Pants-of-dog wrote:There is no evidence.
So what we can say us that the current decisions being made, one way or the other, are being made on a basis other than a scientific one.
Well, this is certainly true.
I know I'm not an expert on this issue, but just from a basic sense of "fair play", the difference in the IOC's attitude towards Laurel Hubbard and Caster Semenya rubs me the wrong way. This isn't even a slight against Hubbard, really - after all, she's competing according to the rules the IOC set. (I still think she has a major unfair advantage, but I doubt she specifically transitioned with the goal of cleaning up in women's weightlifting, so I can't really think of her as a "cheat" or anything like that).
What I question is the process behind how those rules were decided on and enforced.
It seems quite clear, for example, that the "5 nmol/L" rule for female middle distance runners was specifically designed to target and exclude Semenya for a genetic condition she has no control over, most likely under pressure from powerful interests (British women runners, among others, have been bitter about her for years, and that bitterness has often come with some nasty racial undertones).
On the other hand, it appears that in the other case, they set rules specifically designed to include
Hubbard (setting an HRT requirement for someone who is already medically transitioning is far less intrusive than requiring a perfectly healthy intersex person to take otherwise unnecessary androgen blockers).
What I really question is how this would have played out if Hubbard and Semenya's nationalities/races were switched. I know New Zealand is only a small country, but it will have allies among wealthy federations like the UK and USA, who hold a lot of sway with organisations like the IOC and IAAF. I suspect the same is not the case for South Africa.
"Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep talking." - Martin Luther