bigger feet, she was born to be stronger than most women. SHE'S LEGIT!

RequiemValorum
I agree.

This is the question. I'm not qualified medically to give a definitive answer. I'm not sure if there is actually even consensus on this from those who are qualified.


With competition such as sport, those who are more physically capable will obviously be prone to winning, that's what sport is about. Why is being more physically capable an unfair advantage?


All women produce different levels of testosterone naturally. No limits have ever been set for naturally produced testosterone in women's sporting events and Caster Semenya's high levels of testosterone are naturally produced. I would agree that the levels were unfair if they were drug-induced but without limits being in the rules when it comes to natural testosterone, it can't be unfair according to the rules.


People who are naturally gifted will always win at sport, why should she be any different to the point where she must be disadvantaged by surgery.


She was squeaky clean on the drug tests, there were no accusations of cheating in that regard. I agree that the gender testing system is disgusting, the invasive nature and humiliating public way it is conducted is not acceptable.



She can't bear children, according to test results leaked by the Australian press, she has no ovaries. There are numerous reasons why women might be infertile, I'm not sure why you think this should be a deciding factor to allow or ban the from competing in sport at a professional level.
The event is classed as a women's event, what is the definition of a woman. Is a woman just a mature female or can there a difference between being female and being a woman? Does the answer lie with the medical profession or is there more to it than physiology and biological make-up.
I honestly don't know.

In my opinion she should be classed as a woman and allowed to compete in the womans competitions. As said I don't envy the IAFF in making the call on what to do on this one. If it were me I would probably work out a average base line on the levels then anyone over gets something added, for example -1M in a throwing exercise, and anyone under gets something like +1M in a throwing exercise. Although that alone would be complex enough when it comes to things like running.

When it comes down to it I think it should be up to the athletes. If they are all happy to leave things the way they are leave them, if they would rather something like the above is created then create it.

For me its a its a chromosome thing but a vestigial male part is a deal breaker, on the grand scale of thing and in the legal sense. I would go with what the laws rule on the matter as they vary in different parts of the world.

I agree that the definition would change from country to country, if not even more locally than a national level but as far as I know there's no international definition for the purpose of sport. Vestigial body parts are not uncommon, I think even James Bond had a third nipple or was it one of the villains?

Agreed, but there must be some significant difference in the testosterone levels of a woman with ovaries and a woman with testes. This will give the woman an unfair advantage in any event that requires the construction of dense muscle such as running. Whilst there may be no rules to cover the general levels of testosterone in a woman, one with testes is going to a significant and unfair advantage.



There is a difference between gifted and different. The simple fact of the matter is that this person is neither a man nor a woman. Anatomically she cannot be considered a woman. As I said this is complex and she is unfortunately subjected to the dualistic nature of gender in sport.

Everything you say is absolutely true, I think the only thing I would debate you on is whether or not her advantage is unfair. She's winning with what she was born with or what God gave her, it just doesn't sit well with me that this considered unfair. She's not cheating or using drugs, that would be unfair.


She is legally a woman, she was raised and is held by her family and local society as a woman, her external genitalia is that of a woman, even the IAFF has allowed her to keep the medal after a full gender verification procedure. Is it a case of the more testosterone you have the less you are a woman, up to a point, beyond which you are in some kind of 'gender no-mans land'? It would follow the other way around in that case, a man with less than a certain amount of testosterone would find himself in the same place or classification of being neither male nor female.

The thing with these issues is that there are a lot of facts and figures that are unknown so there can be no clear cut answers, just opinions and feelings. I was very interested to see how it was generally perceived and why and also wondered if women would see it in a different perspective than the guys.

I wonder if another rule can be introduced by the IAFF around these issues or if it will present too much of a minefield. There was another South African athlete that caused new rules to be written in 2007 also due to perceived unfair advantages. I'm getting a deja vu feeling.

I see your point in that it is certainly not her fault that she has found herself in this predicament. The person who has been most unfairly treated is her. I can only imagine how mortified she must feel for competing in the competition with the body she was given, unaltered by either surgery or drugs. On this point we are in full agreement, she did not cheat and she did not seek to gain an unfair advantage via other means.

However, the reasons why I find it unfair to other athletes is because she has a clear advantage over the other female competitors that they could never hope to match, be it through training regimes, diets or other means by which athletes improve their skills.



Couldn't agree more. Though such cases are a rarity, they should have a contingent in place that doesn't require the public humiliation of the athlete.

That's my view too. Also, clearly Semenya is not a woman, Semenya is a hermaphrodite. To say that Semenya is either a man or a woman is a false dichotomy. (do you believe in God? Yes or No = False Dichotomy). You can't class people in two categories when other possibilities exist. You either have to make that person into one of the existing categories to compete (man or woman) or make a third category for hermaphrodites to compete.

At the moment there's two categories, men and women and one gray area between them. If there is another category then surely it's just going to mean there's two gray areas. I don't think this will help. Maybe the answer is to go the opposite direction, instead of making more 'pigeon holes' to slot people in maybe less is better. Just let everyone compete on an equal level instead of segregating by sex whatsoever.

Do you know the difference between sex and gender? They are not the same thing to be used interchangeably as so many are taught.

I did raise this question here, what are your thoughts?

