Talk:Caster Semenya

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes. Template:Anti-vandal-notice

Comment

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)

Request for comment

Should we currently use personal pronouns to refer to Semenya in the article, given the current dispute? What should we use if the "gender test" determines that Semenya is biologically male? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree that there is currently any 'dispute' about Miss Semenya's gender. A dispute would imply that some contradictory evidence has been presented. A gender test has been requested but until results of any test are presented there is no dispute. Gender testing is mandatory for the Olympic Games but that does not mean that the gender of all young athletes who have yet to enter for the Olympics is somehow 'in dispute'. Wikipedia should be based on known facts rather than the maxim that 'there is no smoke without fire'. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment According to MOS:IDENTITY, when referring to a transgendered/transsexual person, it is appropriate to use the pronoun proper for the gender that said person identifies with. Since Semenya identifies as a female (i.e. competes in the female division of athletic competitions), Wikipedia ought to use feminine pronouns to refer to her. I don't know what criteria the athletic governing body will use for the test, but even if it is ruled that for the purpose of her sport she is insufficiently female, Wikipedia should continue to use feminine pronouns unless she changes her public stance on her gender. æk^T_C 09:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't think Semenya is necessarily a transgendered/transsexual person. But extending the policy from MOS:IDENTITY to apply to her seems natural. The policy seems to be saying that Wikipedia should use pronouns in accordance with the beliefs of the referent about his/her social gender (not biological sex). I can think of no reason why the reasoning that applies in cases of clearly transgendered/transsexual persons shouldn't apply here as well. æk^T_C 09:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason MOS:IDENTITY doesn't refer to non-trans women is because in that case, there shouldn't be an issue. That is - if Caster Semenya is a woman, then it goes without saying that female pronouns are used, no matter whether people have questioned her gender or not. If it turns out that she's intersex, male or whatever, then MOS:IDENTITY comes into play, and we still use female pronouns. Mdwh (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In general, a female pronoun should be used through the article writing. There has been some grumbling that the MOS doesn't cover this particular case, but I think the language is sufficently broad to cover people who's gender is disputed by others, (theoretically, that could cover many more people than what we're discussing here). Neutral language should only be used when female pronouns would be confusing, (I don't like the MOS example of 'she fathered her first child', but it illustrates the point well enough.) I can't think of anything in the article right now that requires gender neutral language to be easily understood, so female pronouns should be used throughout. Bigmacd24 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Female pronouns should be used as that is how she identifies herself. The IAAF cannot determine someone's gender - all they can do is determine whether someone conforms to their rules to compete. As she has clearly said she is female, that is how she wants to be referred to and we should follow that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb314 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edited out some irrelevance in my previous comment) Acb314 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• • The IAAF cannot determine someone's gender identity but they certainly can test for biological traits that have great credit in determining gender (in a case of alleged fraud, not transsexualism) with the world population at-large, minus the press and Wikipedia intelligentsia. Using the female cases for Semenya is an affirmation of innocence—it is inappropriate as such aggressive sympathies would be an article about a rapist-under-investigation. The Homosexualist (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Using the female cases for Semenya is an affirmation of innocence" - I disagree, you're reading too much into it. Even if she didn't fit into the IAAF category (I'm not sure that "innocent"/"guilty" is appropriate here, that in itself is a POV), I would still say she be referred to as she. Therefore, use of "she" does not imply "innocence". Furthermore, even if you are right, I disagree that we should somehow use gender neutral terms (which will just lead to awkward phrases). People should be innocent until proven guilty - and that applies on Wikipedia BLP articles, where reliable sources are needed to justify her "guilt" in this matter, not merely speculation. Should every other article of a female athelete be changed to use gender neutral terms, because their "innocence" has not been proven? Indeed, why stop there - should we use gender neutral terms for all BLP articles, unless their gender has been somehow proven? Mdwh (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • No, because not every athlete competing in female competitions has these grave and widespread accusations of misconduct against them. This is only for articles with a controversy. The Homosexualist (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        • So as soon as someone questions a person's gender, we must somehow rewrite their article to not mention "he" or "she" (even at the expense of grammar)? I disagree. And as I say, it's irrelevant because even if she was found to be intersex, transgender, or whatever, we'd still use her preferred identity as per MOS:IDENTITY. If you disagree with that guideline, you should take it up there. If you don't disagree, it's unclear to me why we should worry about using "she", when we'd use female pronouns no matter what the outcome? Btw, do you think the entirety (it seems) of the world's media are being biased by referring to her as "she"? Mdwh (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
