User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Did a Man just win the Women's 800m? (split from the wtf thread)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Did a Man just win the Women's 800m? (split from the wtf thread)
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next Thread Tools
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-08-19, 17:42

Did a Man just win the Women's 800m?




Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC

New world 800m champion Caster Semenya has been asked to take a gender test, according to athletics' governing body.

The International Association of Athletics Federations says it demanded the test three weeks ago amid fears she should not be able to run as a woman.

IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said the "extremely complex, difficult" test results were not due for several weeks.

The South African athletics federation insists it is "completely sure" that Semenya, 18, is a female.

"We would not have entered her in the female competition if we had any doubts," said a statement.

... continues ...
Strangely, they announced it to the world media before the race...

South African 800 metre runner Caster Semenya faces IAAF sex test

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph.co.uk

Caster Semenya will compete in tonight's World Championships 800 metres women's final despite her gender being questioned by the International Association of Athletics Federations.

By Telegraph staff and agencies
Published: 5:48PM BST 19 Aug 2009

The IAAF revealed that they have been investigating 18-year-old South African's gender after her breakthrough performance when winning the African junior championship title at the end of July.

Semenya ran a stunning world leading time for the year of one minute 56.72 seconds, striking almost four seconds from her previous best.

IAAF communications director Nick Davies, revealing they cannot prevent her competing, said: "The situation today is that we don't have any conclusive evidence that she not be allowed to run, so it would be totally wrong to take a decision such as to withdraw an athlete from the field.

"It is a medical issue, it's not an issue of cheating.

"Again it is stressed in a general sense, we have to be sensitive to this, this is a health issue, this is a human individual who was born as a woman, has grown all her life as a woman and is now in a position where this is being questioned.

"There is a need of course to make sure the rules are followed and the rules are very clear that women should compete in women's competitions, so yes of course, we're taking it absolutely seriously.

"But we're also doing that in a rigorous, fair-minded way."

"We have to wait until the process is completed however long it takes.

"I believe it will be a matter of weeks rather than months, but that is speculation."

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
  quote
murbot
Hoonigan
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2009-08-19, 17:57

I'd probably bet a case of beer on it.

Quote:
"But we're also doing that in a rigorous, fair-minded way."

"We have to wait until the process is completed however long it takes.

"I believe it will be a matter of weeks rather than months, but that is speculation."
Can't just check for a frank and beans? Or scars where the goods were?
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2009-08-19, 18:19

She may well have been born with female genitalia but is otherwise XY...
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-08-19, 18:29




I would not hit it.
  quote
murbot
Hoonigan
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2009-08-19, 19:41

Maybe with a bat?
  quote
dmegatool
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home
 
2009-08-19, 19:43

I would still do her
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2009-08-19, 20:16

Gender testing/ambiguity is actually more common in sports than one would think. All Olympic athletes, even those in equestrian events, have to undergo a gender test, with the exception of members of the monarchy of the host country (Montreal '76).

Looking for scars or a frank and beans would do nothing - as billybobsky mentioned, it's almost always a case of an athlete having female genitalia but being genetically male. Some athletes find out that they're genetically male for the first time when they have to take a gender test.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
dmegatool
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home
 
2009-08-19, 21:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousuburb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman;647565[QUOTE
Some athletes find out that they're genetically male for the first time when they have to take a gender test.
No serious !?! Just ask me. I'll tell you.
  quote
Iago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hmm?
 
2009-08-25, 09:58

Turns out Semen, Ya! has three times the usual amounts of testosterone in 'her' body.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Sport
Tests have revealed Caster Semenya's testosterone level to be three times higher than those normally expected in a female sample, BBC Sport understands.
Analysis prior to the World Athletics Championships and the 18-year-old's big improvement prompted calls for a gender test from the sport's governing body.
It was made public only hours before the South African, who has been backed by her nation, won the 800m in Berlin.
*And a clitoris that does a very convincing impression of a penis, I bet.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-25, 10:08

I'm no biologist but I have to question whether it makes sense to call gender on basis of hormones in body. It just seems to me it'd open up a can of worms because there's so many variables whereas morphological difference is relatively clear-cut. Has ovary & clitoris? Female. Has penis & testicles? Male.

Why even bother with hormones?

Also, the article has some undertones suggesting it's actually more of a drug test than a gender test. The former would certainly be understandable (steroids = more testosterone, yes?) but a latter test based on hormones? I don't get it.
  quote
Iago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hmm?
 
2009-08-25, 10:20

It has to be a combination of different tests, because morphological differences between sexes can be a medical affectation (if you know what I mean ) rather than an absolute hallmark of gender.

