Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Hyperandrogenism / Caster Semenya & others

13567

Comments

  • edited August 2016
    Screw all the rules, just let men and women compete on the same stage against one another. It will then abolish any concern as to whether a woman has more testosterone than those they're competing against.
  • That is one solution

  • Chizz said:

    I think one thing has been clear when you see the gutted faces of athletes who have dedicated their lives to the Olympics and missed out on medals is how much work and dedication they put in. The winning athletes like mighty Mo allude to this too. There is an unfairness here and I take a view out of respect for those athletes in that event who basically haven't got a chance. It isn't Semenya's fault how she was born, but I am suggesting what I think is the fairest solution. Not the ideal one, that doesn't exist!

    So she should be banned because everyone else she beats gets upset?
    You should go to specsavers
  • A slight difference between the advantage a tall basket ball player has over a short one, is that you can choose your sport according to your body shape/physical advantages, whereas if you have an abnormally high level of testosterone, you'll be better at every sport.

  • Someone calling me out on being too PC. 'Kin hell, seen it all now.

    What would Trevor think if he saw you now
  • Someone calling me out on being too PC. 'Kin hell, seen it all now.

    What would Trevor think if he saw you now
    Did big T have hyperandrogenism issues?
  • Dazzler21 said:

    Someone calling me out on being too PC. 'Kin hell, seen it all now.

    What would Trevor think if he saw you now
    Did big T have hyperandrogenism issues?
    No just pissed off that VG was banging his ex.
  • edited August 2016
    Yes, I appreciate the reasoning - see you can do it without 'smart alec' one liners. Not saying my view is more valid but when you have a situation where there isn't a perfect solution, both have their justifications.

    The basis of my argument is that women's sport is less reliant on muscle than men's sport. So the best women are not the fastest or strongest so you need to look at things differently. This can only apply to women's sport. By quoting Peter Crouch who I am pretty sure is a man - you don't seem to have fully understood the counter point! Not saying you don't have one.
  • Yes, I appreciate the reasoning - see you can do it without 'smart alec' one liners. Not saying my view is more valid but when you have a situation where there isn't a perfect solution, both have their justifications.

    The basis of my argument is that women's sport is less reliant on muscle than men's sport. So the best women are not the fastest or strongest so you need to look at things differently. This can only apply to women's sport. By quoting Peter Crouch who I am pretty sure is a man - you don't seem to have fully understood the counter point!

    You understood the point about hyperandrogenism and Marfan Syndrome not being dissimilar insofar as neither being illegal and neither being against the rules of the sports in which these athletes participate, I hope.

    Further, I hope you agree that it's unfair - and therefore against the underlying principle of sport - to single out and disbar competitors on the basis of their physiognomy.

    You're presenting the "solution" to a "problem" as being the unfair exclusion of an athlete from participating, despite her not having transgressed any rules. In fact, it's even worse than that: you're suggesting she's excluded, despite it being proven she has no case to answer.

    I am not suggesting a solution. Because I don't see that there's a problem. She's an athlete; but more than that, she's a very, very good one.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2016
    What are rules - aren't rules something that people apply? You used to be allowed to pass the ball back to the keeper - now you are not! You haven't read my posts properly if you are saying I am suggesting she is excluded.
  • I am not accusing her of cheating or of being a man by the way!
  • What are rules - aren't rules something that people apply? You used to be allowed to pass the ball back to the keeper - now you are not! You haven't read my posts properly if you are saying I am suggesting she is excluded.

    We'll you have said...

    I would specify a maximum tesosterone level women's competitions.

    Which, de facto, implies the exclusion of someone from competing within her gender classification unless she takes certain (unspecified) drugs.

    You're wrong, because excluding innocent athletes unless they undertake physical change inducing drugs is inherently unfair.