          • The IAAF has much greater authority than just any "someone who questions a person's gender". They are spending time and money on this effort, and have a serious interest in the veracity of their competitions. We should not assume prematurely that xe is intersex, or transgender (seriously unlikely), but perhaps a biological male and a fraudster, a situation rightly not explored by MOS:IDENTITY. I do not want this to turn into a discussion about the merits of the popular press, but that press is well-served not to stoke the fire of South African nationalism, and to conform to others' easy use of female pronouns, with little regard to objectivity. The Homosexualist (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• CommentThe IAAF is just one of many monied self interest groups. They have their own agenda with regard to athletics irrespective of any other POV. The actuality appears to be that the athlete has always regarded herself as female and should therefore continue to be regarded that way unless she herself decides that a change is appropriate. The IAAF cannot determine gender or sexuality in any sense of the word as there is more to gender than the outcome of a series of biological scientific tests. There are plenty of males in the world with hypogonadism resulting in low serum testosterone and they are definitely not female in their view or in the view of others. The tests which the IAAF execute may produce evidence of different hormone levels than a "benchmark" "male" or "female", however this is only of ulimate importance to the IAAF and those who wish to compete within its rules. In writing about this in a reference work we are not bound by IAAF rules but must rely on the basic facts we have. Personal female pronouns should stay unless the athlete requests a change.Celsius100 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • • • • • • So as soon as someone serious with a lot of money questions a person's gender, we must somehow rewrite their article to not mention "he" or "she" (even at the expense of grammar)? I disagree. Even if we compared this to legal court cases, I don't think we would remove all references to something unless it was proven - all we would do was mention the case in the article. If you have reliable evidence that she's a "fraudster" (which is a stronger claim than her being intersex - and I don't see that the results of the tests alone would determine whether this is a case of fraud), then let's hear it - otherwise, the requirement for reliable sources applies, even more so for BLP. Mdwh (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
            • When do in fact by and large follow reliable sources since it's one of our core principles, regardless of their alleged lack of objectivity Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Homosexualist, given that the IAAF have now came out and said they 'do not suspect cheating but wanted to determine if he has a "rare medical condition" giving her an unfair advantage', perhaps you should withdraw your claim that there are 'grave and widespread accusations of misconduct' against her? And also perhaps consider this a good lesson in why you need to take great care in WP:BLPs rather then making wild claims (even in the talk page) about living individuals that aren't actually supported by the sources and instead learn to approach things with an open mind and follow the sources without your own intepretation? Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • As comments dated from before the IAAF buckled under South African political pressure, and ones quite more moderate than you make them seem in context, I feel no such compulsion. Moreover, I reject your moralizing, witch-hunting, and personal attacks against editors as unconductive to the creation of a collaborative Encyclopedia article. —the Homosexualist (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• She should be referred to as a she. That's how reliable sources do it, plus MOS:IDENTITY applies without too much stretching. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There were no gender questions at the time sources recorded her race and when she was profiled shortly thereafter. Now, newspapers have made the politically expedient decision to use Semenya's popular gender ("Reaction in South Africa towards the IAAF's actions has been mainly negative, and a number of athletes, including Michael Johnson, have criticized the way that the governing body handled the situation.") It's likely that sources using male or neutral pronouns were selected out, too. The Homosexualist (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have yet to see any mainstream source refer to Miss Semenya as either 'he' or 'it'. Rather than having been selected out, I suspect they simply don't exist. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with most of thecomments above, and especially Mdwh's. Personally, I have no problem with Wikipedia referring to her as "she", given that this is how she identifies hereself and there is no current evidence in reliable sources to prove otherwise. If the test reveals that she is not female, then the issue may need revisiting, but at the same time is she continues to self-identify as a woman we may be best off sticking to the guideline anyway. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• We should refer to Semenya as "she," if only because it is polite. If it turns out that Semenya is really a man who knowingly and willingly committed gender fraud, then we can change the article to "he." Under any other circumstances, up to and including finding out that Semenya is an intersex person of any sort, we should continue to use Semenya's preferred pronouns, even if none of our sources do. This, I feel, is in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• She I agree with User:Darkfrog24, only if it turns out that Semenya is really a man who knowingly and willingly committed gender fraud should we even consider doing anything else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that The Homosexualist is continuing to rewrite the article to remove any personal pronouns, despite the consensus above that using female personal pronouns is fine. Technically there isn't a rule that "personal pronouns must appear in an article" of course, but I'm concerned at butchering grammar and readability in order to achieve it. And whilst The Homosexualist cites POV grounds, I would argue that it's this that's pushing a POV - namely the POV that she should not be referred to as "she".