This entire case opens up a can of worms. If an athlete were to have gender correction surgery and become legally female, should they be eligible to compete with other female athletes? It's a grey area because already in sport you find that the "most male" athletes in female categories inevitably win.

In my opinion, the problem we're really seeing here is that it's likely (if not certain) that a male athlete with poor technique could defeat a female athlete with excellent technique, simply because of power. For example a lower-ranked tennis player with a more powerful serve could beat a technically brilliant female player simply because he can hit the ball harder and faster for longer. It's a shortcoming of the event.

I'm Joseph Fritzl, and no windows was my idea.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-25, 10:36

You are right there are cases where the morphological differences are less than clear due to genes, and I'm aware of the problems surrounding gender correction surgery. However, this doesn't seem to apply to Ms. Semenya.

I suppose a better system would be basically morphology first, then homornology (what's the formal word?).

As for the power, or lack thereof, I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. I mean, we can make similar cases for height or weight. Should we exclude players because they're too tall and thus can run faster & leap higher? That's even a worse can of worms. Yes, it's possible that Semenya may have had lot of power for her category, but I feel that it's a case of opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
  quote
Iago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hmm?
 
2009-08-25, 10:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana View Post
As for the power, or lack thereof, I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. I mean, we can make similar cases for height or weight. Should we exclude players because they're too tall and thus can run faster & leap higher? That's even a worse can of worms. Yes, it's possible that Semenya may have had lot of power for her category, but I feel that it's a case of opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
That's what I'm saying--it's impossible to know where to draw the line because ultimately the traits that make a lot of female athletes more successful are those that make them more manly. The ICC have to be very careful with what they do here because it would be like banning a basketball player because they were too tall. Imagine a ten foot tall basketball player, or a soccer player who can hit the top right hand corner of the goal from anywhere on the pitch. They would effectively ruin the competitiveness of the sport.

The day is fast approaching where steroid and drug regulation will end, and it'll be a genetic free-for-all. I for one would welcome that. "I don't want to see a man do the 100m in 9.4, I want to see a man do it in three seconds flat with the legs of a cheetah and the body of a human."

I'm Joseph Fritzl, and no windows was my idea.
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-08-25, 10:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iago View Post
"I don't want to see a man do the 100m in 9.4, I want to see a man do it in three seconds flat with the legs of a cheetah and the body of a human."
You anti-technology luddite, what about the guy with the cyborg legs that does it in 2.8? Are you going to disqualify him?

  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2009-08-25, 12:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iago View Post
That's what I'm saying--it's impossible to know where to draw the line because ultimately the traits that make a lot of female athletes more successful are those that make them more manly. The ICC have to be very careful with what they do here because it would be like banning a basketball player because they were too tall. Imagine a ten foot tall basketball player, or a soccer player who can hit the top right hand corner of the goal from anywhere on the pitch. They would effectively ruin the competitiveness of the sport.

The day is fast approaching where steroid and drug regulation will end, and it'll be a genetic free-for-all. I for one would welcome that. "I don't want to see a man do the 100m in 9.4, I want to see a man do it in three seconds flat with the legs of a cheetah and the body of a human."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
You anti-technology luddite, what about the guy with the cyborg legs that does it in 2.8? Are you going to disqualify him?

:LOL:

The problem is that both sex and gender are cultural constructions, not simple biological facts (of course all forms of information are culturally constructed to one degree or another). However, 3x the "normal" testosterone is a bit fishy...

Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind!
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-08-25, 12:59

Or a natural glandular disorder, giving an in-born and natural advantage in this particular endeavour. In which case... hell yes let her compete. It's no different than Phelps' wacky body shape. He couldn't *train* that, it just *happened*... but it gives him an advantage.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-25, 13:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swox View Post
The problem is that both sex and gender are cultural constructions, not simple biological facts (of course all forms of information are culturally constructed to one degree or another). However, 3x the "normal" testosterone is a bit fishy...
While I do agree that several things pertaining to gender/sex are cultural constructs, I'm not so sure if it's right to go as far as to it not being a biological fact. Again, I'm no biologist but I would have thunk that women = ovaries + uterus and male = sperm + penis. No mention or implications are made about who rears the young and in what manners, or how the intercourse is performed, whether one perceives oneself to be of the different gender; you either have the equipment or you don't.

If there weren't any useful definition (which also implies that to be useful, it has to be sufficiently narrow and specific as to remove any ambiguity that are usually present in natural language), there would be no point in discussing so in science literature.

At least that's what I think.
  quote
Iago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hmm?
 
2009-08-25, 13:14

It's not as hazy as, say, nationality, or race, but it's certainly debatable. You're arguing that physiology defines gender, or is at least correlative to a defined gender (i.e. if you have a penis you 'are' male.) Individuals who have sex changes frequently point to it as a corrective procedure: they're just amending their body to match their brains.