    She's different from her competitors in the same two ways that Michael Phelps is different: physically better suited and technically better.
  • edited August 2016
    Yes, so she can compete after surpressing her tesosterone levels medically or she can compete with those that have similar levels (men). Rules would have to be changed, but that is what I am suggesting! look I can see your point of view, but a lot share mine too! There is unfairness on both sides of the argument - I can see them both and have taken a view - you can only see one side! I don't begrudge your view I understand it and you might be right - the fact you cant see the counter view or understand why people might hold it is the point!
  • Yes, so she can compete after surpressing her tesosterone levels medically or she can compete with those that have similar levels (men). Rules would have to be changed, but that is what I am suggesting! look I can see your point of view, but a lot share mine too!

    Let me play this back to you. You're suggesting that rules she hasn't broken should be changed. And the new rules that are brought in require her to undergo medical treatment (presumably intended to reduce her athletic ability) in order to continue competing against the athletes with whom she's already competing.

    I know you're not stupid. But this suggestion is.

    Apart from anything else, consider the effect it would have on young girls considering athletics or other sport as a career. You're suggesting fixing a non-existent problem with a thoroughly damaging solution. It's nonsense. But it's been interesting discussing it.
  • edited August 2016
    I think I have said what I mean clearly enough - I don't need you to summarise it how you chose too. I could do the same, but there is little point! It is an interesting argument because there are many facets too it. I have said I undertsand the argument you make, but I can see all the facets. You have made a decision without understanding them all IMO. Doesn't make you wrong, you may be right - but I don't think you will ever get the point I am making so there is little point continuing us discussing.
  • edited August 2016
    Sorry to interrupt, but I'd just like to thank Leuth and in particular Chizz for their contributions.

    Absolutely bang on schedule. Just like Steve Brown, they'll never let you down.
  • Let me interrupt too. Thanks for informing me about Marian Syndrome. At 5 feet 8 and 18 stone, I think it's safe to say I don't have it.
  • Let me interrupt too. Thanks for informing me about Marian Syndrome. At 5 feet 8 and 18 stone, I think it's safe to say I don't have it.

    Dyslexia maybe

    :wink:
  • Sorry to interrupt, but I'd just like to thank Leuth and in particular Chizz for their contributions.

    Absolutely bang on schedule. Just like Steve Brown, they'll never let you down.

    No need to be bitter about losing ValleyGary
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2016
    Game set and Match to Muttley.

    No way can a female runner with 2% Level of Testosterone(the norm) beat a
    competitor with 10% or more if they have both done the same amount of training. Unless that person is unwell on the day or trips up.
    (over 800 metres)

    Caster Semenya jogged around and didn't have to get out of 1st gear.

    a complete and utter joke of a race.

    Unlike the callous chizz i feel sorry for the girls in that race.
  • *women
  • Anyway - hopefully dodging Chizz - this is a very complicated and interesting issue. If Semenya was prevented from competing against other women, it would be unfair on her. But if she isn't, it is unfair on those who lose to her. This is a story that hasn't ended. My understanding is that the courts have basically left it to athletics to prove she has a significant advantage. If they can do this - and I believe scientists are working on it - Semenya could be prevented from competing with other women unless she lowers her tesosterone levels.

    What interests me beyond this is how this will play when we have more transgendered athletes competing. Will we accept that anybody declaring they are female (and I believe they should have every right to btw, it is oppressive to say that they can't be a woman if they feel they are) can compete as a women. A category for those weaker than men! This is partly why I hold the view that there is now a need to look at how women are classified, as silly as that may sound to some.

    It may be that it is proven that Semenya does not have a significant advantage and if that is so - well it will solve this part of the problem. My gut feeling - and I can be wrong - is that she does have an advantage. The courts demanded this be proven. I do accept that the advantage she has, will need to be proven. There are no winners in this, but sport needs to really work hard to find a position going forwards or controversy will be common place.
  • Certain people have suffered from a tumor on the pituitary gland, during childhood, resulting in gigantism. Would it be right to exclude an athlete such as 7' 4" 13 year old Robert Bobroczky on the basis that other basketball players might not enjoy being shorter than him?
    An event like the 800m causes problems, as running events are so much more about the physiology of the body than basketball. Somebody could be 7 foot but have no skills, similarly someone could have enormous feet (like Ian Thorpe) but have no coordination and swim like a stone.