And if The Homosexualist wants to compare the pronoun use to her possible "guilt" (which isn't relevant, as we'd still use female pronouns even if she was intersex or male, as long as that was her preference), then I'd argue that removing all references is itself a POV that we should consider her guilty (someone should be innocent until proven guilty - and every other article for female athletes use gender pronouns). Mdwh (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is an RfC in search of a problem. She identifies as a woman and apparently was awarded the gold medal after the agency did a "gender test." Really we have no reliable sources to support any more nonsense. And no we don't corrupt articles just to remove pronouns - quite unneeded. She is a young woman and the article reflects that until reliable sources suggest that we do otherwise. If and when that happens we report things NPOV. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is a biography of a living person. Any actions which indicate that we are casting doubt on Semenya's gender are potentially libelous and must be avoided. This could include the removal of gender indicating personal pronouns. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Just in case this is unclear, we should not remove personal pronouns but use the female forms naturally. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Semenya identifies as a "she", although she appears tomboyish in some news accounts and apparently has a rather deep voice for a woman. Nonetheless, it is evident that she identifies as a woman , even though she doesn't adhere to traditional gender roles or gender standards. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, we should identify her according to her preference unless there i evidence for an active dispute that it is really how they identify. The IAAF have asked for verification that she didn't gain an unfair advantage, but as others have mentioned their only concern is their rules. Even if she fails the verification, that is irrelevant when it comes to choosing the pronoun for her. (Obviously we should mention any significant controvery) Some people have mentioned women pretending to be men during war time and I agree if there is ever strong evidence that she never identified as female but lied about that then we can revisit this issue but there is absolutely no evidence for that at the current time and even if the IAAF rule against her that won't change this. Editors may also want to check out Gender verification in sports and Santhi Soundarajan where we follow these policies Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We should identify this individual according to her stated preference (female). It is acceptable and necessary to report the controversy and its results, but as she refers to herself as female the feminine pronouns should be used throughout, and should continue to be used afterwards regardless of the findings of the athletic organization unless she chooses to start referring to herself otherwise. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If she, her family, her coach and teachers at Pretoria U have known all along that she is male and are perpetrating fraud, then our reliable sources will call her "he" and we will do likewise. Otherwise we are to call her "she". (My suspicion is that she may have something like undiagnosed Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), in which case she's still female, but IAAF may decide that the condition should have been discovered and treated. That will be IAAF's problem.) - Hordaland (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We should use the pronouns Semenya prefers, which currently means using feminine pronouns. She clearly identifies as a woman. --Alynna (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The "dispute" in MOS:IDENTITY refers to disputes about what gender identity the individual in question expressed at a given moment, not to disputes about whether an individual's genotype and their gender identity are conforming. Caster Semenya is legally a woman, self-identifies as female, and the only reason to change pronouns in her case would be if she changed her self-identification. This is not a "Juwanna Mann" or "Some Like It Hot" scenario; Semenya has been legally and socially identified as female for her whole life. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article should refer to biological sex as a controversy rather than gender. Semenya identifies as a woman, but she is apparently biologically intersex. Gender is a socially constructed based on a set of behavioral norms.--Mhenneberry (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the article should use the word 'she'. Caster Semenya clearly identifies as a female, wears female clothes, intends to compete in female events, and claims in interviews that she's female. The results of the gender testing do not change any of that. A person should be labelled according to the person's express gender identity, and this person is, from the point of view of an encyclopedia writer, female. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - She identifies as a 'she', and the burden of proof is on those accusing her of being something else. The burden has not been met (not yet?). The Squicks (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• To the point If we use non-gender pronouns, than I believe that we are presuming that she is lying in the way we write the article. That is a horrible violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It would be like a taking a biographical article about an LGBT Christian and then scrubbing all references to his or her religion in the article because commentators about him or her have said that he or she is not really Christian.