I'm Joseph Fritzl, and no windows was my idea.
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-08-25, 13:18

So if we go by brain chemistry and sexual orientation... lesbians should compete with hetero men, and gay men with straight women?

I say stick with the obvious, myself.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-25, 13:23

Right. If they want to get gender change procedure, that's fine. Their body, their choice. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were born with the equipment and thus were that or other gender even though they do not feel that way. Even the procedure can't go back in time and change that fact.

Now to be honest, I have no simple answer for those who aren't born with complete equipment and thus are ambiguous and feel sympathy for those who has been 'corrected' to wrong gender.

Just to reiterate, I'm no biologist and there's a chance that I get smacked silly by biologists for giving out erroneous definition. I'd be surprised to hear that gender has no clear definition in the literature, though.
  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2009-08-25, 13:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana View Post
While I do agree that several things pertaining to gender/sex are cultural constructs, I'm not so sure if it's right to go as far as to it not being a biological fact. Again, I'm no biologist but I would have thunk that women = ovaries + uterus and male = sperm + penis. No mention or implications are made about who rears the young and in what manners, or how the intercourse is performed, whether one perceives oneself to be of the different gender; you either have the equipment or you don't.

If there weren't any useful definition (which also implies that to be useful, it has to be sufficiently narrow and specific as to remove any ambiguity that are usually present in natural language), there would be no point in discussing so in science literature.

At least that's what I think.
Gender is completely culturally defined. As far as I know, not many academics debate that. However, there is some debate about sex.

If you define people based on the sexual organs they have, you run into serious problems when you start having to define people's sex (for them) when they were born with poorly differentiated organs (as you've pointed out), which is more common than most people think, and when people have procedures done like sex changes, hysterectomies, castrations, etc. done. Should we be telling them they no longer have a sex? What about hermaphrodites, with their sexy lady bits, and their sexy man bits? It seems like it should be pretty basic on the surface, but there is so much variation within and outside of our culture that it seems to be just as tricky to define as gender.

Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind!
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2009-08-25, 14:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swox View Post
which is more common than most people think
^ This. I think about 99% of people would be surprised at just how many people are born intersexed. (The other 1% shouldn't be surprised, because they were.)

It's not some one-in-a-million, freak of nature sort of thing. It happens. People just don't really talk about it.

(And in case anyone was wondering, no.)

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-08-25, 14:23

Hermaphrodite is a very old word.

Aphrodite with a Herm protruding.
  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2009-08-25, 14:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
^ This. I think about 99% of people would be surprised at just how many people are born intersexed. (The other 1% shouldn't be surprised, because they were.)

It's not some one-in-a-million, freak of nature sort of thing. It happens. People just don't really talk about it.

(And in case anyone was wondering, no.)
It's really weird, too, how freaked out people are by it. Doctors often make a decision on gender right after birth, and do the surgery right away, like having whatever it is you have down there is going to damage you right away. Better to just hack it off and make'em a woman than to have a monstrosity like that wandering around society!

There's a great article on this by Alice Domurat Dreger called "Jarring Bodies: Thoughts on the Display of Unusual Anatomies" that deals with this issue. Here are two good quotes from it:

Quote:
Protocols for treating intersex children are founded upon the belief that ambiguous sexual anatomy constitutes "a social emergency."
Quote:
People with unusual anatomies (profoundly short, intersexed, and so on) hear medical professionals saying: "We get to see you, examine you, and display you at will, because we're trying hard to fix and prevent people like you." Of course, what medicine is really trying to prevent and alleviate is the suffering of these kinds of people, but when the the fact is - as it is for all of us - that one's identity is very grounded in the experience of one's anatomy, the elimination of the anatomical experience at some level equates to the elimination of the self.
How shocked are some doctors to hear that intersexuals might not want to be displayed, so that they and other like them can be "normalized"...
(The article is available in one of my favorite books ever: Beyond the Body Proper, Margaret Lock and Judith Farquhar, eds.)

Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind!
  quote
Maciej
M AH - ch ain saw
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-08-25, 15:12

Can we get a split? Please.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-08-25, 15:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciej View Post
Can we get a split? Please.
Do you mean a Cameltoe? I think that's established... it's the XY bit that's in doubt.

  quote
Maciej
M AH - ch ain saw
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-08-25, 15:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousuburb View Post
Do you mean a Cameltoe? I think that's established... it's the XY bit that's in doubt.

Haha.. Tough call, there might be cameltoe, or mooseknuckle. Test haven't been concluded yet.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-25, 15:42

Another vote for split.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swox View Post
Gender is completely culturally defined. As far as I know, not many academics debate that. However, there is some debate about sex.

