Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are making the decision based on people's genes. The decision is based on 46 XY DSD. That's a decision based on genetic makeup.

Right. If you're a woman with a 46 XY DSD, then you have to have (or modify yourself to have) testosterone levels below a specified limit, or you're not allowed to run distances between 400 meters and 1 mile.

But if you're a woman who doesn't have a 46 XY DSD, then your testosterone levels can be anything.

When someone discovers a woman with a condition that is not 46 XY DSD but also gives her 5 times the testosterone levels of a typical biological woman towards the high end of testosterone levels, I would wager there's a good chance a similar ruling would be made to cover that condition.

Is there such a condition?

So, basically, it's a decision they made because Caster Semenya is winning races.

It's a decision they made because a sexist culture determined that "not an obvious penis" means "woman" and we have sex-segregated sports in an attempt to protect women's access to sports and Caster Semenya is a victim of a sexist society, and biological limitations that people with typical female biology have that she does not share, due to being XY.

If Caster Semenya were not XY, and athletically benefiting from the masculinizing that provided for her, no, she would not be affected by this decision. If she won because of a foot mutation, she would not be affected, because we do not have foot segregated sports.

The fact is, we look closely at winners. Lance Armstrong was finally caught because of that scrutiny. Serena Williams is drug tested constantly, because she is phenomenal. Maria Sharapova was found to be using meldonium when it seemed like it was bringing everyone down. And I'm betting there were lots of lower ranked athletes who were never caught, because they don't get the scrutiny the people at the top get. At the top, there is no room for error. If a sudafed can get you stripped of your gold, why on earth would competing as an XY in an event for XX not get scrutiny and consideration?

Thank you for being a freakin voice of reason in all of this nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are making the decision based on people's genes. The decision is based on 46 XY DSD. That's a decision based on genetic makeup.

Right. If you're a woman with a 46 XY DSD, then you have to have (or modify yourself to have) testosterone levels below a specified limit, or you're not allowed to run distances between 400 meters and 1 mile.

But if you're a woman who doesn't have a 46 XY DSD, then your testosterone levels can be anything.

When someone discovers a woman with a condition that is not 46 XY DSD but also gives her 5 times the testosterone levels of a typical biological woman towards the high end of testosterone levels, I would wager there's a good chance a similar ruling would be made to cover that condition.

Is there such a condition?

So, basically, it's a decision they made because Caster Semenya is winning races.

It's a decision they made because a sexist culture determined that "not an obvious penis" means "woman" and we have sex-segregated sports in an attempt to protect women's access to sports and Caster Semenya is a victim of a sexist society, and biological limitations that people with typical female biology have that she does not share, due to being XY.

If Caster Semenya were not XY, and athletically benefiting from the masculinizing that provided for her, no, she would not be affected by this decision. If she won because of a foot mutation, she would not be affected, because we do not have foot segregated sports.

The fact is, we look closely at winners. Lance Armstrong was finally caught because of that scrutiny. Serena Williams is drug tested constantly, because she is phenomenal. Maria Sharapova was found to be using meldonium when it seemed like it was bringing everyone down. And I'm betting there were lots of lower ranked athletes who were never caught, because they don't get the scrutiny the people at the top get. At the top, there is no room for error. If a sudafed can get you stripped of your gold, why on earth would competing as an XY in an event for XX not get scrutiny and consideration?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are making the decision based on people's genes. The decision is based on 46 XY DSD. That's a decision based on genetic makeup.

Right. If you're a woman with a 46 XY DSD, then you have to have (or modify yourself to have) testosterone levels below a specified limit, or you're not allowed to run distances between 400 meters and 1 mile.

But if you're a woman who doesn't have a 46 XY DSD, then your testosterone levels can be anything.

When someone discovers a woman with a condition that is not 46 XY DSD but also gives her 5 times the testosterone levels of a typical biological woman towards the high end of testosterone levels, I would wager there's a good chance a similar ruling would be made to cover that condition.

Is there such a condition?

So, basically, it's a decision they made because Caster Semenya is winning races.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are making the decision based on people's genes. The decision is based on 46 XY DSD. That's a decision based on genetic makeup.

Right. If you're a woman with a 46 XY DSD, then you have to have (or modify yourself to have) testosterone levels below a specified limit, or you're not allowed to run distances between 400 meters and 1 mile.

But if you're a woman who doesn't have a 46 XY DSD, then your testosterone levels can be anything.

When someone discovers a woman with a condition that is not 46 XY DSD but also gives her 5 times the testosterone levels of a typical biological woman towards the high end of testosterone levels, I would wager there's a good chance a similar ruling would be made to cover that condition.

Is there such a condition?