• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2016 Olympic Games, Rio

Yes but is she a bloke? Adams apple big clitoris etc

No, she's a woman, genetically, anatomically, and most importantly, by self-identity.

Such comments aren't particularly cool, esp given the persecution complexes we've already seen on this thread from completely innocent comments.
 
I agree with Heineken, if she is in a fact a Woman and it is just a genetic advantage, then why should she be penalized and have to take an equalizer like some hormone stabilizer?
This shouldn't even have to be argued

Combat sports and Athletics are just not even similar so the lightweight vs Heavyweight analogy is stupidly weak and I don't agree at all with it.

Should we just start bracketing all sports in height, weight and testosterone level groups and have 1 million different medals just to be PC, that would be a disgrace!
It's more difficult than you give credit I think. There is a risk that by allowing intersex people to compete in women's sport, women will be pushed out of sport in general. It is genuinely a 21st Century question; in the past, the number of people who were open about being intersex, and the discrimination they will have undoubtedly faced, meant that it was rare enough for intersex people to be involved at the highest level that it wasn't a question that was pressing to answer. But openness in regards to intersex people and also the increase in people transitioning between sexes means that the numbers competing at the highest level are only going to increase over the decades. What we don't want to happen is that people born women with entirely female characteristics are entirely pushed out of sport, and the top end of female sports are dominated by people whose biology cannot be accurately described as male or female.

But on the other hand, what other options are available? Intersex people may have biological advantages on women, but men surely also have advantages on intersex people too. To exclude intersex people from female events is effectively to exclude them from sport. One solution is to have a third gender event, for intersex and trans people, but there are obvious problems here too: it means terrible policing of sex, and it's unlikely you would get the numbers of athletes necessary for most of the events, especially team sports.

The idea of forcing people to take hormone suppressors to play sport horrifies me though tbh. It is unbelievably nasty.

This question stumps me. I have absolutely no idea what the right thing to do would be. Every option appears to end with nasty consequences.
 
actually i have quite a firm grip on treating people with respect

Well great for you mr social warrior for the bobs in this world (bobs is Bloke Or Bird) like i give a toss. And i make any joke i like you dull ****
 
Lets refrain from this descending into a petty, name calling argument

Ta
 
The idea of forcing people to take hormone suppressors to play sport horrifies me though tbh. It is unbelievably nasty.

Whats actually involved in hormone suppressors? I always thought they were innocuous enough, but may be wrong.
 
It's not the effects of it that bothers me. It's the idea of removing an adult's agency in regards to what goes into and how they control their body, and the echoes of eugenics.
 
Whats actually involved in hormone suppressors? I always thought they were innocuous enough, but may be wrong.
What's the difference between hormone suppressors and chemical castration?
 
I mainly ask because we are moving dangerously close to the massive mistakes of the past if we are going to force people time change who they are on a chemical basis to regarded normal enough. I know this is not the same thing but slippery slopes.

I'm unsure what the exact right answer is. I have a opinion but not one that can be unequivocally correct.
 
It's not the effects of it that bothers me. It's the idea of removing an adult's agency in regards to what goes into and how they control their body, and the echoes of eugenics.

Professional athletics does already do these things to a certain degree, of course. If there are no detrimental effects, either to physical or mental health, it seems a fairly minor evil, if an evil at all.
 
Professional athletics does already do these things to a certain degree, of course. If there are no detrimental effects, either to physical or mental health, it seems a fairly minor evil, if an evil at all.

I agree.

Once committed to a professional sport, I don't think athletes have much control over their own body.
 
It's more difficult than you give credit I think. There is a risk that by allowing intersex people to compete in women's sport, women will be pushed out of sport in general. It is genuinely a 21st Century question; in the past, the number of people who were open about being intersex, and the discrimination they will have undoubtedly faced, meant that it was rare enough for intersex people to be involved at the highest level that it wasn't a question that was pressing to answer. But openness in regards to intersex people and also the increase in people transitioning between sexes means that the numbers competing at the highest level are only going to increase over the decades. What we don't want to happen is that people born women with entirely female characteristics are entirely pushed out of sport, and the top end of female sports are dominated by people whose biology cannot be accurately described as male or female.

But on the other hand, what other options are available? Intersex people may have biological advantages on women, but men surely also have advantages on intersex people too. To exclude intersex people from female events is effectively to exclude them from sport. One solution is to have a third gender event, for intersex and trans people, but there are obvious problems here too: it means terrible policing of sex, and it's unlikely you would get the numbers of athletes necessary for most of the events, especially team sports.

