I think this deserves its own discussion.

etothepii · 09-11-2009, 10:38 AM

http://www.comcast.net/articles/spor....Test.Results/

Quote:

SYDNEY (AP) - World 800-meter champion Caster Semenya of South Africa has male and female sexual organs, the Sydney Morning Herald said on Friday, posing an ethical and political quandary for athletics' ruling body.

So this athlete is externally female, but has various man parts on the inside... to put it gingerly.

Therefore, an apparent female has the genetic advantage of male testosterone, without taking drugs.
Disqualified or not? what is your opinion?

I mean bigger and faster guys who excel at football shouldn't be disqualified, just because of their genetics, right?

Lanse Armstrong has a cardio vascular system that is far superior to less genetically gifted people. Should he be stripped of his 7 tour titles?

On the other hand...
Can this particular athlete be called a female, if "she" has testicles???? Is it fair to other female athletes?

boilermaker85 · 09-11-2009, 10:41 AM

i say keep the split tails together! doesnt sound fair to me! that would be like me racing my wife in a shopping spree! she clearly has an advantage!

etothepii · 09-11-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boilermaker85

i say keep the split tails together! doesnt sound fair to me! that would be like me racing my wife in a shopping spree! she clearly has an advantage!

Funny, but I want to debate this...

Here's a thought. VC, you post your idea first, and the rest of us will choose the opposite.

boilermaker85 · 09-11-2009, 10:54 AM

im on whatever side the REV ISNT! LOL

Alsatian · 09-11-2009, 12:33 PM

I'm going to let others figure out how to deal with the woman-man athlete. I'm afraid I just don't care about this subject.

No, you don't disqualify Lance Armstrong because he has a cardio system that far excells that of his fellow bicycle competitors.

It is the nature of sport that people with better bodies outperform others with lesser bodies. And the definition of "better body" and "lesser body" is contingent on the sport you choose. I'm not sure Jim Fix, a great mile runner, would have had a good physique for playing football. Most running backs do not have a physique for playing basketball -- even taking the height out of the equation. One of the things I was struck by when watching a few professional basketball games up close was how slim all basketball players are. I assume there is an optimum muscle mass for strength combined with quickness and the ability to run up and down court for 60 minutes. Lay on the muscle mass like a running back and they can't run up and down court for 60 minutes and are going to start slowing in response to the sudden explosive motion of the opposing player they are supposed to be guarding.

bergall · 09-11-2009, 01:19 PM

Folks, it's simpler than that. The rules of this sort of contest call for a 'visual inspection' to determine the gender of a contestant. So if outward morphological characteristics are the yardstick by which gender is measured, she's already been proclaimed female by the very governing body now being forced to go above and beyond it's own standard in denying a viable contestant their just due as the victor in sporting competition. Had she LOST, she could have had 9 testicles and nobody'd have cared....

vc1111 · 09-11-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Here's a thought. VC, you post your idea first, and the rest of us will choose the opposite.

LMAO....that seems to happen a lot lately!

This one bends my head too much to even guess what should be done.

James B · 09-11-2009, 03:34 PM

This is a weird one, According to FOX new, the visual inspection was inconclusive. That is beyond my understanding.

A final conclusion is supposed to be announced soon.

bawanajim · 09-11-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James B

This is a weird one, According to FOX new, the visual inspection was inconclusive. That is beyond my understanding.

A final conclusion is supposed to be announced soon.

Take a hard look at "Rosie" that should help clear it up for ya.

sachiko · 09-12-2009, 04:31 AM

As far as I know, having testes and no ovaries makes one a guy, even if the testes are internal. A female's adrenals produce a small amount of testosterone, but the large quantity produced by the testes is what differentiates the boys from the girls, and is responsible for allowing more muscular development in guys.

If a person had both ovaries and testes, I'd be inclined to cut him/her some slack and let him/her go by external appearance. But in this case, this individual is a guy even if external appearance is not conclusive.

Unfortunate case