Talk:Caster Semenya/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Caster Semenya. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

XX or XY? I don't care what they're calling those these days but which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't give you that information here. Try typing "semenya" into Google News. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in the current version of the leaks to the Media. The LA Times has a story some info on the leak. A somewhat sensitive and unfortunate incident, but whatever the case, Wiki should contain reliable information. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That the results of the tests were leaked to The Australian has been reported far and wide, mostly in articles about the reaction to the leak. It is important that the backlash reaction to the leak doesn't consist of denials. It instead seems to all consist of indignation that they were, in fact, leaked at all, albeit accurately. The reaction has not been "it's false," to my knowledge, but rather "it was improper to have already made these true facts known". Is anyone aware of a reliable citation of someone connected with the case, Semenya herself, or her family, but especially from the Athletic Association, that has specifically stated that the results of the test were not accurately reported in The Austrailian Leak? If we can find even one serious denial, we can't report the leak as in any serious doubt. But we must still can report on the reaction detailing the impropriety of the leak. And in any case, we still may can call them "alledged" and "unconfirmed" alot, because that's what the BBC and others do. And should they be released in some more proper way in the future, we should remove the words "unconfirmed" at that time. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Caster Semenya is a hermaphrodite. Why does this article still say they don't know about her gender? --TangoFett (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is locked so that it can only be edited by administrators until about a week from now. —the Homosexualist (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tango; to answer your question, read this talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Caution: This article is currently seeing slow progress. Edits may get reverted or removed not only if they are not properly sourced, as would be true of any article, but also if they contain information that said source has not gotten properly. You should provide an edit summary, and I would also recommend having read and understood the contents of this talk page so that you know exactly what information I am alluding to here before attempting any contributions. Thank you for your cooperation! Chrisrus (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that, though this page is locked so that only administrators can edit it, if people can come to some agreement on the talk page as to how that 'gender' paragraph should read, it should be a simple matter of posting an {{editprotected}} request here with the agreed text, and an uninvolved admin (not me!) will change it - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Wikipedia is getting this wrong. You can't run a "gender test" by looking at a person's chromosomes. Gender is a psychological aspect of humans. Sex is the question. You can run a sex test, sex is what we define as the differentiation between male and female. I understand most news sites don't make the distinction, but I expect more from Wikipedia. A male, (XY), can have feminine/masculine/neutral gender traits, and still be of the male sex. Similarly a female (XX) can have feminine/masculine/neutral gender traits and still be of the female sex. Gender is simply the wrong word to refer to the issue. No one is questioning whether or not she acts and thinks 'like' a woman. They ask questioning if she 'is' a woman (physically). It would also serve to understand that not all humans even fit within the sexes of XX and XY, there are many other variants (ex. XXX, XXY, XYY) that are not as of yet considered "officially". Usually any precence of the X chromosome determined the person to be of the male sex, but it is all too little understood by most people. I'm disappointed with Wikipedia here. 'Gender' needs to be replaced with 'sex'. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is actually neither of the above that should be the issue. The public has no right to know details of Caster's sex or gender. What they do have a right to know is whether she is eligible to compete in women's athletics events. That is a matter for the relevant sport's governing body to decide. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "...questions were raised as to whether Semenya has an intersexed condition that would give her an unfair advantage in the woman’s 800M"? Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is said here above the difference beween "gender" and "sex" may well be true. However, the tests and the international process for the athletic bodies are referred to as "gender verification" and not as "sex verification" in the sources and there is nothing about "intersex" when the tests were first announced. We cannot say or conclude something that the sources do not say when quoting officials. // BL \\ (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. The word "gender" has several correct definitions and "state of being male or female, sex" is one of them. This article is not using the word wrong. It is simply using the colloquial definition rather than the one used in sociology. It is perfectly valid to call this "gender verification." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this "...we get a gynae opinion and take it to Berlin" mean in this context? Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to mean "we (need to) get a gynaecological opinion (of Semanya's gender), and take it (that opinion) (with us) to (the World Games in) Berlin". // BL \\ (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Would that entail an MRI or X-ray or some other such way to know if the information in The Australian Leak were true or not? Chrisrus (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Still no one has answered this question. Does anyone know if it would entail an MRI or an X-ray or something that would mean they could confirm or refute the Australian leak? Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While // BL \\ is correct (in my opinion), including that interpretation in this article would violate WP:OR. The Squicks (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. // BL \\ (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrisus, it becomes very difficult even to find your questions if you don't keep them in chronological order, and it plays havoc with comments made a week earlier in intervening text. The reason no one has answered is likely because the matter is much more complex than evidence of any given physical attribute. Thus whether or not Ms Semenya has a cervix is no proof of anything except whether or not she has a cervix. Please stop trying to make rumour and speculation into fact. If it were that simple, there would be no need for "further tests". // BL \\ (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand the point. Are you reading the article above or otherwise keeping up do date on this situation? The test results that Chuene allowed were only "gynae", which is concidered a smoking gun now, he has admitted, that he knew much more than he told the IAAF. He had received other tests from Adams, and you can learn what they were from your own non-tabloid sources if you wanted to know. A "gynae" would show a cervex, which would contradict the Australian leak. An MRI would show internal testes or not, or other things that Adams told Chuene merrited withdrawing her. It's agreed by all, it would seem, to be evidence of a cover-up. Including by Chuene, he admited it. Chrisrus (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrisus - you retroactively edited the comment above that The Squicks replied to, to remove mention of the 'existence of a cervex' (sic). Can you not do that, please? It makes things impossible to follow as nobody knows who-said-what after a while. Just leave the old stuff alone and add new comments. As to your question; if you can define clearly for me what makes a person definitively male and what makes a person definitively female, I can probably answer. There are males that have a cervix, for example, and females that have none. There are people that are quite literally two individuals merged together in utero. Are you beginning to understand just how complex this is? A karyotype check isn't enough. An endocrine assay isn't enough. Checking the external genitalia isn't enough. Using MRI or ultrasound isn't enough. There are exceptions to each and every one of these checks - Alison ^❤ 05:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And "a routine Pap smear" would only serve to detect the presence of absence of pre-cancerous cervical cells. You don't need to run a check like that to detect a cervix. All you need is a speculum or indeed, long fingers :) - Alison ^❤ 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. To clarify, I'm specifically NOT talking about what makes a person definitively male or female. What I'm asking is what does this article mean. What is the significance of this revelation and why is it such big news in South Africa? More specifically, what tests does he want omitted? Would a "gynae" test be enough to confirm or deny that the info leaked IAAF? I am asking to what extent Chuene knew whether it means that Chuene is capable of knowing if was saying to Adams about what he wanted to take to Berlin, what tests he was ordering in, as opposed to out. Specifically, he wanted to go with the "gynae" tests, only. So wouldn't such results, in the hands of Chuene, be sufficient to refute the details of the Berlin tests as leaked? Chrisrus (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We have absolutely no way of knowing, Chrisrus. It could be any of a gadzillion things, from a pelvic exam, to SRX/SRY analysis, to hormonal assay. Who know? You don't, I don't and the tabloid press sure doesn't. It's still all very much within the realms of speculation. What's a 'gynae' test? That could be anything. We need to wait for something official either from Ms. Semenya's legal team or from the IAAF. Anything else, including all the above, is just wild speculation. Seriously - it's vastly complex - Alison ^❤ 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, are you keeping up with events in South Africa? Yes, they are complex. It's getting more so by the day. We have to understand this situation if we are to properly write the article. This e-mail exchange between Chunue and Adams is referred to in the article already. We have to understand what it means so we can explain to the readers what it's all about properly. And please don't use the word "tabloid" without specifying which because it seems you are saying that you don't believe the information in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the editors who are writing the text of this article need to understand the complexities of the situation, we do not, ourselves, explain anything. We find reliable sources to do so. Equally, we do not draw conclusions or interpret anything. And not even on this talk page ought we to guess or speculate about anything in a BLP. Thus, we will never know the underlying meaning of the email unless the parties who wrote the words explain them in a reliable source. No credence should be given to what any of us believe or disbelieve. // BL \\ (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we have | this: "(ASA) president Leonard Chuene admitted on Saturday that he refused to accept advice from ASA team doctor Harold Adams to withdraw Caster Semenya from the world athletics championships in Berlin last month.". So must we still have doubt that Semenya is intersexed? Adams is named and has seen the evidence first hand and said she was intersex. He's the team doctor. Chrisrus (talk)

But while Chuene was advised by Adams to withdraw Semenya, he said he refused to do so without any concrete evidence. He said that Adams' verbal recommendation was not sufficient for him to make a decision on such a sensitive matter.

