Caster Semenya New Ruling

[imtommygunn]

Not surprised by Syferus' approach here and the inability to understand the difference between sex and gender.

Ross Tucker, a big fan of Semenya, has the right idea here. Sport is segregated on the basis of sex for to the massive physical advantages testosterone bestows on males. An example he gave was of the thousands of nowhere-near-elite make runners you've never heard of worldwide who run faster than Radcliffe's record for the women's marathon. Semenya and anyone like her have an unfair physical advantage. That's the end of it.

That said, because of the hateful things said about her for years by her fellow colleagues and athletes, I hope this isn't the end of it and she continues to batter them.

I would pretty much agree with all of that. 

[Syferus]

You have an amazing ability to ignore being called out when acting the pompous overbearing gobshite.

You need to calm down a bit and check who called what you posted nonsense, and then maybe apologise for being such a rude ass.

[Orchard park]

You have an amazing ability to ignore being called out when acting the pompous overbearing gobshite.

You need to calm down a bit and check who called what you posted nonsense, and then maybe apologise for being such a rude ass.

Well I apologise . Its  talisman you had the pop at.

But yiuntutally failed to answer any of my questions while acting the expert

[gallsman]

Good article here for people who can't grasp that this is about biology rather than equality or political correctness.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/sports/track-gender-rules.html#click=https://t.co/CivbxIAp63

[Asal Mor]

Good article here for people who can't grasp that this is about biology rather than equality or political correctness.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/sports/track-gender-rules.html#click=https://t.co/CivbxIAp63

Excellent article. Explains it really well.

[nrico2006]

Still, its a disgraceful decision.

[gallsman]

Still, its a disgraceful decision.

Why?

[nrico2006]

Still, its a disgraceful decision.

Why?

She has a natural advantage that she is making the most of, something which happens in every sport.  Pinpointing this over other physical advantages seems very unfair. 

[gallsman]

Still, its a disgraceful decision.

Why?

She has a natural advantage that she is making the most of, something which happens in every sport.  Pinpointing this over other physical advantages seems very unfair.

Did you even read the article? Ross Tucker was on Off The Ball a couple of days ago - listen to it.

Women's sport is a protected category for a reason - they physiologically can't compete with men because of the biological advantages males gain as a result of testosterone production. Semenya and others enjoy some of those same advantages whilst competing in a protected category that is meant to eliminate them.

This is a matter of biology - not equality, racism, political correctness or anything else. It's not pinpointing a specific advantage over others (such as your tall basketballers suggestion), it's about the specific barrier and reason way women's sport is protected.

Simplistic as it is, think of the Paralympics - they are all protected categories for one reason or another. Nobody would ever turn around and say able bodied athletes are discriminated against in a race for amputees because of their natural physical advantages.

[nrico2006]

Still, its a disgraceful decision.

Why?

She has a natural advantage that she is making the most of, something which happens in every sport.  Pinpointing this over other physical advantages seems very unfair.

Did you even read the article? Ross Tucker was on Off The Ball a couple of days ago - listen to it.

Women's sport is a protected category for a reason - they physiologically can't compete with men because of the biological advantages males gain as a result of testosterone production. Semenya and others enjoy some of those same advantages whilst competing in a protected category that is meant to eliminate them.

This is a matter of biology - not equality, racism, political correctness or anything else. It's not pinpointing a specific advantage over others (such as your tall basketballers suggestion), it's about the specific barrier and reason way women's sport is protected.

Simplistic as it is, think of the Paralympics - they are all protected categories for one reason or another. Nobody would ever turn around and say able bodied athletes are discriminated against in a race for amputees because of their natural physical advantages.

I just have issue over how one trait can be picked over another as being the advantageous one when there are obviously countless.  The average man would not exceed 6ft yet those whose biological makeup gives them an above average height will excel at certain sports (basketball, high jumping etc) - it is no different.  Some men are born with more fast twitch fibres, therefore their bodies have a biological advantage over those with less fast twitch fibres.  Same with Armstrong in cycling, where pre the drug furore it was always pointed out that his exceptionally large heart was a genetic advantage he held over his competitors, yet there were no calls for him to be punished because of this. These are the obvious examples, with my issue being over the inconsistency of the whole thing and where you draw the line.  She has been treated criminally from she burst on to the scene 8/9 years ago and it's actually unbelievable that she still is competing given the obstacles put in front of her and the personal intrusion that she has had to deal with since then.  Why not target the actual cheats and get rid of them from sport when there is evidence that suggests that dopers can retain the advantages given by anabolic steroids decades after the point at which they were taken.  Yet they get a wee ban and are allowed to compete restriction free.  Doesn't seem fair does it?

[gallsman]

I just have issue over how one trait can be picked over another as being the advantageous one when there are obviously countless.  The average man would not exceed 6ft yet those whose biological makeup gives them an above average height will excel at certain sports (basketball, high jumping etc) - it is no different. 

It's very different. Basketball for short people isn't a protected category. If it was, then yes, a 7ft tall player shouldn't be allowed. But it's not. Same as Armstrong or Steve Redgrave - there's no dividing lines within men's sport that regulate heart size.

Women's sport very much is a protected category. Semenya is not biologically female, so why should she be allowed complete in that protected category?

Semenya has been treated shamefully, most of all by some of her fellow competitors. Nobody in their right mind would dispute this. Throughout the entire saga she has been the personification of dignity. That doesn't make it any more "fair" on some of the athletes she's racing against.

Steroids/doping etc, while obviously important, has nothing to do with this specific topic.

[nrico2006]

I hope that her appeal is successful:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/56155793

[nrico2006]

Mad that this competitor is allowed to compete in women's weightlifting yet Semenya still being discriminated against   https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/weightlifting/57548861.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjjkOuYiKvxAhURkRQKHXKrAOwQr_oDegQIJxAB&usg=AOvVaw29NuXiTP_xqmH5JRJuMrqq