She calls herself female. If we don't use her terminology, than we are accusing her of lying and taking the side against her (which we can only do with serious backing from RS). The Squicks (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This policy does not cover instances of those whose gender is preference is known to be neutral, so there are cases of articles which have no possessive pronouns or adjectives nor any personal pronouns. This can be done, MOS:IDENTITY does not specify that it should not be attempted. It only implies that if this is done, it should be done in such a way that it sounds encyclopedic. If people want to try writing this article with gender-neutral language in order to maintain a more clearly neutral point of view as to the controversy as to whether a person with testicles instead of a womb is truely a woman or not, regardless of personal preference. The question, and the standard by which any such edits must be judged, is whether or not it is possible to do so without ostantatiously seeming to do so. I know that this has been possible in other cases, but those articles that I've seen which pull this off successfully are pretty short and simple. If it is not possible to do this, MOS:IDENTITY states that we must use female words in this case. Barring that, we are still faced with what to do about the problem of someone coming in and trying to neutralize the text over and over again. Why not use a hat note at the top stating that the reason we are using female pronouns and possessives in this article is only because of our MOS:IDENTITY policy and not because, as we will be seeming to do, we are taking any position on the controversy. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy about how Semenya self-identifies. I have found no instances of her referring to herself as anything except "she" and its variants. To make any special point about the use of "she", even to say that it is policy on WP and not the taking of sides, is to suggest that there is a reason why sides might be taken. As for the removing of pronouns, that would also be to negate her choice in this matter. Our points of view, as individiuals or groups, are immaterial. // BL \\ (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

• SAfrican in gender flap gets gold for 800 win Aug 22, 2009, By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press Writer. - has soome background on early years that may help. -- Banjeboi 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently deleted comment

A have deleted a comment about racism and sexism as being too inflammatory in the current situation. Once we are allowed to say that some sources say that the controversy is racist and sexist, we then invite comments along the lines of, 'some sources say that she has competed unfairly/is really a man' etc.

I think we should stick to using only sources that state facts rather than opinions, for the time being at least. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable opinions that are sourced are fine. We don't delete content because it's uncomfortable, we work to prevent it neutrally and dispassionately. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Martin's reasoning is faulty. You and I agree that it's silly to say that the questions have anything to do with her race or nationality, we know that this has happened many times before to white atheletes who seemed to be men. But the fact is, they did "go there", in a big way, in many notable and reliable sources. If you are worried about it, you can easily add a cited sentence of why "these questions wouldn't be asked if she weren't black" is obviously wrong. But you were wrong to delete a summary of recent press reports related to the Semenya case based on the fact that it's a sad thing that they had to "go there". 72.230.11.240 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comment should be left in the article. However, I think the phrase "some commentators, politicians and activists" is somewhat vague. In line with the currently sourced remarks, I'd like to propose changing that wording to something along the lines of "prominent South African civic leaders." — æk^T_C 02:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have at it! Be Bold! Here, here's another article which you could use to balance the reports of silly accusations that the Semeya gender investigation is motivated by racism: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6061375/Sports-gender-controversies.html. Good luck!