The IAAF is still awaiting the results of gender tests conducted in Berlin but Chuene said he would not accept those results because the world governing body did not follow the correct protocol.

It doesn't look to me like the issue will end any time soon. The Squicks (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! So Chuene doesn't trust the Berlin results? These tests, the long-awaited Berlin Test Results, allegedly already leaked to The Austrailian, projected to take another month or two to properly analyze, and which we may never officially released, that these will be worthless anyway, because the Germans do not "follow the proper protocol"? What do you think he means, that the Germans did not run an MRI or something? On the basis of this, we should think of the Berlin Results, when we get them, as quesitonable? In your opinion, he has to at least explain why they are questionable, i.e. what the proper protocol would be and then that they didn't follow it.

The first part is interesting, too. Chuene was advised by Adams, who had run some tests, including MRI, etc., tests we have just learned about and which I would like to refer to as the South African Tests, that this same Adams had recomended withdrawing her before it exposed her to all of this, but, Chuene says, he wouldn't believe Adams "without concrete evidence". What does that mean, Adams hadn't brought a copy of the x-rays to the meeting? Chuene says he had Adams word to go on, no "direct evidence". What do you think he meant, that he hadn't been invited to observe any exploritory surgery? Chrisrus (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you reconsider any notion that you might have that such statements from Chuene call either set of tests into question. Look at the context of the Globe and Mail articles! They are all talking about how Chuene knowing lied, how he admits that he lied and covered up the truth. Please see the context, it's not me saying this, it's everyone, even Chuene himself. They are now just talking about what the proper punishment for him should be, not whether to believe or support him. Don't take it from me, google it yourself!

Oh well. But what are we going to do about the state of the "gender" section? Can we write it without saying exactly what the test results are? This section can't wait forever for something that's never going to happen. We've got to find a way to write this. Chrisrus (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP will be around for a long time, and the clarification can wait for official word. This is a woman's life we are chatting about, and WP is not a tabloid, or shouldn't be. We will find a way to write it when we have the right material about which to write. // BL \\ (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with // BL \\ as per WP:NOT#NEWS The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you at least TRY to make the section somewhat coherent or delete it entirely or something? It makes no sense as written, it might as well be trashed. (See "Gender Section From Top to Bottom, above, or just try to read it yourself, better yet, and you'll see what I mean, it's obvious.) Can't we just vaguely refer to what we are talking about and use lots of words like "alleged", or "questionable" or so on? That's what the BBC, NPR, etc do. Let's do something for crissake, it's awful as is. Chrisrus (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be edited. But the point here is that the article you quoted does not exactly mean what you implied that it meant. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you haven't been following this that closely. The jig is up this much: While there is no evidence that Semenya knew anything at all, but we now know that Athetics South Africa knowing fielded a person with the body of a man in a way which is relevant to the Woman's 800 Meters. And there exists a second set of tests, the results of which are in the hands of the ASA, but which the team doctor called "not good" for passing her off as "athletically a woman", if you will, and recommended her withdrawl as he saw this coming. Chrisrus (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elucidate on "passing her off athleticly (sic) as a woman" - that doesn't make much sense to me in isolation. Nor, indeed, does "knowing fielded a person with the body of a man in every way" - please clarify exactly what you mean by this because, from where I'm standing, you appear to have more evidence and more conviction than anyone else right now, including the tabloid press - Alison ^❤ 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Let me try this again. What I meant was "athletically a woman" was "female" in so far as it has to do with whether or not it would be appropriate to allow her to run in the Woman's 800M or the Men's. I apologize. Now, please explain who you are referring to when you say "tabloid press"

I'm sorry. I am not allowed to specify the biological details in this space. Try Google news. Chrisrus (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can be reasonably specific on the talk page, as it's not indexed in search engines. I also added {{NOINDEX}} just to be sure. However, keep tabloid speculation out of the article. Ok, now try answering my questions - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think you should educate yourself about this. I assume you have good research skills, you know how to use Google News and avoid "tabloids". Stick to the reliable sources. Next, I can't answer your question as to what I meant by "in every way" because what I said was "in every way relevant to the 800 meters". I can answer "in every way relevant to the 800 meters" and "athletically male". It means "male only insofar as it matters to the athletic event in question". The facts of her biology have been leaked to the media. She is internally male and physically female in a way that would convince a parent or pass an external examination. Chrisrus (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

← I am educated about it, thanks. I've written articles about intersex conditions, both here and for other publications and am aware of most of the latest research on the topic, having read far too many research papers. There are many, many intersex conditions that I'm aware of and it's simply not okay to go on with this "athletically male" nonsense when the facts are not available to you (nor to the Mail and Guardian). Does she have CAIS/PAIS, mixed gonadal dysgenesis, Swyer syndrome, etc, etc - just for starters? You certainly don't know. And as Bielle put it above; "This is a woman's life we are chatting about" and this is where my own interest lies. It's a BLP issue and remains so until some concrete, reliable source is cited and right now, that's yet to happen. All this "athletically male" nonsense is just idle chatter and you do not have the full facts - Alison ^❤ 08:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant about the events of the Semenya case. I didn't mean to question if you knew about intersex things in general. You are asking me for the facts about the Semenya case, which you must not be up to date on or you wouldn't be asking. How do these events from South Africa make any sense if Semenya were actually female internally? None of these things you will learn about if you google up some news or however you prefer to do it, how can you explain anything that is going on right now without understanding that Semenya couldn’t pass the athletic definition of "female", in terms of what it means for competing in the 800 meters? Why is the man resigning as the head of ASA? What has he admitted to doing? He has admitted to knowingly fielding a runner in a race that he knew was for people with ovaries, etc., not testicles. Anyone can know these things, I don't have to be an expert on them. Just look for yourself; it's everywhere but here. "Idle speculation", my eye! Chrisrus (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're seriously short on definitions here. Are women 'people with ovaries', as you state? What about people with ovotestis? What are they? You repeatedly use the word 'internally' - "internally male", etc, but you refuse to define the meaning of those terms. Frankly, defining biological maleness/femaleness is fraught with problems (as the IAAF are fast finding out) yet you brush all this aside and make comments as to the biology of a woman without being privy to the full facts. Once I starting mentioning medical reality, you start to handwave and bluster. "People with ovaries" - lol. That's just too facile to fly here - Alison ^❤ 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "internally" means "not on the outside of her body". You are right, I don't know about people with "ovotestis", but that has nothing to do with Castor Semenya at all and is therefore handwaving on your part to even bring it up. We are talking about a person reportedly has no uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, mammary glands, etc, but who reportedly has internal testes. As a result, Semenya reportedly has the hormones and, obviously to all, the frame and muscles of a man. Such people with a set of male parts that give them the running abilities of a man have their own race to run in. It's the men's 800 meters, and it's that way for a very good reason. The reason is, so women can race, too. Sexual characteristics that would not matter in terms of running in a race would include such things as external genitalia. Why would external parts matter? She probably could be allowed to run if she had some male external parts, except for the testes. All the athetic associations have to do is worry about those characteristics which matter for the 800, which I like to call "athletically male" as a shorthand for this thing they have to worry about, and therefore avoid defining what makes a person "biologically" or "psychologically" male, which are needlessly complicated as far as their concerns go. P.s. If you really want to know which of the conditions, if any, she reportedly has, I think I remember seeing it out there. Why don't you Google it? Chrisrus (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Almost all of this is wild speculation. You talk about Semenya having "the hormones [...] of a man" but that's not what's being reported. Just for starters. What I read was that she had allegedly three times the normal level of testosterone for the average female. First point; have you any idea as to what the normal levels of testosterone are for a female or a male, and have you any idea as to how the assay is done? We all have mammary tissue, be we female or male. It's just a matter of degree, is all. All men have estrogen (it's aromatized from testosterone), all women have testosterone (made in the adrenal_glands). These are facts. You have no idea as to the facts of Semenya's internal makeup, other than the rumors of an Australian daily newspaper. Biology is far more complex and way less cut-and-dried as you make it out to be and thus, there is no room for idle speculation in a BLP such as this. At least you finally admit that the "athetically male" comment is entirely your own device - Alison ^❤ 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you have admitted elsewhere that no one has even implied to either of our knowledge that the actual results were not, albeit improperly, leaked to The Australian. So to call them “rumors” or “wild speculation” is to seriously misrepresent them as totally unsubstantiated uninformed guesswork. Are you saying that The Australian is a tabloid? What do you know of The Australian? Would you feel differently if it were a leading daily paper of Canada, the UK, or the US?

