Glorianny
So I'm wrong because I post links to judgements by various bodies, which you all seem prepared to ignore in favour of your own prejudices.
You call transwomen men
You call an intersex woman a man.
Honestly it is pure prejudice.
There is more information about the subject here theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448
But I don't expect you to read it. Your minds are closed.
Well I've just read it. Did you read it all the way through? It lists 10 points to refute the decision.
Point 1 immediately says the ruling confuses sex with gender.
Sex determination was abandoned in the 1990s in favour of gender. From the 2000 Sydney Olympics forwards, there were no tests of gender other than self-identification. So athletes compete with their gender not their sexed bodies do they?
Point 2 conflates testosterone levels in XY people (males) with those in XX (females) with a rare condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
Point 3 draws on the difference testosterone makes between males and females in all events is estimated to be up to 12% (all other items being equal). But Semenya’s best time is only 2% faster than her competitors. this is easily explained by Semenya not being an elite athlete when compared with the correct sex class. Mediocre men can still beat elite women, in fact boys' sporting records often exceed elite women's around the age of 15 years.
Point 4 is beyond parody. The self-professed values of sport include the development of one’s own talent . but don't worry about women cheated out of their achievements eh?
Point 5 is a repeat of point 2
Point 6 argues If the rules are to be changed, they should not affect athletes who agreed to the current rules, but future athletes.There should be a “grandmother clause” for current athletes, like Semenya or else they are unfairly burdened by the bungles of the IAAF. Even if these rules could be considered justified, they should apply to future athletes as soon as possible after puberty. and justice is about giving priority to the worst off in our society so female athletes should just accept being cheated out of their just rewards and that's justice?
Point 7 states The concern is that if “XY females” are allowed to compete in the female category, formerly male transgender females will follow and rob cisgender women of their medals. the author states transgender athletes can be dealt with by different rules, acknowledging they have had a male puberty.
Point 8 argues that testosterone reduction These interventions interfere with a normally functioning organism for highly uncertain benefits to other people. This is disproportionate and unreasonable. so fairness to women athletes is disproportionate?
Point 9 states with regard to testosterone reducing medication Their use would be “off label” and is for purposes other than the athlete’s health. if these medications adversely affect male athlete's health that raises questions about their use in other situations ?
Point 10 is , well what can I say. I have argued athletes should be able take performance-enhancing substances within the normal physiological range. This would mean cisgender female athletes could take testosterone up to 5 nMol/L. This would reduce any advantage Semenya may have. So males suppressing testosterone bad for their health, but females supplementing with testosterone suddenly OK. Except Semenya won't lower testosterone levels to <5nMol/L.
Are you going to answer my question in my earlier post criteria set as always by men when you use men here do you mean biological males or some other category, it gets so confusing when these words have no definitive meaning? Maybe you're confused by your own usage?