We go where the sources lead - "some commentators, politicians and activists" is a direct quote, "prominent South African civic leaders" would seem to water down the assertion that only "prominent South African civic leaders" stated these ideas which isn't accurate. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for such allegations of racism by non-South Africans? (Of course, it will be inherently difficult to source statements by non-prominent South Africans. But with respect to this point I think my proposed change can be read as inclusive -- i.e. among others, prominent South Africans have stated...) I found a non-SA source that alleges sexism, and have added it to the article. My concern is that the phrase "some politicians, commentators, and activists" is somewhat vague (cf. WP:WEASEL, though calling the phrase straight-up weaselly is a little harsh). In general, it is always possible to find some politicians, commentators, and activists who have claimed just about anything. I've boldly made an edit that attempts to put the various criticisms in context, and that also separates the criticism from the response (previously they were interwoven). — æk^T_C 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to fight over it but I think that controversial and even uncomfortable facts are fine but we would be well advised to keep well clear of opinions on the subject, however notable. I am sure that, if we looked hard enough (and there are people who will) we could find well documented opinions on the subject that are downright offensive. Once we decide that it is acceptable to write, 'somebody else claimed this', 'or some people suggested that' it will be hard to stop editors from adding offensive material in the form of someone else's opinion. Once the issue has been dealt with there has been time for some more considered opinions to be published we could mention them here but currently the media are thick with opinions of all sorts that I think we should ignore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point however these are not fringe ideas. Reliable sources are reporting these assertions so we certainly should note them along with refutes from the agency, which I also did. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't he also cite something that proves them wrong, such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6061375/Sports-gender-controversies.html? Chrisrus (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources contradict each we find ways to resolve it, sometimes we present multiple views. -- Banjeboi 05:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is quite true that "some commentators, politicians and activists" have a particular opinion we cannot prove that fact wrong although we can disagree with the opinion. Maybe "some other commentators, politicians and activists" will have a different opinion on the subject. Only when there are well established and widely reported opinions we should quote them here and even then it would be better if these were general opinions about gender issues in athletics rather than opinions about one specific person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I understand your last statement, but we should not mention general opinions that have nothing to do with Caster Semenya in this article (which is an article about Caster Semenya). Some sources have used her case as a an example of the wider problems female atheletes face in sport and it would likely to be acceptable to mention these sources. But we should not go to far in discussing general opinions about gender issues and we definitely should not use any sources which discuss general opinions about gender issues without mentioning here. That would be either a case of OR, specifically WP:Syn or WP:Undue or both depending on what specifically is added. One thing I do agree with, saying some commentators is problematic and WP:Weasel wordy and should be reworked Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you are quite right that we should not use any sources which discuss general opinions about gender issues here. Event have overtaken this discussion now, as there comments from sources in the article. My fears have not been realised so I will drop the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Results of test

are the results in yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.140.226 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like hermaphrodite with not fully developed male sexual organs, not official yet:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-1212568/World-champion-Caster-Semenya-hermaphrodite-womb-ovaries--Australian-newspapers-shock-claims-gender-row-runner.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.198.178 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have enough evidence to label Caster Semenya as a hermaphrodite. Someone should update the article. jszivos (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, we don't "label" people, we wait and see what wp:RSs say. So far there are non that confirm anything without doubt.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look on the australian yahoo news website and they have said the results of the gender test shows that semenya is a hermaphrodite and could lose her gold medal. --82.47.2.163 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Although because the situation is not drug related she may keep her gold medal after all. That's what it says on the sky sports website. --82.47.2.163 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, until there's an official announcement, it is just rumour. Personally, while I note that this is mentioned in the article, we're not a news site, so I think we can afford to hold off until an official announcement. - Bilby (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OOooo this is getting interesting. I've just finished reading the "The Australian" article and googling around to see who else has picked it up or written independant stuff, of which I couldn't find much. I had never heard of this newspaper before, being a New Yorker, is it considered a reliable source? It looks like the Australian version of the Globe and Mail or Times of London or New York Times, but that's just the impression I got, not based on much more. Anyway, the article itself claims to have an inside scoop but does not seem to be releasing any official information. It's not quite the level of "just rumors", I don't think, but still pretty close to it. I personally wouldn't add this to the article just yet, but it looks like someone has already done so, but perhaps we should save that text somewhere and re-add it in a few days. Really, I favor waiting a few days and see if this gets picked up by other sources, think about Semenya's feelings and give her the benefit of a doubt, no matter how small. Who knows? There is an outside chance that "The Australian" could have to print a retraction or something. It could happen! Chrisrus (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone has gone and replaced all instances of the word "she" with her name. Didn't we agree that we wouldn't do that ahead of time, even if the results turned out that "she" were male? I say this having argued for neutralizing the article if that happened myself, but I respect the general conscensous. We should undo that until we agree. Chrisrus (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Australian has its problems, but yes, it is one of the major newspapers in the country, and is considered to be reliable. And I, as per above, tend to agree that we shouldn't be annoucing the results of the test until they're official, but from a practical perspective it may be hard to keep out, so a compromise solution may be sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On the use of feminine pronouns, I've put back the "she". The manual of style speaks against the use of first names, so replaceing "she" with "Caster" is problematic, and the general discussion above suggested that the use of feminine pronouns was certainly appropriate at this time. If she is later shown to be intersexual(?), then the pronoun is still techically appropriate, and either way if she regards herself as female then we should use the term. The exception was if she regarded herself as male but was pretending to be female, and we certainly have no evidence of that. - Bilby (talk) 0

3:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What Now?