Next, you can stop being rude now.

Next, it IS being reported that Semenya has three times the normal level of testosterone for a woman, a level which, I also read there, is not unheard of for a women, but is normal for a man, and therefore of concern to the athletics officials who would need to find out why it’s true in this case and if it gave her a physical advantage. Next, no I don’t know those numbers or what the assay is, why do you ask if not to handwave? It doesn’t matter. It’s enough to know that they are way above normal but not unheard of in women who are not intersexed, but normal and consistent for a person with testicles like, males or reportedly, Semenya.

Finally, I have never stated anything about biology being cut and dried, you are strawmaning me. I am fully aware of all the shrew-moles and mole-shrews and things that are neither here nor there: you don’t know me but such things are actually my favorite, and I wouldn’t be here talking about Semenya if I didn’t feel that way about the gray areas around things. Semenya seems very much to be an intermediate form, I think even you would agree, she seems to be neither fully male nor female and neither I nor you seem to be saying anything different. So it is my hope that you no longer believe that I think biology is cut and dried. The only thing I see as cut and dried is the fact that the cat is out of the bag by now and we can know based on sources that Semenya is intersexed and that it’s going to be a hard slog getting the others to agree to put that fact in the article even if you say “allegedly”, “reportedly” and such.

About my term “athletically male/female” you might find it useful, don’t knock it till you’ve been discussing this for a while. And that it was my invention I’d’ve thought would’ve been obvious, I never put it forward as someone else’s coinage, it’s a very pragmatic term of art.

Just a couple of things. First, this is bordering on WP:NOTFORUM, although that's a fairly hard border to distinguish. That said, there are a couple of errors in the above. The report in question was leaked to the tabloid The Daily Telegraph, not to The Australian. The latter did report on the leak, but only in reference to The Daily Telegraph's article. And while it is true that the IAAF have not refuted the claims, they have also refused to confirm the leak, choosing to not comment either way. I'd add to this that the IAAF have stated that the report should be "treated with caution", and from my understanding they were sending teh test results for expert analysis, which seems quite sensible to me. Not that it matters, as I don't think we can rely on a leaked report from an unnamed source in a BLP without additional support. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the The Daily Telegraph. They did both come out at the same moment, though, explaining why I mistakenly thought The Australian was first. Which of these is the tabloid? Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To address your comment about "normal for a man" testosterone levels, versus three times female levels, let's take a look at what the NIH say. According to them, normal male serum T levels are 300 -1,000 ng/dL and female being 20 - 80 ng/dL.^ref That's reasonably conservative. Note, too, that female levels change depending on where a woman's LH/FSH phase is at. These values represent luteal phase. From this, you can see that three times the maximum female level does not equate to normal male levels. So let's try to stick to the facts here. Yes, I'm still calling the newspaper article 'wild speculation' and 'rumour', especially given it's based upon a leaked document that nobody else has seen. Furthermore, I find your arguments to-date to be short on fact and big on baseless personal opinion. I also find your term “athletically male/female” overly simplistic and inappropriate in this context - Alison ^❤ 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about the low end of male normal levels. I have deleted that above. Chrisrus (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't, because now nobody knows what I was responding to[1] and it just looks like a non sequitur on my part. Not nice - Alison ^❤ 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, stop doing this and this. Your comments are now in complete disarray - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

More retroactively modified comments here and here, completely changing the nature of the original questions - Alison ^❤ 06:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Putting in a much needed section break is nothing of the sort. Chrisrus (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus, you have done much more than to insert a section header. Please do not alter your comments after you have saved them except to use strikeout, fix grammar or spelling or punctuation. Whe you change the text, which you have done frequently in this section and the preceding one, you make nonsense of the discussion. // BL \\ (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now, editors here should be working on addressing the 'gender' heading in the article, to come to some sort of concordance as to how it should read. All this idle speculation is getting us nowhere. Someone should post a suggested new paragraph here and let folks debate as to the correctness of it. Once everyone is happy, then request an update to the article or an unprotect. This is the way to move things forward - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go! Good idea! Good luck doing that without mentioning any unmentionables. Chrisrus (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a communal effort - Alison ^❤ 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing, in my opinion, is separate the issues of Caster's medical details from her eligibility to compete as a woman in athletics events. The first is no business of anyone but Caster herself , unless she decides to make the details public, but the second is a legitimate are a of public concern, bearing in mind that it is public knowledge that there is an issue.

Therefore, I suggest that we should include the following (supported, as always, by reliable sources):

1. The ASA had concerns about her eligibility on gender grounds.
2. The ASE had tests done.
3. After considering the results of these tests the ASA decided to enter Caster in Berlin
4. Questions about her eligibility were raised in Berlin
5. She has undergone further tests
6. No decision, based on these tests, has yet been made
7. The ASA lied about the fact she had had tests prior to Berlin

We should not include:

1. The nature of any tests carried out.
2. The results of any tests.
3. Details of her medical or gender status.
4. Speculation on any aspect of the above.
5. Speculation on Caster's complicity in any part of the controversy.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur, Martin. This approach makes perfect sense and avoids a lot of the problems that Chrisrus is encountering above - Alison ^❤ 09:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. However, I must add that I would support including information about the test results if we saw an ironclad reliable source on the issue in the future. The Squicks (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While speculation has no place here, if we find reliable sources for the nature and results of the tests, we should include it. This would not include information from tabloids. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to re-merge the "Gender controversy" section back into the main text similar to what is seen here. She's 18? and I believe on suicide watch now. Let's not belabour and add undue drama where a real life is at risk. We are not a tabloid or a newspaper - we are an encyclopedia. A good or featured article would not shove all the tabloid bits into a special section like this bringing even more attention to the details. A good article would integrate the events coherently; extra details deemed needed perhaps could be relegated to footnotes for those readers interested. This will be an ongoing drama so we can let reliable sources lead the way. -- Banjeboi 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But without most of the speculation and unsupported allegations about personal details in the version you linked to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was only an example. The gender content should be updated appropriately and nonsense removed. 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us do it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've re-integrated it and put some bits about the testing itself into a footnote. Hope it reads well. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I think that reads a lot better now - Alison ^❤ 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the change to the lead section, where you have replaced my wording of 'eligibility to compete as woman' with 'gender'. I think that it is most important that we make the distinction between the way a person is generally classified as a man or a woman, which is a very complicated, emotive and personal subject, and the only issue of public importance, which is whether Caster is eligible to compete in women's athletics events. Her eligibility to compete in any given event depends only on the rules of the governing body for that sport.

If a sports person is declared under the rules of a sport to be ineligible to compete as a woman in a particular event that does not mean that she is not a woman, indeed, that person may be eligible to compete in another event, governed by a different body, as a woman and may me considered a woman for many other purposes. Conversely just because a person is considered eligible to compete as a woman in an event does not make her a woman for all purposes.

I accept that my wording was a bit cumbersome, perhaps 'eligibility to compete in women's events' may be better but we must make the distinction between a person's gender, in a general sense, and their eligibility to compete in a particular sport as a woman. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm putting this in the right place, and I suppose I'm not much of a Wikipedian, but I'm a little disappointed that the "Gender Controversy" section has been merged... and essentially swept under the rug. While I feel for Ms. Semenya, and people certainly deserve to keep their medical information private, I think the only reason most of us are aware of her is because of questions related to her gender. Reducing these down to a single line -- "Following her victory, questions were raised about her gender" -- may be fair under the BLP policy, but seems roughly analogous to writing about Nixon and glossing over Watergate. Perhaps The Daily Telegraph (the Aussie one) isn't exactly the BBC, but no one has stated that what was written was libelous and journalists around the globe have used it as a source in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles. I think in this case the source is neither questionable nor gossip. Would Wikipedia not use Bob Woodward's secret informant Deep Throat?

