[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

Put that way, this doesn't seem like a particularly hard issue to me. To reach the highest levels of many sports requires being genetically blessed; >99% of people cannot do it no matter how skilled they are or how hard they work. There's nothing "genetically fair" about top level sports. To be a world class sprinter you must have the ability to build muscle mass, lots of fast twitch muscle fiber, the right build and height, lots of genetics you were born with. Weren't born with those characteristics? Too bad, the event is probably not for you - at least, not if you have to be the best in the world.

And therefore no sports body is trying to regulate VO2Max or height or jointedness.

So the reason this situation has arisen is the other issue, what is a "woman" and a "man"?

Increasingly society is trying to deemphasize that distinction by requiring equal treatment of all genders. But sport (at least human powered sport) has a rigid distinction: you're a woman and compete in women's events, or you're a man and compete in men's events. I think that distinction is necessary, or you basically eliminate top level female athletics. So, how do we define woman and man?

The traditional way is by their genitalia. This athlete, Semenya, is a woman by that standard (the IAAF required her to submit to a physical inspection). She was born with female genitalia, by the way. This is not a trans-sexual case which raises other issues.

The sports bodies are now adding another definition. You have to have female genitalia and testosterone level below that of typical men.

And that's where I'm having trouble figuring this out. Do we really need to add to the definition of woman vs man? If we do, isn't there some biological marker that is more fundamentally determinative of one's sex? It feels like testosterone was picked because it has a direct relation to athletic performance. But it seems that's the wrong reason to pick the marker (see first issue). Seems you should pick a biological marker - maybe a chromosonal characteristic - that isn't simply a proxy for performance.

I get your point, but she isn’t competing at the highest level, that would be the men. She is competing in a class limited to women. Given that division, yes they do need to define women vs men very precisely.