Biological bios of living people

Well, it's all over the BBC and the international wire services and so on. We really can't avoid it now. We are going to have to carefully choose the very best way to state the medical facts as claimed in these reports. This means explaining what personal body parts Semenya has and does not have and can never have, something that sources state is absolutely breaking the heart of her mother and other family members, to say nothing of what it is doing to Semenya, who never asked for or concented to having her gender checked, wasn't aware at the time that it was being checked, and never consented to having the contents of pelvis and fertility status made public.

My recommendation is that we state the facts but couch them in quotes and summaries of from reliable sources about how unethically these facts were brought to light and the effect on their families. Chrisrus (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should only state facts that have been confirmed by official sources and properly released to the public. Alleged and leaked information should have no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully disagree with everything that you are saying, but I do disagree when you said "leaked". Encyclopedias are for reporting facts, whether "leaked" or not. The facts of the scientific, biological, medical tests have been disclosed to the public. They are now everywhere, in reliable sources, newspapers all over the world, for everyone to see. Furthermore, the reports from named sources that condemn the leaking do not deny the medical facts contained in the test results. They only object that the results should not have been leaked, and that Castor was not told at the time that she was being gender tested. They complain that she should have been told earlier, and that these embarrassing personal facts have been leaked to the press. They don't claim that she actually does have female internal organs or that she does not have male organs hidden in her body. Everyone seems to admit that these facts are true. The anger is not that these are not true, but comes from those who wish that the facts had been kept private. They don't deny the facts in this case. Is there any doubt that it is true, Castor has no womb, she has testicles. Do you disagree that these facts are known? Is there some doubt in your mind that these are the medical facts about Castor? I think you are simply angry about how the facts were made public and therefore think that we should not allow them in the article. That's nice, you seem to be a kind person. You want to spare her feelings, that makes you a good person because you are worried about these things. I agree with you on that, apologies are in order. But, as they say, the cat is out of the bag. As they say, there is no use closeing the barn door after the cows have already escaped. Our banning the facts from the article will not help the situation in terms of these people's feelings. They will only deny our readers knowable facts.

You should also concider, in my opinion, another point of view. This other point of view is that only women should be allowed to win gold metals in offically sanctioned races for women. I think you will agree with this. Men, I think you probably agree, should not be allowed to race against women in official races. They have to race against other men, only. If a person wishes to win gold metals racing against women, they must be clearly women. In cases where someone seems to be a man, this person must prove that they are indeed a woman to order to race with women, and the results of this test should be made public so everyone should know that, appearences aside, this person is in fact a woman and therefore should be allowed to win such gold metals in Women's races, or, if the opposite should turn out to be true, the person must race with the men. This must be the point of view of bodies tasked with this job, officals of the atheletics associations. And these people must put aside any squeemishness about doing so and do thier jobs. It is their job to ensure that no men are in the races for women.

This article takes no position on this issue, other than to report them. I hope you will concider what I have said, and not take it from me, but research it yourself and think it through yourself and then agree with me. These facts must be in the article, although we must think carefully about exactly how to do it. Chrisrus (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to you second point first, of course the issue of gender is important to fair play in sport. In most cases it would be extremely unfair for a man to compete as a woman. The public have a right to know whether, under current rules, a player, including Caster, is eligible to compete as a woman, but this is the only thing that they have any right to know. Although the rules should be public, the reasons and anatomical details behind a decision concerning an individual player should be confidential to that player. We have no more right to know them that we have to know the intimate and personal details of members of your family. In this respect there have been no official announcements by any sports ruling body and thus there is nothing to report here.

Regarding the reporting of facts in general, when dealing with a biography of a living person we have to be particularly certain of our facts, for both legal and moral reasons. As far as I can see all we have are magazine and newspaper reports alleging certain things about Caster; these allegations are not facts and should not be included as such here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronoun Trouble

We had this out in advance. I think by changing MOS:IDENTITY to cover anyone whose gender could be in question we have dealt with objections such as those raised earlier by Homosexualist and others. The policy is that we continue to call her "she" as long as that's what she prefers.