I'm not trying to impugn Semenya's character -- unlike Nixon, I don't think she had any ill intent and is likely an innocent party in all of this hullabaloo. However, I think an encyclopedic article related to Caster Semenya should include a section related to the reason why she's known around the globe, even if that reason is hurtful to her personally. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is rather more than one line in the article about the subject. What is it that you would like to say? Bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joey. This has been a major event in Semenya's career and deserves its own section. What we can do to mitigate harm to Semenya is to make sure that said section only includes properly sourced, reliable information phrased in an encyclopedic manner. We should not conceal it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Darkfrog. Martin, I appreciate that this is not a newspaper, and it's possible that all questions will be answered by the final IAAF report purportedly coming in November. That said, "Questions were raised" is used twice, but nowhere does it mention what those questions are -- this is the elephant in the room. I'm asking why there's nothing in the entry specifically mentioning Semenya's intersexed status, widely reported by global media outlets based on an anonymous source speaking to Mike Hurst at Sydney's The Daily Telegraph ^[1]. There's also no longer a link to Hurst's article which is the source of the controversy. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not that fussed whether we have a separate section or not but the speculated intersex status is another matter. The main reason that we should not have that is that it is (quite rightly in my opinion) against WP:BLP, which sates that , Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The claim that Caster is intersex is based on a newspaper article which mentions a 'medical report' without giving any details of where, when, or by whom the report was prepared. There is absolutely no evidence that it exists at all. The claim is therefore poorly sourced and cannot be included in a BLP.

Personally, I would argue that such personal information should never be included here unless it has been released by Caster herself, regardless of how well it is sourced. The only thing we have a right to know is whether she has been found eligible to compete in athletics events as a woman. But that is just my personal opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have an obligation to see that the material that we post is correct and accurate. Because this is a BLP, we should be especially discriminating, using only the most reliable sources. However, we do not have an obligation to omit information simply because the subject might not want it here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Correct and accurate" is the telling phrase. What we have available are unattributed leaks of the "results" of unspecified tests to a reporter, and the wide-spread dispersal of that report, and opinions related thereto. What Ms Semenya might want or not want has never been the consideration. (Unless she or one of her representatives has commented to WMF, this is a red herring. If such a report has been made, then it is an issue but not the issue.) Not one "reliable source" knows anything much beyond what is already in the article. We try to avoid speculation in BLPs, and speculating about the speculations would be worse. All we have to do is wait. // BL \\ (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we do not have a reliable source saying that Caster is intersex. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. To also quote from WP:BLP, Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Yes, the source is anonymous, which is a red flag, but the Hurst article has been used as a source by Time, CNN, and major newspapers around the world. If this is mere gossip, or if Hurst's source was lying, why hasn't Athletics South Africa refuted it? ASA's president admitted last week to lying about having never tested Semenya, and likely knows that the IAAF's tests will confirm the ASA's own. The article cited, unless shown otherwise, should be judged to be reliable and true, is highly relevant to people looking for information about Ms. Semenya, and should be reinstated.

Look, I appreciate the principle of the presumption in favour of privacy. However, without this particular controversy, I think Ms. Semenya would have remained a relatively obscure middle-distance runner, of interest only to those who closely follow track. I don't follow track, and personally couldn't name another person who ran in that race. Semenya is noteworthy because her outstanding athletic performance has raised issues about gender, and to a lesser extent, about race and politics. Not acknowledging the specifics of the questions remaining about her gender, after so much media coverage, seems unreasonable. I trust that, at minimum, once the IAAF report has been issued, that the controversy will be acknowledged in greater depth. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ms Semenya is notable because she won a significant race. This was reported world-wide on a great variety of sports shows. She was famous at that moment. The continuing hype about her gender has kept her name "live" in the media but is not the initiating cause. And one report of a leak repeated many times does not a reliable source make, especially in BLP. That the report has not been either confirmed or denied means nothing more than that the relevant bodies, unlike many of us here on WP, are not prepared to acknowledge this "report" without possession of all the necessary information. Failing to contradict an imprecise, unauthorized leak does not prove that there is substance to the leak. I am in agreement with Martin Hogbin. // BL \\ (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What Bielle said. Speculation is speculation, rumour is rumour, regardless of how often it is bandied about by the popular (and tabloid) presses. It's unsubstantiated hearsay and has no place in the article, IMO. This is personal medical information relating to a private individual - Alison ^❤ 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr, you have answered your own question. You quote, When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. That is exactly what the original source does, see below. Thus we cannot use it as a reliable source for a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate that the source is presented as being true, it's reliable though anonymous, and is highly relevant, making it a reasonable source for a BLP. No one is willing to verify the facts because the situation is politically charged, but this doesn't make the facts less true. We're clearly not going to agree here, and as I sense I'm outnumbered, write what you want. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to ask why this information doesn't seem seriously in doubt outside of this article. The reason seems to rely in the reactions to the leak.

The IAAF reacted officially by refusing to confirm or deny, even when the organized wrath of the so many South Africans and others was directed at them, some of which was WAY over the top threatening. It doesn’t seem to make any sense to anyone why they wouldn’t just have said “Those are not the results of the test, the article is false; we didn't leak it, that article is wrong” and thereby simply making it all go away. There are circumstances when "we cannot confirm or deny" amounts to a pathetically thinly veiled confirmation. Also, what possible reason could there be for the results of the test to be still under review, if she's not intersex in a way that might question the propiety of her running in the women's 800M?

Second, the anti-IAAF reaction hasn't been to deny the info in the Australian leak. It doesn’t seem to make sense to those persuing this story that Semenya's defenders wouldn’t just deny the facts in the leak instead of decrying the invasion of privacy they represent, or questioning the motivation of the leakers. If the information in the leaks isn’t true, why react like that? Why not just say call them lies and sue for libel or anything like that? And besides, how hard would it be to prove them false if they were?

Third, and completely absent from this article and discuss page, are the events of the past week. We now know that the Atheletics South Africa had been lying about not having done tests and having found out that she was intersexed in a way which might (blah blah) the 800, having done this before Berlin and having lied to the IAAF and later the world about those facts, and also not, as reportedly had been done in previous cases, quietly withdrawing the athlete in order to avoid just specifically this kind of situation. The story is unfolding daily and has become somewhat of a South African political crisis of increasing magnitude. So one might expect this article to at least mention these things. The fact that we have not done so seems to be that the discourse outside of the article has long since moved past the premise that she’s intersex and left us behind and unable to find a way to incorporate it without the background information. Well, that's the reason I haven't anyway, I wouldn't know where in the article to put it. In order to understand what’s going on now, we’d have to understand what had gone on before and we can’t get past that point weeks ago. If I’m wrong about that, try writing a fair summary of this source http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=174&art_id=nw20090925152459203C586459 and then incorporating it into the article. If we want a cohesive, informative article, we have to do what the BBC, etc. do, and simply tell the readers what happened while adding words like “allegedly” or “reportedly” or “claimed that”, etc. We could even go further and not name the exact organs she has and does not have in an explicit way, if we're squeemish; we could say words to the effect of "missing the usual organs" and "possessing an internal set of male organs", or even just "an obviously intersex condition" or something even lighter. That way, we'd be safe with the BLP guidelines and still be able to write a decent article. And about embarassing Semenya by doing so? That damage has clearly already been done long ago by others.

Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter how much you continue to speculate about Caster being intersex it does not make it any more (or less) true. The only information that we have is a newspaper report quoting an anonymous source. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to include information that we know is true. We have no possible way of knowing the accuracy of the report and thus we cannot base our article on it. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to state 'reported', alleged', or 'claimed' facts, only facts which can be verified.

Regarding the IAAF refusing to comment further on the matter, this is exactly what they should be doing. It is exactly what the military do in the case of a claimed security leak. It is always best to say nothing in these cases. It is a pity that the IAAF did not adopt this attitude from the start.

