Caster Semenya

[raym55]

While not directly addressed to me, providing high testosterone levels are naturally occurring then no restriction should be placed.
If the athlete falls into the correct gender category and is not taking performance enhancing drugs than they should be free to compete in their chosen event.

[Xanthe]

This principle extends further (pun intended as you’ll see later!) as well.

Take people with hypermobility (hence the pun) and caused, for instance, by Marfan’s syndrome. They have an advantage when competing in gymnastics, particularly female gymnastics. This is also a natural advantage, and one that cannot be “normalised” by drug therapy; do you ban them as well?

[Xanthe]

XXY and XYX are the same thing.

[Hmack]

If the athlete falls into the correct gender category and is not taking performance enhancing drugs than they should be free to compete in their chosen event.

I do have sympathy for this position, and I fully understand why others feel this way. I also feel a huge amount of sympathy for Caster Semenya herself in respect of the media frenzy to which she is subjected from time to time.

However, the caveat around the question of ‘if the athlete falls into the correct gender category’ is an issue and potentially not a binary ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in some cases. I believe that the results of the testing that Semenya underwent some 10 years ago have not been made public, and on medical grounds quite rightly so, but there has been quite a bit of media speculation about these results. A horrendous ordeal for the athlete herself, although she appears to have coped with the situation very well.

I can understand why others feel differently, but in this particular instance I also have to feel a lot of sympathy for the world’s leading 800m and 1500m female athletes who are of the opinion that they face an unfair and insurmountable disadvantage when they compete against Semenya.

[Hmack]

This principle extends further (pun intended as you’ll see later!) as well.

Take people with hypermobility (hence the pun) and caused, for instance, by Marfan’s syndrome. They have an advantage when competing in gymnastics, particularly female gymnastics. This is also a natural advantage, and one that cannot be “normalised” by drug therapy; do you ban them as well?

I fully understand the point you make, and my only reply is that the whole issue is extremely complex and that there is probably no single position that can be deemed to be ‘right’.

Now, I hasten to add that I am not a doctor, but Marfan’s syndrome may not be the best analogy to use. From what I can gather, although Marfan’s syndrome may endow an individual with unusual flexibility, there are other aspects of the syndrome that mean that participation in strenuous sports is not recommended. Still, I understand that you were simply making the point that there might well be any number of other factors (both natural and artificial) that can endow an athlete with a physical advantage.

This is not an easy topic on many fronts, nor is it one with an easy or completely fair answer.

[Xanthe]

I very much agree about the complexity…

In some ways Marfan’s is a good example as some forms* of the syndrome don’t have much risk associated with strenuous activity and yet still provide the hypermobility, while others are definitely severely limiting. It thus nicely illustrates the complexity.

*There are over 1,300 possible misfolds of the fibrillin-1 protein, however only 65 (last count of which I am aware) are definitively known to occur in people. In some forms such as the one I have, the misfold primarily affects (one or more of) the venous walls, ligaments and tendons, having relatively little effect of the cardiac, arterial and ocular tissues. In such cases strenuous activity usually isn’t much of an issue.