Slashdot Mirror
How To Prove Someone Is Female?
krou writes "Caster Semenya won the 800m at the World Athletics Championship in blistering style, leaving her competitors in the dust, but she has been thrown into the midst of a scandal amidst claims that she's not really a woman. According to the many press reports, she's believed to shave, is flat chested, has a very masculine physique, previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing. Questions about her gender have dogged her entire career. Previously, acceptance that she is a women relied on simple inspection of female genitals. But now the IAAF claim that they want to conduct further tests to see if 'she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' An IAAF spokesmen noted that 'The [testing] process was started after Semenya made her startling breakthroughs — a 25-second improvement at 1500m and eight seconds at 800m, just some weeks ago.' I'm curious what the Slashdot community thinks: what can be considered proof of someone being male or female? Is it simply a case of having the right genitals, or are there other criteria that should be used? Is the IAAF right in claiming that someone should be prevented from competing because they have a rare medical or genetic advantage?"
"she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' "
What kind of bullshit is this? Your genetics are 80% of the winning. Personally, I was born with messed up feet so I have always known that I wouldn't be the sprinting world champion. The fact that this woman(because that's what she is) has the better genetic profile to win these kinds of races is to her advantage and the people who didn't win are to accept that or play another game.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
That.
I would also use this occasion to state my amusement to see these sports officials embarrassed about someone having a clear advantage that can not be put on special training, drugs, equipment or techniques. At a high level, performances in sports like athletics will show differences that can have a clear genetic cause (that's okay. That is, after all, a feature of evolution, that some individual will outperform others on specific tasks) yet refuse to acknowledge it and emphasize on the training and work of athletes.
Athletes keep talking about sports' spirit, about how it is all about fairness and balance. I am happy to see some reminders that top competitions are mostly about unfair genetic advantage. This focus on the top 1st, the gold medal, the world champion, is a bit insane. The most respectable difference I see in sport is between amateur and well-trained. Between these two levels, the difference is clear and is mostly about efforts. But it is not very convenient or spectacular to build a mediafest around.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I disagree. Her ability to run was what got this whole discussion started in the first place :P
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
I somewhat agree with you but a 'rare genetic variation' is simply that, RARE. Under normal circumstances, there are genetic markers that distinguish a male from a female and if this particular athlete has a rare variation or abnormality in his/her DNA then that bridge should be crossed when it's come to.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
And lastly, I'd like to believe that as a community that espouses scientific values and intelligent discourse, the answer should be obvious:...
Bad girlintrainig! You never, ever, EVER presume that just because someone is smart and intelligent they should agree with you -- or that, just because someone disagrees with you, they're either not smart or not intelligent.
I'd say it's far more scientific to brand gender and sex as immutable based on your genetics than to relegate it to subjective measurements And on that note...
Life is full of delicious ambiguity, and people assume that two polar opposites (male and female) have nothing in between. But life isn't like that. Life is a spectrum, and any place we draw the line is arbitrary -- not natural. Nature has its own laws, which are not the laws of men.,
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology. Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic). ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
And additionally, the obnoxious notion of "fairness" further complicates the issue.
When issues like these come up, I'm always reminded of Harrison Bergeron
Also I think you have to define it genetically otherwise people that have a sex change could compete as the sex they want to.
You know, from my point of view, all of these world-class athletes are genetic abnormalities. It's a little rich for them to point to the best of themselves and yell "SHE'S the freak!"
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Even criminals have rights.
If one wants to compete, they have to take a test. If they don't consent, they don't compete. This is not a violation of rights because there is no necessity or right to compete.
http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun
Genetic variants? By many accounts, China outright fabricated passports for some of their prepubescent gymnasts in the last olympics. After an initial hand flapping, that got ignored. But some poor girl who (apparently through no fault of her own) has some natural advantage is being punished. That is simply crazy.
So she has a rare genetic makeup, doesn't every world class athlete have a rare genetic makeup? I consider myself ordinary male and I can't do most of the stuff even a female Olympic athlete can.
Athletes, the Track & Field ones, are already required to piss in a cup for drug testing. The results of which will eventually be published for a positive test. DNA testing is just an extrapolation of an existing process. From the IAAF's perspective participants have no right to hide their sexual identity. Don't like the rules? go form your own organization. Vince McMahon will tell you that's a dumb idea (re: XFL with no drug tests). You want to talk about privacy invasion, try looking at the list of drugs which aren't allowed in an athlete's system and see how many you may have in your medicine cabinet. The majority of cough medicines are verboten. The right question isn't so much about privacy as much as it is how a governing organization should go about sanctioning a fair competition.
He already said that someone who couldn't produce either is a neuter.
He already said that someone who couldn't produce either is a neuter.
I realise you don't buy into that definition, which is fine, but it is a waste of time asking a stupid question that has nothing to do with what he was saying.
And even if you were genuinely curious about his answer to those two questions, you'd still need to clarify - after all, when we cut the nuts off a male dog, we say it's been neutered. And at what point is this surgery done? At birth before any eggs or sperm have been produced? Are they adult? You don't care about the answers (neither do I) - you're just engaging in a really silly argument.
His statement is essentially nine plus nine equals eighteen. And you're arguing that this is incorrect because it's not true if we're using base eight in which neither nine or eighteen exists.
Who said it's the government? It amazes me how many "libertarians" equate business with government.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Go read about androgen insensitivity syndrome. A person with complete androgen insensitivity has the external appearance (including external genitals) of a normal female, and usually has been raised with a female identity, and so identifies as a girl or woman. But she has no menstrual period because she has no ovaries or uterus -- she has an XY genotype and undescended internal testes. Androgens (male hormones) create the male external appearance; in the absence of androgens, a fetus develops a female appearance -- and parents and society assign a female identity.