As you will see above, I agree with you that we should include the fact that ASA lied about having done tests. We might also add that Caster was mislead about the purpose of these tests and is taking legal action as a result. Why do you not add something yourself? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

...how many other winners of the 800m have Wikipedia pages? Yes, the controversy is what made her notable. Even if it weren't, mention of it still belongs here. No, we shouldn't use unreliable or sensationalist sources, but Time isn't either of these things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, the gossip-mongering is certainly what keeps her in the news. However, along with these 30 or so other winners of the 800-metre distance, she would still have had an article. // BL \\ (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, as she "made improvements of 25 seconds at 1500m and eight seconds at 800m – "the sort of dramatic breakthroughs that usually arouse suspicion of drug use" she's more notable then most winners Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, as pointed out before, this is absolutely unacceptable. Nonsense like this is out of the question and speculation on her genitalia or internal sex organs, based on a single leak to a newspaper and propagated by others is simply not acceptable in a BLP. By all means, when November comes along, add what is known to be factual but until then ... - Alison ^❤ 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=174&art_id=nw20090925152459203C586459

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frexni-1225771672245
The relevant quote from this article is, "According to a source closely involved with the Semenya examinations IAAF testing, which included various scans, has revealed...". That is not, in my opinion, good enough for a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the last paragraph. The original reference I found confusing about what was being cited (ref 28 from earlier today. I don't know how to link to it here), and I have provided a slightly different one that does do what is cited. (If the first was just fine, and I have mis-read, I apologize. I don't care which of the refs is used as long as we do not extrapolate into text that is not supported.) It is absolutely clear that all reports support hat the SA doctor, the coach and even the head of the association as trying to protect the confidentiality of Semenya's medical information. It is not anywhere stated that possible ambiguity about her gender as might be shown in the test results was the concern, but the fact that withdrawing her from competition on those grounds would have violated her privacy. Only the coach seemed concerned that not telling Semenya the truth about the nature of the tests, or about the results, could be viewed as an even greater ethical breach as it took out of her hands the decisions to be made about the very essece of her identity. This last bit, however, is my opinion only; pure WP:OR. // BL \\ (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not just your point of view. See here [[2]]. Caster is now suing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Added here, with two sources. No mention yet of suing, though, as this is not being reported. IMO, it's highly likely so stay tuned - Alison ^❤ 09:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

.... and offical press release here from Dewey & LeBoeuf - Alison ^❤ 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

http://hades.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-23-secret-report-reveals-chuenes-plotting Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8333840.stm Chrisrus (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091021103342987C723275 Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article184381.ece Chrisrus (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The term Gender is not the same as Sex. Gender is a cultural construction (i.e., the number and composition of "genders" varies by culture), while sex is a biological trait (also not quite as neat and tidy as dual). There is no "gender testing" or "gender controversy". These tests are about sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.2 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article uses the terms that the sources use, right or wrong. (I moved your insert here to the bottom of the page, where new comments go, and added a header.) Bielle (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid but are misplaced on this article. Gender verification in sports indeed starts with listing the various other names that are used synonymously. And I believe we are actually using the correct term as the other contestants weren't concerned that she was intersex or non-female, but that she was indeed a man posing as a woman thus having an unfair advantage in a woman's sport. Until or unless all runners compete in the same race these issues will continue to arise as people do change their gender and physical identity and as the human population grows there will be more diversity in human bodies much as we have seen in the past. All that, however, is not for this runner or this article to fix. -- Banjeboi 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We’ve been through this before, but it’s aged off this talk page and into the archives.

One well-established meaning of "gender" has been "sex" for quite a long time. This distinction you mention seems to be new and may be the way things will go if users find it important or useful, but so far our sources have either not chosen to follow suit, or aren't aware of the argument that the distinction be made. Or maybe they would like to follow along, but don't for some reason, maybe they just haven't gotten around to changing it, due to maybe institutional inertia or something; they don‘t think it‘s important enough to change for some reason.

Personally, I doubt very much whether it will ever catch on, because people seem to want another, more clinical-sounding word to use instead of saying "sex" all the time. I know I do sometimes, at least. Give them another way to say “sex test” other than “gender test” and maybe that will catch on.

Although there is no rule I'm aware of that articles must use the same terminology that the sources use in all cases; unless there is some important reason not to, it seems best to call them "gender tests", just like the sources do. The most important thing is the effect on the reader; what they are likely to understand by the term, and which words most accurately line up with the referent in their minds.

Therefore, no matter what we call the tests for short, it should be made clear to the reader that the “Gender Tests“ we refer to, as the sources clarify, are intended to determine the individual's gender/sex or the extent of their intersexed condition only insofar as it has to do with the athletic event in question, that’s all. They are not taking a position on what gender/sex the person is outside of that very narrow context - who should be allowed to run in the Woman’s 800 Meters or the Men‘s 800M. We need to make that clear in as up-front a way as appropriate so that they don‘t misunderstand what the sources say about the nature of the tests. That is what is important. To me, at least. Chrisrus (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

“People took the decision a few weeks ago to suspend me because they accused me of handling the Caster Semenya case wrongly. [3] Chrisrus (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says that MJ singled out the IAAF, but he spoke very early. Later, Carl Lewis singled out ASA for criticism. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/21134540/vp/32875407#34109445 Let's be fair, MJ spoke before we knew what we know about the ASA role, he may agree with CL now. Chrisrus (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the IAAF The South African Sports Ministry (oops, I misread the first news release) announced today that Ms Semenya would be permitted to keep her gold medal and her prize money as there has been no wrong-doing on her part. It also stated that any legal tests done under its auspices would be treated under doctor-patient confidentiality and neither released nor discussed. [4] Before we get into writing anything in the article, can anyone find a similar statement about whether or not Semenya's record stands? Bielle (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Various versions of the story:

AP

Channel News Asia

BBC

NYTimes

So far, it appears that Caster's lawyers and Athletics South Africa are saying she keeps her medals and the rest is a private medical matter. IAAF is just saying that they have nothing to say.

I am taking the word "innocent" at face value. The question is so rarely raised, that they did not know how to deal with it. It's a rule that must be enforced, yet current privacy rules seem to make that impossible. Apparently she is off the agenda for the IAAF meeting, but some day soon they must revisit this topic, and decide how privacy rules and gender testing can be reconciled.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, Randall Bart "reading between the lines" is not permitted on BLP matters. We cannot decide what something means when it is not said. What we are sure of is not relevant unless we have sources to confirm our views. I have deleted all your text that included personal views and suppositions. BLP rules apply even to this page. Bielle (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When she competes again, I'll apologize for what I said.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the official IAAF website says next to nothing at all here. Now I have corrected my initial statement which had the wrong source; it was South Africa's Ministry of Sport that made the announcement, not the IAAF. This story from New Zealand states that the IAAF made no such pronouncement, and the testing is still not complete. Bielle (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement from the ASA about the gold medal is worthless on its own. It is up to the IAAF to make the call and so far they are silent, so this appears to be more ASA nonsense.--Fizbin (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. Bielle (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"The IAAF says it is still working behind the scenes with Caster Semenya and the South African government to resolve issues about the 18-year-old runner's gender identity and future career."..... "The governing body of track says it cannot confirm the South African sports ministry's claims of a deal allowing Semenya to keep the 800-meter world title and prize money she won in August, and maintain privacy over her gender test results."... "...the parties are "almost there" in concluding complex negotiations."... "....."questions would not be resolved during a two-day meeting of the IAAF's ruling council which began Friday in Monaco"

http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/womens-sexual-health/intersex-caster-semenya-thea-hilman?icid=main%7Caimzones%7Cdl3%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2Fcondition-center%2Fwomens-sexual-health%2Fintersex-caster-semenya-thea-hilman

This article looks credible, and comes from a generally reliable source. It states that Semenya was born intersex, and had a sex change at a young age that she wasn't aware of. Why isn't this being mentioned on this page? What's taking so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.163.106 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find where in the article it says what you claim. Maybe this quote is more relevant:. “She’s lived as a girl, she doesn’t feel different than that, but now society is going to focus on her physical, private parts that are none of their business,” Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have confused the information about Thea Hilman with that of Semenya. As to what is taking so long, this article will probably never say what we all know to be true about Semenya and the main reason she is so famous. Unless one of her doctors publishes an article about her condition or some such that we can quote, or unless Semenya comes out and tell us all that she's intersex publicly. Neither of these things is ever likely to happen anytime soon, if ever, so the article will probably remain like this forever. This despite the fact that all news sources and the wikipedia articles in all other languages come out and say the truth, and the fact that using a lot of words like "reportedly" or "according to Dr. Adam's, her physician" would bring it into line with Biography of Living People rules. Chrisrus (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"... says she was “heartbroken” Friday morning when she heard South African runner Caster Semenya could be banned from competing as a woman after new tests showed she is a hermaphrodite, having both male and female sex characteristics. Semenya, who reportedly had no idea prior to these tests, has made a very personal discovery in front of the whole world."