This policy does not, however, cover instances of those whose gender is preference is known to be neutral, so there are cases of articles which have no possessive pronouns or adjectives nor any personal pronouns. This can be done, MOS:IDENTITY does not specify that it should not be attempted. It only implies that if this is done, it should be done in such a way that it sounds encyclopedic. If people want to try writing this article with gender-neutral language in order to maintain a neutral point of view as to the controversy that a person with testicles instead of a womb is truely a woman or not. The question, and standard by which any such edits must be judged, is whether or not it is possible to do so without ostantatiously seeming to do so. I know that this has been possible in other cases, but those articles that I've seen which pull this off successfully are pretty short and simple. If it is not possible to do this, MOS:IDENTITY states that we must use female words in this case.

Barring that, we are still faced with what to do about the problem of someone coming in and neutralizing the text over and over again. The block Alison (thank you) put on the article can only do so much. I think we should put some kind of hat note at the top stating that the reason we are using female pronouns and possessives in this article is only because of our MOS:IDENTITY policy and not because, as we will be seeming to do, we are taking any position on the controversy. Chrisrus (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think adding a hatnote is necessary, or even wise since AFAIK, not many sources even dispute the use of the female pronoun. Even those sources discussing the speculation surrounding her condition still use the female pronoun. In other words we aren't just not choosing sides because of policy. We also aren't choosing sides because there is no other side to take. Instead, I've added a hidden comment to try and ward off any well meaning editors who aren't aware of policy and try to change the pronoun Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gender test

I've removed the text regarding the recent gender test in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy, as most relevant information is pure speculation at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. at least you didn't delete my comments --82.47.2.163 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the IAAF has not officially announced their findings. The Sydney Herald published the news claiming a "source," but the findings are not yet official. This needs to be addressed in this article. Just because a newspaper reports something doesn't make it true, especially if the news comes from an anonymous source. --Lendorien (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

i've put in a london times quote by an actual official that should be acceptable to all. untwirl(talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed completely. This report came from an anon source, so might not be reliable, and Caster herself doesn't even know. Therefore a violation of BLP. 86.136.92.227 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait for the official results of the test. Somebody said something, and the wikipedia makes it a fact. Olaf (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=174&art_id=vn20090911040559246C757043 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=21750 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.57.3 (talk)

I have removed a media report from the lead (where it had undue prominence) and put it in the relevant section with similar reports. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that we refrain from adding Category:Intersex people until there is official confirmation. Adding the category doesn't allow the claim to be properly contextualized. On those grounds I'm removing the latest addition of the category, but naturally I'll leave it open to consensus about whether or not it should be readded. I'd add that, from my perspective, we still don't need to rush - I don't think that there's any need to add the category now, as time will make things clearer. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a gossip column. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The results of the scientific tests were improperly leaked, but they are nevertheless the results of the scientific tests and therefore not "gossip".Chrisrus (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the source that tells us about these tests? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

CBC, BBC, IP, all over. Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the stuff that The Magnificent Clean-keeper quite rightly deleted. This is what WP policy on the subject is:

'Be very firm about the use of high quality references. 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.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment'.

That seems clear enough to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article contain what the media outlets have been reporting about the results of the gender test? Without mentioning that the section is confusing, talking about people's reaction to the event without mentioning what most people are being told the results of the event are, and thus what it is all these people are reacting to. At this point I doubt the IAAF will confirm one true results, as they're caught in a delicate position, and that means they can keep trying to ignore the issue and hope it goes away, which I don't think would be the case if she was 100% female. I've tried to amend the statement to reflect the fact that it is merely what media outlets are reporting and has not been officially confirmed by anyone, but apparently some people still have issues with that. JQF • Talk • Contribs 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not say what the media outlets have been reporting for the reasons given above. Note the quotation from the WP policy on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To try and ward off any well meaning editors adding speculation without discussion, I've added a hidden comment Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Role in Objective Realities and Personal Preferences

There is an incentive for any person in any discussion to temper his or her speech based on socially acceptable norms. The tendency of a person to be influenced by these incentives could be termed "being PC" (politically correct). This tendency is understandable given a social incentive structure. However, a work such as wikipedia should, in my estimation, attempt to favor tendencies that are most accurate and most clear. For a biographical article, I see no reason why those tendencies should be abandoned due to the personal preferences of the subject of the article, though I do think that the personal preference of the subject of the article should be noted. For instances within biographical articles where there are inconsistencies, ambiguities, or other unresolved or unresolvable issues, I believe that it makes sense to include ALL information available as based on accepted categories.