It seems to me that a reasonable approach to dealing fairly with intersexed people in sports would be to replace sex separation with weight-class separation. Human sex and gender turn out to be complex and fraught with both social and technical problems, and it is unreasonable to deny an athlete the chance to compete just because their genetic curiosity happens to be on the 23rd chromosome.
Oh, that's right. I forgot there's only two options and no possibility of deviation from those options AT ALL.
Fucking moron.
Since in the vast majority of cases, it really is one of those two options - it seems like the logical first step, given that invasive testing is apparently already the norm for track and field anymore. If Caster's test shows XX or XY, either way the case is closed. Arguing that a remote possibility of a different genetic state exists means you can't first test for the heavily dominant typical state is, quite frankly, silly. That's like arguing that a doctor shouldn't do an influenza test on a patient with flu-like symptoms because there's a remote possibility it's Brucellosis.
#DeleteChrome
If your body, for whatever reason, allows you to outperform others without the interference of artificial performance-enhancing substances, congratulations. You win.
What this whole argument has thus far ignored is the fact that athletes need at least as much if not more mental strength and inherent talent than physical strength. What she has accomplished has at least as much to do with her mind as her body.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
It's becoming increasingly hard for me to tell the difference.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
One of the most surefire way is to see if her gametes can play their respective roll. If they can manage to form a viable embryo from her egg, case closed. If not, some more testing would be needed. Also, a genetic advantage is the reason most athletes get the gold. If she has a rare/new trait, what are you going to do when a larger percentage of the population has it in the future? It's just as discriminatory to ban them now as it would be later. Especially if it's a naturally acquired trait.
Help fight spam
Says who? Then all men who perform worse than (pro-)women should compete in women's competitions? Should short and weaker men be allowed in women's baskteball? The rules said that the division is based on genre. There will be people who perform exceptionally well, and sometimes genetics will play a part. Having exceptions is normal. Should we forbid every baskteball player taller than a certain amount over the average to compete since their genetics give them an unfair advantage? That's just nuts.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Mod parent up. Those with a natural genetic advantage should be allowed to compete and excel...this includes Shaq, Phelps, or anyone else with a natural genetic advantage.
Of course, this is going to be pretty hard on the women, since they get the short end of the genetic stick regarding certain physical traits. But there are many, many MEN that cannot compete with either the men or the women in certain sports. Statistically, there are nearly as many men that cannot compete with the best male athletes as there are females that cannot compete with the best male athletes. And as an average man I know I would have no chance against many female athletes.
I understand that the idea of a female league/sport/category for sports is something that a lot of people want, but things like TFA's quandary are just rule quibbles. There's nothing like "Oh, she was faster, but she's not really a she so it doesn't count". If she was faster, she was fucking faster, just like all the male athletes that are faster and you exclude from your league to give it a reason to exist.
I have persistent thoughts of hoping I die because I feel very strongly that I need to be a woman. I shy away from mirrors in self-disgust. I have to avoid seeing women in general or I will start to get jealous of them. I hate my life.
Why would i choose this?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
To answer the question of whether or not she should be allowed to compete as a female if she is not 100% female, one must first consider the question of whether women should be competing in a separate class at all.
Let's avoid the underlying moral and philosophical issues and just stick with the practical reason for setting things up so women compete separately: approximately 50% of the population is female, so it is a political necessity. You can argue all sorts of other reasons, but when it really comes down to it, that is the crux of it.
And if you really think about it, we don't actually have women competing against women in one group and men competing against men in another group. What we REALLY have is women competing against women in one group, and EVERYONE ELSE competing in another group. Men are not set up as a protected class, it is only women who are set up as a protected class. If a sufficiently gifted female runner wanted to compete against men, I very much suspect that she'd be allowed to do so.
Once you realize the reality that female sports are basically a protected class based on a political reality, the answer to the other question becomes pretty simple: anyone who is not 100% female is not part of the "protected class" and should therefore compete in the "everyone else" category.
Is it fair? Maybe not. But how is having women compete separately "fair" in the first place? It is just for political expediency, and personally I don't see anything wrong with it if it keeps 50% of the population happier and more fulfilled than they otherwise would be without causing any undue hardship on a significant part of the population.
There is a problem with this. Back when East Germany took young children to athletics camps and raised them on cocktails of steroids so they would grow up better it was wrong, and in the modern world when "some other regime" who cares more for their country winning than the effects on the athletes does the same thing with genetic selection or genetic engineering it will still be wrong
Do you suppose that already there is not some party official who has seen Usain Bolts leg measurements and thought to check the leg measurements of all the young children in order to select future winners for special training? What about when that official sees that yes indeed, longer legs means faster sprinters and orders tests done to find an undetectable method of increasing leg lengths while the child is growing? Sure, some will grow too much and live a life of misery (or just get put in the meat grinder with the other failures) but the ones who come out perfect will be winners and nobody will ever know.
The problem is that it is not "people" that want to push themselves to death, it is "people" who want to push others to their deaths and that is not something I want to sponsor. How do we protect against it when we clearly can't detect the causes? The only way is to have a range of norms and only allow those inside that range to compete.
Unfortunatley for her, it seems that Caster does in fact fall outside of the range of normal (just look at the pictures, she is not normal even when compared to other female runners), and for me the question is not whether we allow her to compete or not but what will happen if we do? I assert that that party official will be trawling orphanages immediately looking for other genetic deformities that can be exploited similarly. Won't somebody please think of the children?