Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:29 PM
Mon Nov 9
52 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/09/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
08/25/09
It's totally understandable that officials and other runners might want to confirm her gender.
08/25/09
For three or four days, Jezebel has insisted on this ridiculous argument.
More info:
Today, some media outlets reported that Caster Semenya's testosterone levels were three times higher than those normally expected in a urine sample. Obviously, given the context of the case, a lot of people are now saying "See, it's proof".
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It MAY turn out to be a piece of the puzzle, it MAY become significant when put in the context of all the other results, but by itself, it actually doesn't mean too much. The main problem is that "normal" is a moving target, and there is a pretty wide range of testosterone levels in any population. So we need to understand what "normal" means - is it the typical level in the female population? Is it the highest level in the athletic population? The difference is important.
Perhaps the best way to treat this report for now is to say that the raised level is possibly a flag for something else, and further testing could establish what this is. Regardless, the position, for now, remains the same - wait on the collection of tests before drawing conclusions.
What is interesting is that this measurement was apparently obtained weeks before Berlin, and prompted the IAAF to request further testing. It was also the catalyst for them requesting that Semenya not enter the 800m event, since further testing was deemed necessary. Note that this was a request that would have been made jointly by the medical officer in charge of the testing and the IAAF, not just the IAAF. ASA refused, and the rest is, well, massive controversy.
And finally, it's now emerged that the leak that saw this process made public came because a fax was sent to the wrong person. What a pity for such a sloppy mistake to have such repercussions, and the IAAF will hopefully take action there, because they've also got a great deal to answer for when it comes to the leak. Not for the process or their policy, mind you, but for this leak, which was a grave error.
[www.sportsscientists.com]
08/25/09
If a male athlete had above-normal testosterone levels, and they were found to be natural, would he be docked for having a chemical advantage? Would he be asked not to compete against the normies? Or would we accept that men who have MORE of the hormone commonly associated with males are still males and not some super-breed of half-man, half-supercreature?
What characteristics do men with abnormally high levels of estrogen exhibit? Above par soup-making skills - what?
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
As an example, see the WNBA. It's hard to make it as a basketball player in the NBA unless you're 6'2 or above, honestly 6'5 is almost required. How many women could make it if it wasn't segregated? We'd be wasting so many talented young women who love basketball.
When puberty hits for boys, it spurs growth in height and muscle mass. So yeah, that's pretty much when you need to start segregating.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
She's got a gift, she's harnessed it, leave her alone.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
A MUCH smaller percentage of those individuals would have those differences affect their athletic performance. Right. The problem people have is that she's good. If she was intersexed (assuming she even is) but wasn't winning, nobody would care. And if the way a person is born naturally gives them an advantage, we can just ban them from participating in athletics? That seems ridiculous to me.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/26/09
Apparently this test result was supposed to be kept confidential. It's pathetic that someone would leak this.
08/27/09
08/25/09
This logic is often applied to explain the dearth of women in many fields (science, for one, but also investment banking, eg), and I think it's very faulty. As with many other lines of reasoning that attribute lack of women in a certain field to biological causes, it is often taken at face value, while the the actual evidence for a statement like this is far from conclusive. Some studies actually find that women are MORE willing to take risks than men. A 1999 study on risk taking in the form of a math test found that the only significant risk-taking difference between men and women appeared in children ages 10-13, and was largely gone by age 18, for example. I think it's important to emphasize that discrimination (overt or otherwise) often provides a much simpler explanation for underrepresentation of women.
08/25/09
08/25/09
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with men?
Peasant 1: Praise them.
Sir Bedevere: And who do you praise, apart from men?
Peasant 1: More men.
Peasant 2: Puppies.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do you praise puppies?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... awesome?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of awesome?
Peasant 1: Sunshine flies out of her butt!
Sir Bedevere: Of course. So what else shines with light that way?
Peasant 1: The sun!
Peasant 2: Which sounds like son!
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. And who runs really fast?
Peasant 1: A man, who is someone’s son!
Sir Bedevere: Therefore…
Peasant 2: It’s a man!
08/25/09
Sir Bedevere: A newt??
Peasant 2: ...I got better.