Sex is usually the physical expression of a gene, but has it's exceptions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome and the like. So if someone has a sex change, sex reassignment surgery (SRS), then the outward physical appearance of the body would change.

Gender, on the other hand, is the mental identification of masculinity and femininity, not an identification with a sex. Most people are not totally masculine or feminine, either. Most are a mixture of the two. Men, for instance, usually rate higher on the masculine side than women and vice versa, but this is not always so. There are people who are half-way in between who are usually referred to as androgynes, and sometime the word "genderqueer" is used inappropriately. An androgyne would be equally (or close to equally) masculine or feminine in their actions, mannerisms, and thoughts, but not necessarily how they look. Then there are people who are genderless, as well. Look at the Bem Androgny test.

There are those who also identify with a particular sex, which could be construed as gender by the average person to be gender is usually socially accepted. So, someone who is mostly masculine would identify with the male sex and someone who is mostly feminine would identify with the female sex, but what of the person who identifies as neither or both such as a intersexed (hermaphroditic) person with ambiguous genitalia or someone who just considers him/herself as asexual?

I heard something a one point that makes it a little easier to understand, but I doubt there will ever by a true definition for is as exceptions to rules no longer make rules rules"

Sex is what's between your legs and gender is what's between your ears.

You cannot have "gender reassignment surgery," by the way. Most people's gender do not change over their life time.

From a sports context which was the original birth of the topic, they have two classifications, Mens and Womens events. The terms 'men' and 'women' imply gender not sex. If it were as simple as 'Sex is what's between your legs and gender is what's between your ears' then any form of physical testing would not establish who was a man and who a woman, it would only indicate who is male and who is female.

The athletics authorities use a barrage of physiological tests to establish eligibility for women so they cannot be using the gender definitions you suggested. If they were then the tests would be more of a psychological nature, not physiological.

There are large cultural differences on what constitutes a man or a woman. Many cultures have a rite of passage tradition that must be taken before they would be considered by themselves or their peers as men and women. In other cultures you are a man or a woman if you have gone through puberty, there is far less emphasis on psychological implications.

So how should the athletics authorities be determining what constitutes being a woman using an internationally acceptable definition and also what constitutes an unfair advantage in the Womens events? Or should sports events have gender based classifications abolished altogether?

There will never be an "internationally accepted definition of gender." There are too many groups that would want it defined their way. Consensus would be virtually impossible. Besides, it would only apply to those who agreed, not those who came after it.

If sex/gender definitions are to be used, they should be clearly stated before entering the competition to all participants. If the participants do not like the definition, they do not compete. Too many of these things are made up as they go along.

What is the point of competing in the first place? Why do you need open recognition that someone is better at something than someone else. Is that not just another degree of separation?

Humankind has always indulged in tests of strength, has it not? Does it not stem from social behavioural patterns arising from the need for status in the "pack"?

I agree but there has to be an across the board definition of the two genders for sports purposes as long as they insist on segregation of men and women.


The boundaries and definitions tend to change or evolve with the technologies available for testing purposes. A couple of decades ago for example they weren't able to perform testing at DNA level.




I can see and understand the need to compete against physical limitations, the need to constantly push back the boundaries of the human body on a physical level. I don't see so clearly the need to beat fellow competitors on a personal or egotistical level. I do think the ideology behind sport, particularly athletics and non team sports, has been perverted to attempt to show superiority of gender, race, nationality and even political persuasion. It is often dragged down to the level of a propaganda tool.

I agree with RV. even if she was born with it, she has testes that are producing testosterone and so has an unfair advantage. i.e if you were born with a deficiency that gave you chita like abbilites (just imagine for a second ok...) would it be fair to compete in the 100 mt even if you were born with it? or it the testes were the result of medical testing. the origin is different but the outcome is the same so i believe it's still unfair.
by the way what's her chromossomes?

The test results will probably only be confirmed in mid-November as far as I know.

It was said earlier but if she is able to bear children then she should ba able to compete.

In answer to your question:

When she's the woman I love....


Hey! I'm a sentimental ol' bugger.

Maine seems to be taking some steps in directions regarding this matter.

Maine Commission Moves to Ban Gender Specific Bathrooms, Sports Teams in Schools

Sexual Orientation Adopted Rule (Maine Gov't PDF)

Maine Court Favorable Ruling on Trans Bathroom Use

I think there is a lot of fear mongering from the "conservative" side about being "uncomfortable" and outright scared about someone who might have a penis being in the same room with them. They're screaming rape and he touched me and I didn't want him to. I think genetic women use a lot of things to their advantage to play the vulnerability card, and, yes, it does happen. I've seen it more than once. I also know quite a few married couples who don't close the door when using the toilet. He's another question: What about homosexuals? They are of the same sex and gender and are in rooms naked together and there is very seldom news about groping there.

I personally have no problem with transsexuals or androgynes in the women's washroom or locker room. I've been in co-educational bathrooms before and I've never had a problem. I also grew up with a friend who is trans and she (genetically XY) had so many problems with society in general. People who would want to use the facilities of their gender identity aren't there to grope anyone or engage in unscrupulous activities. All they want is to go about their business and get out. I also have no problem with just gender-nonspecific washrooms.