Uhh, am I misreading this? It seems like its clearly referring to Semenya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.163.106 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the mention of a sex change? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It says Thea Hilman had an operation shortly after birth, if you hadn't noticed, this user misread it as saying Caster did. What Hilman and the article can do that we can't is say that "...tests showed (Caster Semenya) is a hermaphrodite..." The only thing that's not clear in this article is which medical exam are referred to: the Berlin Tests or the ones Adams told us about having performed in South Africa before she left for Berlin. Chrisrus (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. 'You say: What Hilman and the article can do that we can't is say that "...tests showed (Caster Semenya) is a hermaphrodite..." '. I agree, but I would just like to make clear the reasons that I believe the WP community have decided not to say that. It is not because we are squeamish, it is not because we are afraid of the truth, it is not because Caster is famous. It is because we wish to show an appropriate degree of respect for a person's privacy. This means that we should not state intimate personal facts about anyone unless we have clear evidence that those facts are indeed correct. You must be aware that not everything you read in a newspaper or that is reported on TV is true, thus to refer to newspaper claims as 'the truth' cannot be justified. If a copy of a medical report had been published things might be different but that simply is not the case. All we have are claims by various media to have seen some unspecified and poorly described 'medical report'. To regard this as 'the truth' is incredibly naive. It might turn out to be just the imaginings of a disaffected employee or a story made up by someone to get money from the press.

As you have agreed in the past, you would not like it if intimate personal details about your own wife, mother, sister, or daughter were made public. It would be far worse if such claims turned out not to be true and were based only on local gossip and rumour. We must treat Caster with a similar degree of respect and consideration. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the aol article rather unhelpful and causing more confusion where clarity is needed. I did find another article, which I'll post below in a new section that may add some context and clarity. Hermaphrodite is a loaded and certainly in South Africa, offensive term that we certainly should not add to a BLP without strong sourcing. -- Banjeboi 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I agree about the feelings, but please agree that what is normally nobody's business but her own ceases to be so the minute she applied to run in an officially sanctioned Woman's 800M. Then, when she showed up at the starting line, that circle of whose business it is widens significantly; once more again when she won, and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but that does not extend to personal and private medical information. It's that simple. BTW, I agree with Benjiboi above (a rare moment! :) ) when he points out that the term 'hermaphrodite' is both offensive, antiquated and decidedly non-standard from a scientific perspective. If the gutter press chooses to use it, then fine, but we should aim a little higher - Allie ^❤ 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When you said "indeed it does", what did you mean? Because "what is normally nobody's business" was specifially such "personal and private medical information" you seem to be exempting.

Also, with regard to that term, we could just use "intersex" or "intersexed" in the article to deal with such concerns. But there's no need to jump on talk page contributors or journalists who use the other term, as it is also a scientific, technical term decended from the names of two Greek gods with a long tradition of value-free use. I.e.: there's no reason to assume that because someone uses it, they have any particular feelings about such people, unlike the hyperbolic term gutter press you've used without specifying the referent. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus, you seem to be missing my main point, which is that we have no reliable source stating anything whatsoever about Caster's sex status. Do you really not understand the difference between a medical report and the current newspaper claims?

As Alison has said the legitimate public interest in the 800m result does not extend to personal and private medical information but only to her eligibilty to compete as a woman. If the IAAF ever declared that she was not eligible to have competed as a woman in the 800m then, of course, we would state that fact here, but it is extremely unlikely that the IAAF would publish details of exactly why they came to that decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Let’s not kid ourselves about what the article as it stands does and does not do. No, it does not actually come out and say point blank “she’s intersex“, but don't let that fact let you let us all off the hook for exposing her. It very effectively tells the reader as much anyway. For example, when you tell someone that her team doctor performed an exam on her and went to the ASA and said “don’t send her, they’ll have to make her condition public”, Martin, when you tell them things like this, you let everyone know specifically what you say you don‘t want to tell them. No, you are right, the exact medical details will never be in the article, but the fact that she’s intersex is in there already. And that’s personal and private enough. So all her privacy about that fact she didn‘t want anyone to know, the personal medical fact, that she is somehow intersex, which it would seem she herself didn’t already know, this is already being stated in the article to the reader very clearly if they read at all carefully. This not just my doing, it’s yours and those of the other contributors who shared the goal of exposing the wrongdoers and “supporting” Semenya in this way, laudable goals, but have a look, it turns out that, hey, I’m sorry to be the one to point this out:

YOU CAN‘T do both:

a) not to tell the reader of her intersex condition,

b) tell the reader what exactly Chuene, etc. did wrong.

You can’t do both! I wish there were another way, but there’s not. There are several other examples, places in the article where we let on to the reader. If we don’t want to tell the reader personal medical information, we shouldn’t talk about the gender controversy at all, or find some very brief and vague way to mention it so that the reader won’t get the message loud and clear that this is an intersex person, because the article does this, as it stands now, and Caster didn’t want anyone to know the personal private medical information that she is intersex.

"There will be no discussion of Caster Semenya's case at the forthcoming IAAF council meeting to be held in Monaco on 20-21 November 2009. No further comment will be made on this subject until further notice."

indefinitely not indefinately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.62.147 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Has media glare caused Semenya to run away? Greg Baum, The Age, November 28, 2009.

The Age has a rather good article on media impact including some cultural nuances that may help here. -- Banjeboi 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the New Yorker article was excellent, and wish this article would deal with this subject similarly. Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

read this Chrisrus (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

listen to this Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What information from the sources that we are already using are we ignoring? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8215112.stm

Would anyone object to my adding any of these sentences to the article?

1. When Caster Semenya was born, her family and doctors observed her to be female, and public officials issued her a birth certificate identifying her as female.
2. Her mother has said that Caster has said that when, in Berlin, the IAAF told her she was a boy, it was the first time anyone had ever told her that.
3. Since Caster was born, her mother has been completely convinced that she is a girl.
4. The BBC reported that, in Berlin, Caster asked Chuene this question: “Why did you bring me here, you should have left me home in my village.”
5. The IAAF would not let her race in Berlin until she passed an internal examination because they suspected she might have a rare medical condition that would give her an unfair advantage over the racers.
6. The IAAF never suspected her of doping or cheating or pretending to be a woman. They were looking for a rare medical condition that would give her unfair advantage over the other racers.
7. Soon after it was made public that the IAAF had conducted the tests, the African National Congress, and the South African Young Communists League began organizing a campaign of public outrage in support of Semenya, claiming that racism had motivated the IAAF to conduct an internal examination in Berlin.
8. The results of the IAAF’s internal examination have never been officially released.
9. The results of the IAAF's internal examination in Berlin failed to fully satisfy the IAAF's examiners that Caster didn't have a rare medical condition that would give her an unfair advantage in the race.
10. After the internal examination, the IAAF decided to deliberate until November, 2009, before deciding what if anything, to do with the results of the exam.
11. Chuene expressed outrage, publicly calling the internal examination “humiliating” and saying that Semenya had been treated “like a leper”.
12. After the examination, Chuene told the press that Caster did not want to attend the awards ceremony in Berlin to receive her Gold medal, but that he had persuaded her to do so.

I am not sure whether you expect comments from everyone on each suggestion but my general opinion is that to include much more on the subject would be giving undue weight to the gender controversy. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip column and the points you raise are only of passing importance. The only thing that we are all waiting for is confirmation (or otherwise) from the IAAF that Caster's Berlin result stands.

Is there one particular point that you think has special encyclopedic importance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I should explain more, but first, let me do this section break, because what you are suggesting is, unfortunately perhaps, impossible.

I should explain; I'm just trying to determine who would object to what type of thing. I wouldn't include #2, for example. Chrisrus (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be easiest for you start by saying what you would like to include and then let others comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I seems to me looking at this citation alone, we might be able to use the following:

When Caster Semenya was born, everyone observed her to be female.

… at which time, Caster asked Chuene “Why did you bring me here, you should have left me home in my village.” … (IF we can figure out what it was she meant by that)

After the race, the IAAF insisted that, in order to be declared the winner, she would first have to pass an internal examination in order to determine if she had a rare medical condition that would give her an unfair advantage over the racers.

…the IAAF insisted that it never suspected her of doping, cheating, or being a man posing as woman; they were looking for a rare medical condition that would give her unfair advantage over the other racers.

….Soon after it was made public that the IAAF had conducted the tests, the African National Congress, and the South African Young Communists League conducted a campaign of public outrage at the IAAF for having conducted an internal exam.

