The same ruling would apply to other hyperandrogenous athletes, no? At least as I understand it.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz @D_503zam
It's far worse than that. The IAAF was meant to demonstrate that this provides her a competitive advantage, instead they produced junk science. Moreover, the ruling is explicit to events she runs, so other hyperandrogenous women in other events are fine
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Isn't she though a male with a DSD?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nope. She is an intersex woman, assigned female at birth
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Why not an intersex male?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And if we say it is all junk science, why have any division in sport between men and women?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I never said it is "all" junk science, whatever "all" refers to. The IAAF was required by the court to demonstrate that hyperandrogenism gave athletes like Semenya a "competitive advantage equivalent to that of a man vs a woman" and they have instead produced junk science
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The fact that this was accepted by the court as truth despite being awful stuff is a terrible indictment on the organisation and athletics in general
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The equivalent of a men vs women is also extremely problematic due to the overlap between the very top of women's sport and the bottom performers of men's sport.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They were required to use the average, not the very top vs the very bottom that would be a ridiculous request
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.