>> 3000 metres Steeplechase: Men: 8mins 0.43 secs Women: 9 mins 7.32 secs

In 1952, the Russian (Soviet) Vladimir Kazantsev had a gold medal and record time of 8mins 58.1 secs. These days, he'd be running back with the women. Were men less manly back then? Or do modern training regimens (and quite possibly the covert use of illegal substances or "blood doping" by many top athletes) enable a level of effort impossible for those "ancient" male athletes to match?

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have mentioned anything that would attract a male "pub boast" or "beer brawl," since the typographic and editorial design of the articles "covering" the "controversy" are, for the most part, obviously designed to obfuscate fact and fan the flames of racist hatred, with a delightful soupçon of tranny-bashing to add a little spice.

To a man (and I use the word advisedly) the tabloids and papers both avoid crotch shots (of which there are a great plenty) which might take a little wind from the sails of the boldest blusterers, or expose them to either ridicule or a public outcry against the shameless hue and cry raised by the press (in general -- not specifically) which, in their wisdom, undoubtedly bribed someone with access to her medical records to "spill the beans."

Cynically, one might suppose as well that media outlets in countries fielding women runners might have a vested interest in harassing the competition, to achieve a psychological victory they would not have been able to achieve by fair means.

One might also suppose that, in this particular forum, there would be less readiness to sympathise with the misogynist stereotypers and tranny-bashers who've pumped up this faux tempest in the first place.

I strongly suggest that we all read Georgina Turner's comment on this in The Guardian, referenced below.

According to the sacred "rules," if she's a genetic male born with CAIS, or any of a host of other genetic anomalies, she's eligible to participate in women's sport, as she is if she's a transsexual who has completed the required surgery and sufficient hormone therapy to establish more or less normal levels of hormones for a woman, and if enough time has gone by to eliminate and particular advantage "male" musculature might give, although nothing is said about male skeletal structure.

It's perfectly obvious that she was perinatally-pinked, was raised as a girl, and has the outward appearance of girl's bits. Why isn't she being treated as we're supposed to treat women? Why are there so many hateful comments in the press, and especially from the readership those presses are carefully-designed to serve?

We ought to think about that, really we ought do.

Cheers,

Puddin'

Her mother's defence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/20/caster-semenya-gender-world-championship-dispute

Georgina Turner's editorial on The Guardian web site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/20/caster-semenya-gender-man-woman-athlete

This is not a man who "became" a woman, but a woman who is being hounded for what at most is a genetic defect. A woman who was, until ratted out by a disgruntled competitor, serenely aware of herself as a woman, enjoying the respect of her neighbours and fellow citizens, but now subjected to tests utterly rejected by most of the modern medical establishment, in a vain attempt to prove a binary, black and white, gender system that does not now and never did exist.

There has never been any suggestion, except perhaps by the odd hateful bigot whose brains have been scrambled through exposure to too much Sun, that Semenya is a transsexual, and this would have long been known if so. One doesn't need sophisticated genetic tests to ascertain this basic fact, just a simple gynoecological examination, and in most cases a cursory examination of the external genitalia will suffice, which she's been subject to on numerous occasions through the drugs testing programmes to which all athletes are subjected.

If it's ok to discriminate against intersex and transgendered people in this one field, why not all of them? I'm sure some clever lawyer could come up with a reason (let's say height, which has a proven relationship to "innate authority" and our human tendency to respect big people more than we do small people) that male to female transsexuals should be utterly forbidden in any competitive context, because tall former men would have an unfair advantage over genetic women who hadn't undergone the male adolescent growth spurt when competing for positions of authority and responsibility.

If you're arguing for the "right" to discriminate, surely you can see that discrimination cuts in many directions. All these arguments in favour of excluding transgendered and transsexual individuals from sport work just as well in every other context and, for that matter, *any* gender difference, including lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Anything that makes people uncomfortable puts them at a disadvantage so, in fairness, shouldn't "normal" people be protected from anyone who isn't "normal?"

This was in fact the case when these stupid tests were invented and promulgated, and all these distasteful distinctions were facts of daily life. Do you really want the whole package back? There are a large constituency who do.

Once you let invidious discrimination in the back door to suit your particular prejudice, you'll soon enough find that it's moved in and taken over the lounge.

I'm completely uninterested in sport of any sort, but I'm vitally interested in social systems that have been used to hurt people and disadvantage them, and this is a relic of exactly these hateful systems.

Think about what's being argued here: the right to exclude transgendered and intersexual persons from certain fields with no proof of actual harm, just the suspicion that there might be some subtle effect that might contaminate the general atmosphere of the sport.

Kenyans appear to dominate certain track and field sports, but does that mean that Kenyans (who happen to be Black Africans) should be excluded from competition, because they clearly have a genetic advantage over white people in this one field? And if not, why not? Because they are human?

Too bad, Semenya is human, but "people" are deciding at this very moment whether she will have the opportunity to better her own life and the lives of her family by excelling at a particular sport based on whether or not she passes a test which might as well be one of race or religion.

Cheers,

Puddin'