Champion runner to undergo gender testing?

I don't know if she's actually a Hermaphrodite by definition, more like something in-between.

The Australian newspaper reported in its Friday edition that medical reports on the 18-year-old Semenya indicate she has no ovaries, but rather has internal male testes, which are producing large amounts of testosterone

Click to expand...

There was a quite a bit of discussion about this possibility earlier in the thread. It's a tricky question, for sure -- and, once again, just the kind of thing for which I dislike competitive sports.

Prime Junta said:

— and, once again, just the kind of thing for which I dislike competitive sports.

Click to expand...

Come on PJ, this type of thing is *extremely* rare. Definitely not a solid reason to dislike sports.

Prime Junta said:

There was a quite a bit of discussion about this possibility earlier in the thread. It's a tricky question, for sure — and, once again, just the kind of thing for which I dislike competitive sports.

Click to expand...

This sort of thing certainly makes me wonder how meaningful it can be to compete when our bodies can have such profound differences.

Naturally, an extreme case - but even in less extreme cases, it could be a significant factor. What's worse, it's pretty hard to even know about, isn't it.

DArtagnan said:

This sort of thing certainly makes me wonder how meaningful it can be to compete when our bodies can have such profound differences.

Click to expand...

I agree, it makes me happy I'm not a chick.

The problem, I mean the REAL problem is, that no-one on this whole world never ever bothered to think about a third gender or so - a hermaphrodite, for example.

It's just ... people do as if the thing was crystal clear : There's ALWAYS two genders: NOTHING in-between.

Right from a medical standpoint this point of view is just wrong.

But never ever people bothered.

it's a similar thing with people not thinking about what kind of problems handicapped people might have. They just go on building buildings with entrances no wheelchair user could pass ... It's just that people don't bother thinking of OTHER possibilities ... Or me, an HSP ... Or people with synaesthesia (difficult word) ... People just don't believe this might be possible ... Or other things ... Like colour blindness ... And people EXPECT colour -blind people to behave "normal" - like the overall "norm" of people does ...

Folks are generally stupid, because they don't believe other things might be possible. They just to as if there's nothing else as "The Norm".

It's not a "third sex" - it's called a birth defect, Alrik.

and I dont know what youre talking about as far as handicapped accessibility, this is the year 2009. Plenty of people think of the problems of the handicapped, in fact it's mandated by law. "Old Europe" must be behind the times on this one I guess. Here they got all the best parking spots, extra wide and railed stalls in bathrooms, ramps to everything, nothing over certain heights, and so on and so forth, things have to be fully accessible - by law. Being in construction industry, I deal w/ it constantly.

I guess we may have to figure out a new bathroom designation for your so-called "third sex" tho…… behind the times on that one I'll admit ='.'=

xSamhainx said:

It's not a "third sex" - it's called a birth defect, Alrik.

Click to expand...

Well, society isn't dealing with a-, homo-, bi-, and transsexuals too well either, is it now?

Seriously, restrooms aside: why *do* we need to so obsessively categorize everyone as "male" or "female," and then get all confused when someone doesn't neatly fit these categories? Any thoughts, xSamhainx?

(Re handicapped access -- I think the main problem with Old Europe is that it's... old. At least in Finland, new buildings, other than private, individual homes, have to be designed with handicapped access in mind. Thing is, most buildings aren't new. My brother-in-law is wheelchair-bound, and it's quite amazing how much trouble he has to get into places -- for example, to visit us, he has to negotiate a flight of stairs to get to the lift, and then remove one of the wheels to fit into the lift -- and once here, the toilet door is too narrow to fit the chair. Back when this house was built, in 1938, the handicapped were expected to pretty much stay indoors and slowly die.)

I guess that I threw my proverbial hat into the ring when I stated the obvious - that the human species is comprised of the male and female gender. We are different, equal in some ways, other ways we arent so equal. Thus, like it or not, there are norms that have been established along those lines.

I realize that now I'm supposed to settle in for some long, protracted navel gazing on the subject. Some absolutely nebulous, agonizingly boring succession of posts w/ you and DArt picking apart just why it is we as a species recognize that fact, and pretty much always will. And I suppose why you think it's wrong.

Why dont the miniscule number of sexual birth defects on earth get classified as a third sex? Why dont they get their own bathrooms? Where do leather daddies and drag queens fit in?

Sorry, not my thing PJ. That's the reason I stay out of that abbatoir known as the Politics & Religion forum. I've got better things to do w/ my time right now, like kill a legion of Skaven or something. Is that right or wrong? I'll leave that for you guys to mull over…

xSamhainx said:

I guess that I threw my proverbial hat into the ring when I stated the obvious - that the human species is comprised of the male and female gender. We are different, equal in some ways, other ways we arent so equal. Thus, like it or not, there are norms that have been established along those lines.

Click to expand...

But that's not true, is it? There are males and females; there are intersexuals; there are transsexuals; there are homo- and bisexuals; there are asexuals. If you insist on dividing everybody neatly into two categories, you're forcing reality into a mold it just doesn't fit — "obvious" or not.

I realize that now I'm supposed to settle in for some long, protracted navel gazing on the subject. Some absolutely nebulous, agonizingly boring succession of posts w/ you and DArt picking apart just why it is we as a species recognize that fact, and pretty much always will. And let me guess - why you think it's wrong.

Sorry, not my thing PJ. That's the reason I stay out of that abbatoir known as the Politics & Religion forum. I've got better things to do w/ my time right now, like kill a legion of Skaven or something. Is that right or wrong? I'll leave that for you guys to mull over…

Click to expand...