The idea of forcing people to take hormone suppressors to play sport horrifies me though tbh. It is unbelievably nasty.

This question stumps me. I have absolutely no idea what the right thing to do would be. Every option appears to end with nasty consequences.

That's a completely different question though, an intersex person is not a woman? Intersex athletes should not compete against women?

I thought she passed the gender test?
 
Professional athletics does already do these things to a certain degree, of course. If there are no detrimental effects, either to physical or mental health, it seems a fairly minor evil, if an evil at all.
There are two key differences that means this comparison falls down:

Firstly, to my knowledge, sports do not have forcible requirements on athletes to take any particular kind of diet, supplement or medication. Some things may be standard practice, but they are still optional. You probably are unlikely to succeed as an athlete without eating meat, for instance, but you are given the freedom to try to do so.

Secondly, we are talking about erasure of intersex people here.

That's a completely different question though, an intersex person is not a woman? Intersex athletes should not compete against women?

I thought she passed the gender test?
There's a difference between gender and sex. There's no test for gender, it is self-identification.

But in regards to sex, when events in sports are split into men and women because of the physical advantage that men have as caused by their biology, it is not ideal that we use gender as the benchmark. It has to be sex. But this assumes that sex is a binary, which it clearly is not in this case. Hence the inherent difficulty.
 
Last edited:
It's not the effects of it that bothers me. It's the idea of removing an adult's agency in regards to what goes into and how they control their body, and the echoes of eugenics.
Could you expand please? No-one's suggesting hormonal suppression without consent, or controlling who they can or cannot reproduce with.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the difference between hormone suppressors and chemical castration?

No idea, but Id guess a pretty major difference in the suppressing testosterone production in females isn't going to alter her fertility or libido. Bear in mind that the arbitrary threshold the IAAF decided on to lower testosterone levels to is 3 times greater than the 99th percentile of professional female athletes.
As many people are suggesting complete removal of her testosterone as are suggesting doing so without her consent.
 
There are two key differences that means this comparison falls down:

Firstly, to my knowledge, sports do not have forcible requirements on athletes to take any particular kind of diet, supplement or medication. Some things may be standard practice, but they are still optional. You probably are unlikely to succeed as an athlete without eating meat, for instance, but you are given the freedom to try to do so.

Secondly, we are talking about erasure of intersex people here.

Are we? I'm not quite sure what you mean by erasure but to use the example of Semenya, she does not appear physically or mentally changed (could easily be wrong here), her T levels go back up after time suppressing them, and the maximum level that was permitted under the IAAF rules was incredibly high by feminine standards. I'm not expert, but in line with low testosterone men seems likely that they still feel them.

Could be wrong of course. I really don't know much about this. But it doesn't seem like they're forcing intersex people to cease being intersex people to compete.

On the first point - athletes do have a permitted list of medicines, which I would call a forcible requirement on what particular kind they're allowed. I imagine its the same with supplements. I wouldn't be utterly surprised to find scholarship money depends on a certain lifestyle and diet being adhered to.

Without knowing exactly how hormone suppression works, I don't know whether this is a fair comparison. But I did include the caveats of no physical or mental harm.
 
Could you expand please? No-one's suggesting hormonal suppression without consent, or controlling who they can or cannot reproduce with.
Sure.

On my first point: I think it would be somewhat obtuse to believe that only physically forcing someone into doing something is the removal of agency. Semenya cannot compete with men; her personal best in 800m is 1:55, 10 seconds behind the worst result in the 800m final in London 2012. To disqualify her from competing with women is to effectively bar her from professional sports. For Semenya, the choice is effectively: take hormone suppressors, or stop being a professional athlete. When you present someone with a "do this or else", it's a threat in the guise of a choice.

On my latter point: "echoes" is the key word.
 
Lots of professions have requirements though, I don't feel that my agency has been reduced by a requirement to qualify before doing my job.
I also don't think that pole vaulters have lost any agency because they're required to use a regulation pole, or a hurdler has lost their agency by having all these obstacles placed in their way.

I don't see any echoes at all, looks much more like a strawman to me. On the one hand you have enforced breeding / sterilisation; on the other you have voluntary reduction of something that makes no diference to any part of your life* beyond your ability to produce 10 times the amount of testosterone of any of your rivals.

* obviously, if it does have further effects, than its a completely different question
 

Latest posts

Top