If you define people based on the sexual organs they have, you run into serious problems when you start having to define people's sex (for them) when they were born with poorly differentiated organs (as you've pointed out), which is more common than most people think, and when people have procedures done like sex changes, hysterectomies, castrations, etc. done. Should we be telling them they no longer have a sex?
Hmm, I'm sorry but I don't think changes means that the facts has changed. The fact they're born with the bits is irreversible. It's fixable, alterable, modifiable, changable but it still won't change the fact that they were born with this or that bits.

I also think there's the problem of conflating the definitions as accepted by cultures with more narrow definition of sex in identifying its role in reproduction. Yes, there's so lot of identity associated with sex (e.g. gender). I do not deny this and do appreciate that many people do not always agree with how they identity with themselves and their outward appearance. But it still won't change the fact that they were born with this or that equipment.

Quote:
What about hermaphrodites, with their sexy lady bits, and their sexy man bits? It seems like it should be pretty basic on the surface, but there is so much variation within and outside of our culture that it seems to be just as tricky to define as gender.
I did confess earlier that I don't have a simple answer and can agree that in such cases of ambiguity we can look to other arenas such as hormones & brain chemicals to help us determine the sex or just leave at 'intersex'. It's possible that those people may not agree with how they identity themselves and their outward appearance. This is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that and they certainly can elect to get gender correction procedure. It still won't change the fact that they were born this way.

To put this way, it's a bit like Michael Jackson saying that he always was white and needed procedure to amend his body to match his self-identity. Except, he was born with dark color. That is irreversible and unalterable even if his self-identity does not agree with one bit of his being born with dark color.

Simplistic? Too narrow? Probably, but any other definition would seem to me at least render the whole point of differentiating one sex from other utterly useless.
  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2009-08-25, 22:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana View Post
Another vote for split.

Hmm, I'm sorry but I don't think changes means that the facts has changed. The fact they're born with the bits is irreversible. It's fixable, alterable, modifiable, changable but it still won't change the fact that they were born with this or that bits.

I also think there's the problem of conflating the definitions as accepted by cultures with more narrow definition of sex in identifying its role in reproduction. Yes, there's so lot of identity associated with sex (e.g. gender). I do not deny this and do appreciate that many people do not always agree with how they identity with themselves and their outward appearance. But it still won't change the fact that they were born with this or that equipment.

I did confess earlier that I don't have a simple answer and can agree that in such cases of ambiguity we can look to other arenas such as hormones & brain chemicals to help us determine the sex or just leave at 'intersex'. It's possible that those people may not agree with how they identity themselves and their outward appearance. This is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that and they certainly can elect to get gender correction procedure. It still won't change the fact that they were born this way.

To put this way, it's a bit like Michael Jackson saying that he always was white and needed procedure to amend his body to match his self-identity. Except, he was born with dark color. That is irreversible and unalterable even if his self-identity does not agree with one bit of his being born with dark color.

Simplistic? Too narrow? Probably, but any other definition would seem to me at least render the whole point of differentiating one sex from other utterly useless.
Split away.

I just want to say upfront that I know you're a good guy, so I'm not having a go at you at all here.

My main point was about "poorly defined" genitalia and hermaphrodites. They can't be easily put into either category. My point about the cultural aspect is that even the need to define sex (and for some, gender) in a binary way is cultural. You can choose to base it on hormones or whatever you want, but that's a culturally determined way of defining it, not a culturally neutral one. Forcing people to fit into a particular set of cultural definitions of what is "real" or "normal" or "what you were born with", etc. not only falls apart under critical analysis, but is, IMO, a gross imposition of cultural baggage onto others. Typically, this type of move is backed by the perceived authority of either science or scripture.

Re: "the role of sex in reproduction", that opens a whole can of worms: What about people born unable to produce babies? What about people who have that ability removed through surgery, accidents, bike seats, etc.? Do they lose their sex? Do they become less of a woman or a man?

Why even have the need to tell people what their sex is at all? Outside of sports, I can't think of a good reason for it. I, for one, do think it's utterly useless.

Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind!
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-08-25, 22:48

I, for one, would like to know upfront what I'm paying for. No surprises kthx.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Chrome to overtake Firefox? (split from Mail thread) Kraetos General Discussion 31 2012-05-25 11:17
The Star Trek Babe Thread (split from the movie discussion thread) Kickaha AppleOutsider 37 2009-05-24 11:41
Hollywood's Unoriginality (split from the Star Trek thread) rampancy AppleOutsider 12 2008-12-05 16:48
Overclocking, building computers, etc. (split from Mac Pro thread) Eugene General Discussion 69 2008-01-14 07:37


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:13.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova