Gold medal athlete Caster Semenya told to prove she is a woman

The world of athletics was hit by controversy tonightafter a female South African athlete who won the 800m final at the world championships was asked to take a gender verification test to prove she is a woman.

Caster Semenya, an 18-year-old who had never competed outside of Africa, before this week aroused suspicions when she posted the fastest 800m time in the world this year, winning gold at the African junior championships.

Semanya, from Polokwane, Limpopo province, possesses an unusually developed muscular frame and a deep voice and has clocked times which belie her youth – tonight's winning time is more than three-quarters of a second faster than Kelly Holmes's career best.

Nick Davies, a spokesman for the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), confirmed today that the test was requested after Semenya's run last month amid fears she should not be allowed to run as a woman. "In the case of this athlete, following her breakthrough in the African junior championships, the gossip was starting to build up," said Davies.

Davies described the tests necessary to determine the gender of an athlete as "an extremely complex procedure" involving medics, scientists, gynaecologists and psychologists, the outcome of which is not expected for several weeks. "The situation today is that we do not have any conclusive evidence that she should not be allowed to run," he said.

www.guardian.co.uk...


This is a huge problem since so many "women" were born male but with faulty sex organs and were sugically altered shortly after birth to be female. The best solution is to stop this "separate but equal" nonsense and have all participants compete together regardless of sex.

Well, she is quite manly...


I mean, i've seen her...hell I thought it was a dude too....

They are going to use psychologists (charlatans) to determine sex.

Why do they feel the need to involve a quack... You either have a penis and two nuts or you don't.

You either have ovaries and birth canal or you don't.

You cannot psychologically analyze a penis or ovaries. This person, whoever they are, is a waste of money - if they are to be used to determine sex.

*What if the quack decides that the female runner is a Man (but only mentally) - will they take her medals because of the quack's decision? Is the quack's presence indicative of some larger conspiracy?

I wonder how much they are paying this individual....



[edit on 19-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

You either have a penis and two nuts or you don't.

You either have ovaries and birth canal or you don't.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

It's not that simple when dealing with the transgendered.

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


Hahaha, yah right, women will blabber on for years about how everything should be equal - until - they have to compete in sports against men.

You take the best women in absolutely any sport, then take a guy ranked 100th in the world, practically an instant win for the man almost every time. If they were all forced to play with men, you would never see women in the top 100, it would be extremely rare if it did occur. That's not sexist, that's reality, so all you feminists out there, shove it.


As far as determining gender, as far as I am concerned, as long as she drops her pants and she doesn't have a bat and balls, that qualifies her for the womens team. Why does it have to get any more complicated than that?

And furthermore, a doctor - ok... a gynecologist - ok.. scientists - ok.. a psychologist????? WHAT?

How does that conversation go?

Psychologist: "Have you ever wanted to pee standing up?"
Athlete: "well, I am sure all women have thought about it at one point"
Psychologist: "AHHH HA! SIGN HER UP FOR THE MENS TEAM!!!"


King says, give me a freakin break.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by king9072


Because it is more complicated that that.

www.sportsscientists.com...

...."private parts" do not alone constitute male or female. This is a rudimentary distinction, but does not acknowledge a range of developmental conditions that can cause male characteristics to develop without there needing to be male reproductive organs. The condition of pseudohermaphroditism is one where male organs develop in varying degrees, and so the absence of male organs is not proof of anything.

Read the article, it’s quite interesting.

Originally posted by king9072


Hahaha, yah right, women will blabber on for years about how everything should be equal - until - they have to compete in sports against men.

Hell - they even have separate competitions in chess!!!

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by king9072


Hahaha, yah right, women will blabber on for years about how everything should be equal - until - they have to compete in sports against men.

Hell - they even have separate competitions in chess!!!

HAHAHAHAHA.. They say you learn something new everyday, and today, this is my gem

What the hell does gender have to do with CHESS?? That's easily the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Women are so quick to say that they are just as smart as men, but won't compete in chess against men? WHAT?

Back to Pauligirl:
Ok, well isn't the reason for the difference because men have greater testosterone levels in their body thanks to their balls producing it non stop?

So, if she doesn't have a set of balls pumping testosterone into her, then what advantage does she have? Even if she's lacking some of her female inner organs, that still doesn't give her any kind of advantage.

It's also interesting, that this was never brought up until she smashed records. Why is it they're never testing the broad who came in 20th?


King quietly places his bet on the fact that the broad who came in second was the person who first spoke out and had the investigation launched.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by king9072]

Originally posted by Pauligirl
[

Because it is more complicated that that.

Yes it is complicated and that's why i say the only answer is to have all competitors compete together instead of separate contests for the women. That would mean most women would have no chance but so be it.

Originally posted by king9072


So, if she doesn't have a set of balls pumping testosterone into her, then what advantage does she have? Even if she's lacking some of her female inner organs, that still doesn't give her any kind of advantage.

If she was male while a fetus in her mother's womb, her mother's body produced hormones that caused her to develop as a male.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by king9072


So, if she doesn't have a set of balls pumping testosterone into her, then what advantage does she have? Even if she's lacking some of her female inner organs, that still doesn't give her any kind of advantage.

If she was male while a fetus in her mother's womb, her mother's body produced hormones that caused her to develop as a male.

Yah, ok, well then she has a bat and balls yes?

Oh she doesn't?

Ok shes a girl.

Case closed.

It is not more complicated.


According to Merriam-Webster, a male produces sperm, and a female produces ova (eggs).

Either she has testicles and a penis (s/he is a male), or she has ovaries and a vagina (s/he is a female).


[edit on 8/20/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

Originally posted by king9072
Back to Pauligirl:
Ok, well isn't the reason for the difference because men have greater testosterone levels in their body thanks to their balls producing it non stop?

So, if she doesn't have a set of balls pumping testosterone into her, then what advantage does she have? Even if she's lacking some of her female inner organs, that still doesn't give her any kind of advantage.

The condition of pseudohermaphroditism is one where male organs develop in varying degrees, and so the absence of male organs is not proof of anything.
en.wikipedia.org...
There’s all kinds of variations

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by king9072
Back to Pauligirl:
Ok, well isn't the reason for the difference because men have greater testosterone levels in their body thanks to their balls producing it non stop?

So, if she doesn't have a set of balls pumping testosterone into her, then what advantage does she have? Even if she's lacking some of her female inner organs, that still doesn't give her any kind of advantage.

The condition of pseudohermaphroditism is one where male organs develop in varying degrees, and so the absence of male organs is not proof of anything.
en.wikipedia.org...
There’s all kinds of variations

You're going into details. But lets just go back a step, to where being a male is an advantage over a female.

The reason why men are physically bigger, stronger, and faster than women is because of their far higher testosterone levels.

Why do men have more testosterone? Because of their balls.

So if a man doesn't have balls to produce extra testosterone, he has lost his advantage over women, estrogen eventually takes over and starts to turn them into a more feminine shape.

So without balls, what advantage does she have? Honestly.

You can say all you want about how many variations of "it's" there are, but it doesn't matter, cause all of that is irrelevant in this discussion. Even if she can't produce eggs or is missing some female aspects, that still doesn't give her an unfair advantage. Period.

This whole thing is about an unfair advantage. If she doesn't have an unfair advantage, she is allowed to compete, it's as simple as that. Or... it should be anyways.

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45

 

Hahaha, yah right, women will blabber on for years about how everything should be equal - until - they have to compete in sports against men.

You take the best women in absolutely any sport, then take a guy ranked 100th in the world, practically an instant win for the man almost every time. If they were all forced to play with men, you would never see women in the top 100, it would be extremely rare if it did occur. That's not sexist, that's reality, so all you feminists out there, shove it.


As far as determining gender, as far as I am concerned, as long as she drops her pants and she doesn't have a bat and balls, that qualifies her for the womens team. Why does it have to get any more complicated than that?

And furthermore, a doctor - ok... a gynecologist - ok.. scientists - ok.. a psychologist????? WHAT?

How does that conversation go?

Psychologist: "Have you ever wanted to pee standing up?"
Athlete: "well, I am sure all women have thought about it at one point"
Psychologist: "AHHH HA! SIGN HER UP FOR THE MENS TEAM!!!"


King says, give me a freakin break.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by king9072]

If she has a "bat and balls" put her on the mens baseball team for the Olympics!

reply to post by IntelRetard


Apparently someone didn't read my post!

Clearly, if she has a ball and bat in her pants, they aren't regulation size. Sigh.

Originally posted by king9072
This whole thing is about an unfair advantage. If she doesn't have an unfair advantage, she is allowed to compete, it's as simple as that. Or... it should be anyways.

Actually, I agree with that. But the world of sports competition doesn't.
What I was saying was the question of gender is not that simple.

Also, she may have higher levels of testosterone that the average woman does because of a medical condition. Is that unfair? I don't know.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by king9072
This whole thing is about an unfair advantage. If she doesn't have an unfair advantage, she is allowed to compete, it's as simple as that. Or... it should be anyways.

Actually, I agree with that. But the world of sports competition doesn't.
What I was saying was the question of gender is not that simple.

Also, she may have higher levels of testosterone that the average woman does because of a medical condition. Is that unfair? I don't know.

Yay we agree now!

I was never debating that the issue of sexuality is very complicated. And in day to day life, it is important that there are distinctions because some people are born women, but feel they are men at heart. And eventually get a sex change to make themselves feel better and more "right".

In those cases, yes it's very complicated.

But as I said, this is sports were talking about, not sexual confusion.

The reason we have the distinction of men and women's sports is because of the unfair advantage men have over women physically.

So if she doesn't have a physical advantage becuase of mens parts, then she doesn't have an advantage, and thus there should be no reason to eliminate her.

Originally posted by king9072


So if she doesn't have a physical advantage becuase of mens parts, then she doesn't have an advantage, and thus there should be no reason to eliminate her.

As i said earlier, if she was male while in her mother's womb then she/he was bathed with hormones produced by the mother that gave her male characteristics that stay with her throughout her life. Her brain may have been hard-wired for the male world.

I read a book a few years back about a guy who had his penis destroyed during an infantile circumcision and he was altered in to a female and given female hormones and raised as a girl and it didn't work worth a damn. He thought and acted like a male and eventually chose to live like a male though of course without a penis.

Originally posted by king9072

But as I said, this is sports were talking about, not sexual confusion.

The reason we have the distinction of men and women's sports is because of the unfair advantage men have over women physically.

So if she doesn't have a physical advantage becuase of mens parts, then she doesn't have an advantage, and thus there should be no reason to eliminate her.

I guess here's where the sexual confusion comes in....I really don't know what her circumstances are....but, while she may not have external man parts, yeah, the dangley bits, she could have internal testes instead of ovaries, or ovaries that produce more testosterone, leading to more muscle development and strength. It may not be all about what's on the outside.