You did bring it up, xSamhainx. That gave me the impression you were interested in discussing the topic. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Edit: Considering that you "stay out of the abattoir," you seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on there.

And edit edit: I'm not entirely sure what I've done to earn this degree of hostility from you, but I wouldn't mind finding out -- if I've wronged you in some way, I'd like a chance to set it right. (Of course, if you just can't stand my politics, that's another matter.)

Prime Junta said:

But that's not true, is it? There are males and females; there are intersexuals; there are transsexuals; there are homo- and bisexuals; there are asexuals. If you insist on dividing everybody neatly into two categories, you're forcing reality into a mold it just doesn't fit — "obvious" or not.

Click to expand...

I think the difference is not one of substance but of semantics. There are two core genders, male and female. There are no other basic genders. So in terms of choices those are the 'black & white' ... but the reality is that, like in so many other things, there is not just the black & white - there are multiple permutations in between. So instead of a lightswitch we have a dimmer or multi-position switch or something.

Just checking ... is anyone debating that there are more than two core genders?

I don't understand what you mean by "core gender." I mean sure, there's a continuum of sorts, with heterosexual males at one end and heterosexual females at the other, but there's a quite a lot of variety between these poles — they're not exclusive categories; they're properties. Sort of like "blacks" and "whites" — you can put a platinum-blond blue-eyed descendant of Vikings at one end, and a jet-black Central African at the other.

Edit: Meaning, categories like "black" and "white" or "male" and "female" are simply labels stuck on things to make them easier to conceptualize; in reality, nature doesn't divide up into such neat categories.

As far as I understand every living being's DNA has mutations during their whole lifetime. Some of the DNA can be copied or fixed succesfully, some may be not and that's when mutations become permanent. That said, every living being likely is something a bit different than just the combination of their parents DNA.

These gender mixups seem to originate while the human being was still in the womb. Permanent mutation during that perioid can have drastic effects for the later development of the individual. Their lot sure is a harsh one.

But in my humble opion I still see we can draw a median what specific species generally is like. That includes genders alike.

Two things:
- With core gender I was saying the same as black / white / gray ... there might be an infinite number of possibilities in between, but they entirely encompassed by the two ingredients of black & white. There is no gray that is made of red & yellow, and there is no sub-gender that isn't comprised of partial male & female.
- I see the B/W and M/F as very different. Race / color has no functional significance in terms other than appearance (and jumping ability according to Jimmy the Greek and Woody Harrelson) ... whereas gender is a biological notation related to reproduction.

PJ - mine is purely a semantic / scientific argument ... the real issue comes in when attempting to assign right / wrong based on where someone falls on the 'gender continuum' or 'sexual preference continuum' ...

Right, that's pretty much how I see it. And no, I certainly wasn't arguing for the existence of a third pole on the gender continuum.

Again, as far as I know, we are still talking of XY and XX chromosomes and their functionality. Instead of new combinations that can be expected occur as a result from the reproduction of the species.

Surlent said:

Again, as far as I know, we are still talking of XY and XX chromosomes and their functionality. Instead of new combinations that can be expected occur as a result from the reproduction of the species.

Click to expand...

Exactly -- they're the two poles of the continuum. However, almost all of us are somewhere between the two poles, not at them, and pretending that we are is at best a simplification, and at worst a straitjacket.

From a genetic point of vierw there are 2 genders, depending on whethere there is an Y chromosome present or not. In most cases there are XX and XY, but there are a few variations such as X0, XXY and such. Still, it's the presence of an Y chromsome that determines genetic gender. (There is a phenomenon called "mosaic", where the cell population is divided into groups with different chromosome patterns. In most cases it's XY and X0. These cases are rare).

But, while the chromosome pattern is basically binary (Y and non Y), the expression of the chromosomes and genes will differ (sometimes the result of normal variation, sometimes caused by disease), introducing a continuum. But this relates to anatomy and the effect of sex hormones, and should, while not completely unrelated, not be mixed with psychological aspects of gender.

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are 3 issies here:

1. Genetic sex (genotype), which is binary.
2. Sexual anatomy and physiology (phenotype) which varies
3. Sexual identity and orientation which varies perhaps even more.

In the case that started this thread, if she has testicles (whether they are inside or outside the abdominal cavity), I can't see how she could be genetically female, as the development of testicles require an Y chromosome. Unless there are mechanisms I'm not aware of. Whether she as an athlete should be considered male is another issue. If she has female sex organs, she either have been exposed to significant amounts of estrogen, or her tissues are relatively insensitive to testosterone. And I've not said anything about how she identifies herself (I assume she was raised as a girl).

And for what it's worth: The "problem" of female atheletes who in some ways are males is penuts compared to the problem of doping. So maybe we shouldn't ask the question at all.

Prime Junta said:

Exactly — they're the two poles of the continuum. However, almost all of us are somewhere between the two poles, not at them, and pretending that we are is at best a simplification, and at worst a straitjacket.

Click to expand...

In principle, yeah. With insignificant mutations (no change to DNA's functionality), I see in practise individuals fall still a lot closer to one pole than the other or straight between the poles though.

lghartveit said:

And for what it's worth: The "problem" of female atheletes who in some ways are males is penuts compared to the problem of doping. So maybe we shouldn't ask the question at all.

Click to expand...

Couldn't doping have caused the changes? That's usually joked about athletes.