What do you think, Hubski? Should she be allowed to participate and win in women’s races?
It looks like the ruling Caster Semenya is fighting is about elevated testosterone levels in women. That is definitely testable. According to the ruling, if a woman has above a certain level of testosterone in her blood, the level must be lowered before she can compete. Seeing how testosterone levels are what causes secondary sex characteristics in men, and also the main reason why men are much stronger than women, this makes complete sense to me. When men transition to women, taking medication to lower testosterone levels is one of the main actions (along with raising estrogen) that cause physical changes.
But that's the rub, right? What definition of "men" and "women" are you using?Seeing how testosterone levels are what causes secondary sex characteristics in men, and also the main reason why men are much stronger than women, this makes complete sense to me.
In this context, I meant cisgendered men and women. Cisgendered men are stronger (and faster, and have faster training recovery) than cisgendered women primarily because of higher testosterone levels. So primarily caring about testosterone levels, to me, sidesteps all the gender politics and focuses on what matters for athletic performance. I rather like this method of doing things, because it's just defining a boundary for a competition class. Weight, equipment allowed, supplements allowed, gender, and now testosterone level allowed. It makes sense to me. In a sense it doesn't even matter how the competitors define themselves.
I assume you mean cisgendered in a biological (XY or XX) sense? If so, then it seems that chromosome is a better divisor as testosterone levels aren't consistent in one individual, and as testosterone is just one factor in numerous downstream biological differences due to the sex chromosome difference.
She's not being banned from participating. She just has to prove she has the testosterone levels of a cisgendered woman, and if she doesn't, she must get the level lowered. According to the ruling, if a woman has above a certain level of testosterone in her blood, the level must be lowered before she can compete. Seeing how testosterone levels are what causes secondary sex characteristics in men, and also the main reason why men are much stronger than women, this makes complete sense to me. The ruling's press release claims: Assuming this is accurate, and a woman has testosterone levels above 5 nmol/L due to one of these reasons, AND it gives a significant advantage, having the athlete take a pill to be eligible in competitions seems okay to me. I mean, when someone takes steroids, they're literally just injecting testosterone into their blood. If a woman has some medical condition that make her testosterone many times higher than normal, it's a pretty significant advantage. Like, arguably as much as taking steroids. No female would have serum levels of natural testosterone at 5 nmol/L or above unless they have DSD or a tumour.
(b) she must reduce her blood testosterone level to below five (5) nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six months (e.g., by use of hormonal contraceptives); and (c) thereafter she must maintain her blood testosterone level below five (5) nmol/L continuously (ie: whether she is in competition or out of competition) for so long as she wishes to remain eligible. This seems such a weird and arbitrary determination. So a male record-holder could legally become female or intersex, artificially lower his/her testosterone levels, and sweep? It's doping in the other direction. XY/XX is so simple. It's what causes testosterone differences.(a) she must be recognised at law either as female or as intersex (or equivalent);
If we use chromosomes, what about a person who was born intersex, and does not have a distinct XX or XY? Born XY? Sure, rule them out. Born with an indeterminate sex? Testosterone levels must be sufficiently low. Besides, Could such a person sweep after lowering their testosterone levels for a continuous period of six months or longer? I'm not so sure. At an elite level I'd think that would make an enormous difference.
First Impression If your only criteria for deciding whether or not a person can compete is based upon gender lines and they fit that criteria, its only fair to let them compete. More In Depth Thoughts In No Particular Order Different athletes have different body types that allow them to perform better or worse in certain sports. For example, if someone with the body of a horse jockey wanted to play basketball, by all means they should play, but it's unrealistic to not realize they're gonna have a significant disadvantage. Similarly, if someone who has the body of a linebacker wants to take up gymnastics, by all means, let them, but realize that they're gonna be at a disadvantage, albeit for different reasons. There's more to a physical edge in sports than just body shape. Like the runner above, sometimes those edges are based in hormone levels. For others, there might be psychological advantages or advantages in pain tolerance or endurance or what have you. If someone has a natural edge for one reason or another, it's not fair to say "nerf your edge or you can't compete." Athletes can either lag behind, keep up, or excel. That's the whole point of sports. Know what's often acknowledged as an edge but rarely talked about? Money and time. Someone who has the money to hire private trainers and physicians, better equipment, better diets, and so on, is gonna have an edge over someone who doesn't. Someone who has the free time to devote thirty hours a week to training is gonna have an edge over someone who can only train for five hours a week. There's a reason professional sports teams dump crazy amounts of time and money into their athletes. If they don't, they're not competitive. Period. I'm all for having more granular distinctions for competition when it makes sense. Sports like Boxing and MMA have weight classes for two big reasons. Partially it's because if you put a welterweight and a heavyweight in the same ring, it's understandable that the fifty pound weight advantage the heavyweight has is pretty much insurmountable. It's literally not a fair fight. More importantly though, it's a huge safety issue. The welterweight, no matter how good they may be, could get seriously, seriously hurt. But for a lot of sports, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Are we gonna start dividing up basketball teams into height classes? Are we gonna divide baseball into age classes? Probably not. Why? Because there's just not a compelling reason to. All of that said, this isn't a black and white issue, as stated in the article. Part of the philosophy of athletics is that things are supposed to be as fair as possible and that athletes shouldn't be unfairly impeded or given an unfair edge, that they should win on their own merits. But as with everything in life, nothing is ever completely fair, and trying to figure out what is and isn't fair and how to balance those things out, will always be tricky, should always be considered and reconsidered and re-reconsidered critically, and will never, ever completely erase that some people will have more of an advantage than others.