…, the results of which (the The Berlin Tests) have never been officially released, …

…, The IAAF medical examiners in Berlin deliberated and decided to give themselves November, 2009 before deciding what do with the results. (needs work).

…in Berlin, right after the tests Chuene (not the IAAF) announced with outrage that the internal exam had been conducted, publicly calling the internal examination “humiliating” and saying that Semenya had been treated “like a leper”. (Maybe not this last part. We are trying to write this with Semenya’s feelings in mind. On the other hand, it shows pretty clearly how well Chuene keeps that in mind when he speaks, to say nothing about the feelings of people with leprosy.)

(Subtext) IT WAS CHUENE WHO INITIALLY MADE THIS PUBLIC, NOT THE IAAF.

That selection to me appears no more logical or consistent than the text we currently have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall we have a look at what is available in the next citation, or are you planning to feel the same way about that one as well? Chrisrus (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If (a big if) we are going to write an article that does justice to the history of this event, we are going to have to procede somehow. It has been stated, rather forcefully, but quite rightly, that we let the sources lead; simply have a look at what's in the sources and piece it together from there; and that this be done here in the discussion section in an open process where everyone can participate and approve before the article is changed. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of this process to go through some stages during which the material is fragmented. As such, observations that a collection of citation information is incoherent or illogical are not helpful.

Important discussion of the nature and scope of the article itself has stopped the process at this point. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we might be better reducing our comments on the gender controversy to just say that her Berlin result was challenged and we are waiting for a decision from the IAAF. The rest is just old news. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The section as it stands does quite a bit more than simply saying the results were challenged, so you must want to remove some of it as it totally lets on that she's intersex and in the course of trying to figue out whose fault her exposure is. And what in the sources would allow us to state as a fact that another public decision from the IAAF is in the offing? Unless the ASA decides to field her in another IAAF race, which if you're following this seems doubtful, why would they make any further comment? The recommendation is for the various sports authorities to allow her to fade back into her private life, any more entering her into women's races will only expose her to more unwanted attention. Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest we remove most of the text in the gender controversy section in due course as this become old news. Obviously we should add that she has retired from competing if and when this is announced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of questions debated here might best be resolved by the creation of a Semenya Gender Controversy (or some more generically titled) article. Keep the Semenya bio info here and farm the rest out to the new article. There is definitely valid information that should be in wiki about this situation, but some of it feels out of place here.--Fizbin (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What aspect of the controversy do you think is worthy of a new article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the IAAF decides on this will create a highly publicized precedent that, at a minimum, affects Semenya and others moving forward. Some specific level of detail should be available on wiki for researchers of this topic to find answers. Just thinking that the Semenya page is not necessarily the correct spot when the topic has broader implications, but that the info should still be here on wiki.--Fizbin (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender verification in sports has a “notable incidents“ bullet point on Caster: Chrisrus (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

“*South African runner Caster Semenya's muscular physique aided a victory during the 800 meters at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics in Berlin. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track and field's governing body, confirmed that Semenya had agreed to a sex-testing process that began in South Africa and was continuing in Germany. Officials wouldn't give details of the testing, but did say that it involves an endocrinologist, a gynecologist, a psychologist, and both internal and external examinations.^[2]“

That seems very unbalanced to me. -- Banjeboi 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We can’t put equal weight on Caster’s athletic career and the gender controversy because her athletic career is too short and simple. Even if we did it perfectly, it would still be short. That’s just a simple fact. Put it aside as a given.

On the other hand, we can’t do justice to the gender controversy in few words. We can try for brevity, but it’s a very complicated situation and if we do it, as we are doing, in very few words, how can we be fair to all parties involved? As it is, it‘s not fair to all the parties it mentions. The reader can’t understand .

We can balance the lead and put the athletics up front, but if the gender controversy is to be done justice, if the reader is to be properly served, we must allow many more words in the gender controversy section than in the athletics section. Chrisrus (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The athletics gender controversy is notable and that is covered in the article. Her personal details and the comments and suggestions that various people have made about her are not and, in my opinion, have no place in a BLP. There might be a case for a section, or possibly a separate article, on the way that various bodies and officials have misbehaved regarding this issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The gender controversy needs to be the dominant theme to the article on this athlete. All success in athletics has been put under scrutiny because of the [controversy over the] gender of the athlete. Whilst we feel sorry for the Athlete involved, this is an encyclopedia and should not sugar coat the obvious facts. Persons here suggesting the gender controversy and athletics success are unrelated are misguided at best Chrisrus. Gender controversy needs to be elaborated upon. Why is the Australian leak banned from the Article. Should there not be a separate section containing the details of the leak and the fueled controversy?60.240.14.140 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the opinion of 60.240.14.140 but removed unconfirmed allegations about Caster's person. The editor is entitled to state their opinion but not to propagate unconfirmed details about a living person. I hope this is acceptable to all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to 60.240.14.140. I have restored your comments with the comments about Caster's anatomy removed. These claims are not based on any statement published by Caster herself of released by any medical authority or person. They are alleged leaks from unspecified and unconfirmed medical tests that were reported in some newspapers. They may be complete fiction for all we know. Such unconfirmed and potentially harmful information must not be included in Wikipedia, even on the talk pages, see WP:BLP. The investigation into her gender has now been completed and she has been cleared to compete in women's events; no other details have been released. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the most encyclopedically notable thing about Caster is the gender dustup. Caster's win at the WC would get her past notability challenges, but the swift completion of a couple of laps of the track is not what Caster will be known for. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with a bio that, at this point in Caster's life, focuses on the gender issues rather than the track.--Fizbin (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the gender issue is important and notable and is covered here, including the final IAAF decision. Unconfirmed personal details about Caster are not suitable for inclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you say that you "disagree" and you do, but you also don't. It seems that what you disagree with me about is whether the gender section does justice to the issue as it stands. But you do, however, agree that the gender section must be longer than the athletics section, correct? The only thing that you insist is that no medical details be included, and nothing from the Australian leak, that is banned. I’m ok with that, I promise I’m not trying to include any details of her condition, and nothing from the Australian leak.

And as to leaving a negative impression on the reader of the behavior of various officials in this case, Martin, please also rest assured. There’s no way that we can dispassionately summarize the reliable sources without some people looking bad. That is certainly the case as it stands, and that fact won't change. It's impossible, no matter how encyclopedically we say everything, that readers are going to approve of how some of these people have done. I'm thinking about #9, above, for example. But we've got to be fair to all the people involved.

Finally, your idea of having a separate article on the Semenya gender controversy is interesting.Chrisrus (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Recentism alert. Leave it alone until the next season starts, for f*cks sake she's a young woman who the world is talking about her sex organs. This is what the media does but just maybe she deserves human dignity to be left well enough alone. Whatever her medical status I'm sure it will be discussed in context if and when she competes. Otherwise we are bordering on Undue BLP issues. No need to inflate, write an expose or otherwise rub salt into this woman's rather unfortunate turn of events. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

First, what do you mean by "the next season", exactly, and what would you like to do at that time?

Second, would you support removing the entire "gender controversy" section until such time as we can do it right? As it stands right now the controversy section does contain reference to such things you would like us not to discuss.

In addition, it's not highly likely that she will ever compete internationally again. The other teams would insist that she be tested again.

Finally, while we're getting emotional, why not think about what's fair to the other racers? Should an entire generation of elite female runners be relegated to competing for a (distant) second place to her, merely to spare Caster hurt feelings? Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The IAAF delayed the announcement a few months, but Semenya is never competing internationally again.--Fizbin (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? -- Banjeboi 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that can be used as a wiki reference.--Fizbin (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, as soon as its announce I'm sure it will be covered widely. Depending on how things go down there may also be a lawsuit over it. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus you seem to be bordering on WP:OR - an entire generation of elite female runners be relegated to competing for a (distant) second place to her, merely to spare Caster hurt feelings - that is not for us to decide or even to speculate. Let reliable sources lead. I see little reason that article which has remained mostly stable can't rest until strong reliable sourcing supports amending. We cover the salient details and do so without belaboring various and seemingly negative stereotypes about trans/intersex people. -- Banjeboi 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus, nobody here is suggesting that Caster should be allowed to compete as a woman if it is held by the the appropriate authority that she is not eligible to do so. When a decision is eventually made we will all want to include it in the article it here.