    The split in sport is between men and women. Improving male performance artificially is hard, steroids enable you to train harder, but you still have to do the work. Additional testosterone only gives incremental benefits etc

    With women, it's much easier to improve performance artificially, by making them more like men. The communist countries dominated women's sport, but not men's sport. China's female swimmers in the 90s(?) set some unbelievable times, but not their men etc.

    Thus, when someone (through no fault of her own) has a excess of testosterone, giving her many male attributes, this is a massive advantage over her competitors, far more than Usian Bolt's height. I don't know what the answer is, but just asking all the competitors to lump it doesn't seem fair.

  • The competitors don't have what it takes to win a women's 800m race. They can either focus on simply scoring good personal times, or they can take up a skill sport where raw physical attributes are secondary to practice and execution. They absolutely should lump it. Reading what Paula Radcliffe had to say about this gave me the creeps.
  • edited August 2016

    Certain people have suffered from a tumor on the pituitary gland, during childhood, resulting in gigantism. Would it be right to exclude an athlete such as 7' 4" 13 year old Robert Bobroczky on the basis that other basketball players might not enjoy being shorter than him?

    An event like the 800m causes problems, as running events are so much more about the physiology of the body than basketball. Somebody could be 7 foot but have no skills, similarly someone could have enormous feet (like Ian Thorpe) but have no coordination and swim like a stone.

    The split in sport is between men and women. Improving male performance artificially is hard, steroids enable you to train harder, but you still have to do the work. Additional testosterone only gives incremental benefits etc

    With women, it's much easier to improve performance artificially, by making them more like men. The communist countries dominated women's sport, but not men's sport. China's female swimmers in the 90s(?) set some unbelievable times, but not their men etc.

    Thus, when someone (through no fault of her own) has a excess of testosterone, giving her many male attributes, this is a massive advantage over her competitors, far more than Usian Bolt's height. I don't know what the answer is, but just asking all the competitors to lump it doesn't seem fair.

    But far less unfair than banning, or interfering chemically, with someone who has done nothing wrong whatsoever.
  • edited August 2016
    Perhaps we could
    Leuth said:

    The competitors don't have what it takes to win a women's 800m race. They can either focus on simply scoring good personal times, or they can take up a skill sport where raw physical attributes are secondary to practice and execution. They absolutely should lump it. Reading what Paula Radcliffe had to say about this gave me the creeps.

    I think you make a good point. The women with normal levels of testosterone could boycott the 800M and leave those with hyperandrogenism to compete against themselves.

    Like I said in the OP. You could have a women's 800M race and a hyperandrogenism 800M race.

    It's fair to everyone that way.
  • So what we seem to be saying is that competitors should be able to used any means at their disposal to win races, Okay I'll use me motorbike
  • This is why football is such a great sport. Chris Solly and Josh Magennis are equally valuable members of the same team. Their diverse physical attributes are nonetheless brought together in one joyous celebration of human...*Land Of Hope And Glory starts playing*

    But of course 800m running is a good sport too, especially if it raises sympathy towards intersex issues :)
  • I agree with both sides on this one, but if I had to make a decision, I would go with @Chizz rather than @MuttleyCAFC.

    There are many genetic factors that lead to one person being a better athlete in a particular sport than another. Even if no one is taking performance enhancing substances, people's bodies are different. Even if they had the same training, psychological depths to push on to win and so on, one althlete could be genetically predisposed to high lung function, heart function, building body mass.

    I find it difficult to see how this is different in the case of female athletes who have a genetic predisposition to higher testosterone.

    Despite attempts to characterise this particular advantage/difference as especially severe, I don't see that.

    I think the examples of Phelps and the Nordic skier (can't recall his name) who have genetic abnormalities which have allowed them to win on their chosen sports support this.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!