The decision itself will be made by the IAAF on whatever basis and evidence that their rules dictate. The general public, including WP, play no part in that decision thus we have no need to know Caster's intimate personal details, or what her mother thought when she was a baby etc. The IAAF may be dragging their heels in coming to a decision but idle speculation here will not help or speed up that process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR refers to articles, not talk pages. All I'm saying is that we summerize the reliable sources, that we let them lead. What you seem to be suggesting is that we not let the reliable sources lead, but rather that important information in the reliable sources should be ignored because you feel that they shouldn't be reporting what they report. I'm not for putting into the article our speculation about how likely it is that Semenya will ever have an international atheletic career in the future, about Caster's feelings (you've speculated plenty about her feelings on this talk page yourself), or whether she would or would't win or lose in hypothetical future races. The problem is, pretty much all that's is being allowed is cherry-picked out of the sources by editors with the agenda to condemn or criticize whoever they thought at the time was responsible for making her personal situation public, even if that later turned out to be, if not wrong, not the whole story. So I don't think it's me who doesn't want to simply let the sources lead. In fact, that's exactly what I am suggesting we do. You seem to want to not follow the sources unless they go a certain direction. That's fine, that's a legit point of view you have about what the nature and scope of the article should be, but you are arguing for my vision of the article when you say we should just let the sources lead, not yours, which is to let the sources do what they want, we should not follow if they "go there".

Second, you say that the article has "remained stable". I'd use other vocabulary: stagnant, outdated, something like that; to refer to the phenomenon of how behind the curve this article is.

To Martin, please see that we can't discuss the misbehavior of those that have embarassed Semenya without ourselves implying that she's intersex. While your goal is perhaps laudable, it's impossible. The reader does not and will not to come away from the article without the impression that she's intersex. Hence my suggestion that we delete all gender controversy from the article and just leave it as an article about an athlete, until she "comes out" herself. Chrisrus (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Ps. There's been an edit conflict, so this is out of order in terms of what I was relying to.

Chrisrus, you were suggesting earlier that we add more about the gender controversy, now you want to remove the section? Is that because you think the current section does not present a fair and balanced view? If so, what are your concerns? Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One or the other, Martin. In the gender controversy section, we begin with the details Semenya winning in Berlin. But we already know this because we’ve read the sports section. I say delete it and start with the next sentence. “Following her victory, questions were raised about her gender. This is repeated from the lead, but that’s maybe good to do, repeat things from the lead.

Now we hear that she said she didn’t care. I say leave that part. I love it when she says stuff like how she doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks, God made her that way and so on. And it certainly sounds like something she’d say. By all accounts it’s the kind of thing she’s been saying pretty much all her life and it makes me love her and have hope for her; she’ll get through this. It’s also great that we are letting let her have the first and last words on this matter.

But in the same sentence it’s she says she was so ticked off that she wanted to boycott the ceremony. But sources tell us that Chuene told that to some South African reporters that were there, and that he’d had to persuade her to do it, making him look powerful in her life as her big defender. But Chuene has proven to be an unreliable source, to say the least. I say lose it. Replace it with Semenya saying “Chuene, you asshole, why the hell did you bring me here for? You should have left me back in my Village”or whatever her exact word were, I’d say.

Then we hear that the IAAF are the bad guys, but not specifically what the accusation is yet, but we learn about the critics. Michael Johnson, speaking boldly, but very early on, against the IAAF administering the Berlin exams. When Carl Lewis spoke with great disgust about Chuene I thought for sure it’d make the article, but no one saw fit to include it, perhaps because at the time Chuene had set himself up as her defender and no one wanted to question him. I provided everything that’d be needed, quotation and citation, here in the talk page. On the other hand, this is supposed to be in chronological order. But for now please note that if we are going to have MJ vs. IAAF, we should look for a good place to include CL vs. ASA later on.

And then listing the South African players who came out swinging at the IAAF early on, and a taste of some of the over the top rhetoric they were coming out with (including threatening “WWIII”) about the evil IAAF, and but a word about how the ASA put the IAAF in that position knowingly. Do you think maybe we should back up a bit or not start at the end of the race? Knowing what we know now about what went on before Chuene brought her to Berlin might show these facts in a brighter light.

Then we let the IAAF defend itself. Well done I say. Look, some of that looks like my text!

Then we have the You magazine spread, not mentioning that it was arranged by the ASA to convince people that she wasn‘t intersex at all, and which make me cringe, I donno about you, you think that’s what a person who says "God made me the way I am and I accept myself" would want to do?

Daniels resigns in shame for not protecting her. Good one, leave it in, but does our reader understand what he meant by "we did not advise Ms Semenya properly"? Our reader does not understand. Protect her from what? The sources tell us that they failed to do what is usually done in such cases and not send them into a situation where the IAAF will have to test them and quietly let the person fade back into her private life.

Then we find out a little of what Chuene did, only that he had had Caster do a gender test too. I hope the reader gets the idea that, oh, so what was he so upset about the IAAF doing one also? I thought it was so wrong to insist that an athlete be subjected to internal examinations. I’m not so sure that the reader gets that, though. We are careful to let Chuene defend himself a little, he was just keeping her records confidential. That’s nice, how thoughtful of him. If he was so worried about her privacy, why did he put her in that situation. Oh well, let’m have his say, it’s only fair I suppose. But let’s make sure the reader understands that all previous attacks by the ASA on the IAAF for internal exam-insisting are now off.

Now we get to the meat of the matter. He ignored a request from ASA team doctor Harold Adams to withdraw Semenya from the world championships over concerns about the need to keep her medical records confidential. The whole point, irony of our position is right here. Should we say that Adams was saying, “she‘s intersex, if you send her, the world will find out personal stuff about her that‘s no one‘s business. But Chuene ignored that, and did anyway and so it’s his fault that the world now knows personal stuff about Caster. But that‘s exactly Martin‘s position, the world has no right to know these things, So Martin and those who agree with him should not be in favor of adding what Adams accused Chuene of doing wrong. This conflicts, however with the goal of exposing those at fault for her mistreatment, so here we are. Are we supposed to write this in such a way that the reader can‘t really understand or we write it and let on that she‘s interex, which is what the article does at this point if the reader is astute, or what? If you are against including things in this article which indicate she to the reader that she’s intersex, you don’t want to include this; if you want to tell the reader who Dr. Adams is and what he said about what Chuene did, then you have to let on that the team doctor saw the exams and told Chuene that Caster shouldn’t be entered in order to protect her privacy.

Then we learn she‘s lawyered up. But we have learned since then that this announcement may have been premature. If you‘ve read the New Yorker, the lawyers keep trying to talk to her but are told to go away. So this section needs to be revisited.

Then we learned that the ASA had convinced the IAAF to keep her medal and the prize money. But that’s telling the reader to wonder why there was any question about that, and in context is obviously that they found her intersex, so again let’s not kid ourselves we’re saying she must be intersex.

Again in the end, the same thing. They didn’t say if she would be allowed to compete as a woman because they don’t have a clear line as to what constitutes what it would take to be a woman so far as the 800M goes. Honestly, what does that tell the reader? We’re not saying she’s intersex, we’re just saying that we don’t know if she’ll be able to run with the women anymore because we don’t have clear rules as to what it takes to be allowed as a female in the 8oom.

In conclusion, there’s no way to write this so the reader so it both makes sense and doesn’t let on that she’s intersex. So are we going to have a good gender section or are we going to protect her privacy?

I agree the current section is a bit arbitrary. Remember though, that we are not trying to cover anything up, specifically we are not trying to cover up the fact that she might be intersex, on the other hand it is not our place to say that she is or is not or to speculate on such matters.

Why not rewrite the gender controversy section here the way that you think it should be and let people comment on it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I respond above under Citation One. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi you said earlier {02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)} "a young woman who the world is talking about her sex organs". Yes, and no. Gender is not just a matter of external 'organs'. There are 'women' who have a condition known as 'Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome'(as I recall) They appear as, and are assumed to be 'female'. I saw a TV documentary about one such person who married and when she could not get pregnant was examined, tested and found to have male chromosones. She did not in any way look masculine. But, while externally female she lacked the internal 'plumbing', womb, ovaries etc of most women. There are apparently many degrees and variations of this condition. I was rather surprised to learn of this condition, it just makes the question of gender more difficult than one would have assumed. I haven't read all the discussion here, but hope I may have added a little useful information. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi, just had a quick peek at your user page. Seems you may already be well aware of what I was pointing out! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)