Examples: Personally Identified Gender; Biological Gender; Surgical or Personal-Identification Gender Transitioned to/from

As for the seemingly-antiquated his-her pronoun structure, we could go the "legal-contract" route and refer to any person as "party of the first part", "subject of the article", etc.

Thoughts? Gwopy (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I hereby suggest that the party proposing this approach would find it circumlocutious and gratuitously offensive if by virtue of the unauthorised disclosure of confidential and personal information the aforementioned party were to be generally referred to by third parties in the manner previously used herein whereas other parties who were not subject to the aforementioned unauthorized disclosures were referred to by allegedly antiquated personal pronouns. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin Hogbin. That was both funny and on point. // BL \\ (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing in this discussion: How should organized sports define male and female?

Why is there no focus or discussion regarding the responsibility and obligation of sporting organizations to deal with this issue and develop a set of criteria that can be objectively applied to all participants regarding their sex status?

If we are going to continue to segregate people based on their sex as they participate in athletic events, then the onus is on the sporting world to deal with this issue. Sporting organizations need to look at all possible determining factors (hormonal, genetic, anatomical, etc) as they relate to physical performance and ability and develop a set of objective tests that take into account all known variations of human sexual construction so that a committee is not required to make a decision when the next Caster Semenya comes along.

This notion that human sexuality serves as a convenient (if not rational) major or primary demarcation between distinct groups or types of humans may no longer be logical. A case can be made that it is more rational to segregate participants based on weight rather than sex, as sports is fundamentally a physical activity, and the mass of a person can tell us more about how much muscle they have, or their ability to accelerate, to lift, to jump, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.100.180 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The notion that human sexual distinctions serve as a convenient and rational major or primary demarcation between distinct groups or types of human beings is completely logical, as biological sexual distinctions are the key determining factors in physical developments that result in one's athletic ability. No reasonable case can be made to segregate based on weight for Track and Field. This idea is utterly bogus.Gwopy (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no focus on the responsibilities of sporting organizations because this article is about Caster Semenya. That subject would be more appropriate for the article on Gender verification in sports. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you should mention that article. Have you seen this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports#Notable_incidents? Shall we delete that section? Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the media claims, for the same reasons given here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well. If you know any foreign languages, the links at left will lead you to lots of other Caster articles that you can delete stuff from. Chrisrus (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to include this stuff? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm eager to do is write a coherent article that is updated with the latest information. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) It might be help if you knew why I'm interested in this article. It's for the same reason that I'm interested in shrew mole. I'm just interested in things that are neither here nor there. I have no POV agenda. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82awa_Walasiewicz#Legacy contains something you might like to delete as well. Chrisrus (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gender Section from top to bottom

First the reader is told that, after the race, rumors arose about Semenyas gender, but she didn’t care about these or the “verification“. But we guess she did care because she was angry enough to consider boycotting the ceremony. But the reader doesn’t know what “the verification” refers to, or whether she boycotted the ceremony.

Next, important people supported her and criticized the organization. Yet the reader doesn’t know what “organization” we are talking about. Must be some kind of cataphoric reference, because next, we are told the that people think that “the IAAF” was wrong. All kinds of good important people called “the IAAF” racist, and that they had done something terribly wrong, violating poor Semenya’s privacy and human rights. Somehow, we don't yet know what they did. The reader doesn’t even know what “the IAAF” is, much less what it did that violated her rights, or why it‘s the IAAF's job to ensure that everyone in women‘s races are, at least on balance, women, for obvious reasons.

Then we learn that these “IAAF” guys who did something or other having to do with gender rumors, that they had tried to defend themselves by saying that they had only made the test public after the media had already told everyone about it. Yet the reader doesn’t know yet which tests we are talking about or what media reports. So they denied the racism, but “expressed regret” about what people are saying why the tests are being conducted. Yet the tests aren’t being conducted. They were conducted a while back, this is old text.

So “the federation” (the IAAF, the reader is left to assume, though they still do not knowing really who that is) also explains that they didn’t suspect cheating. Yet the reader didn’t know that there was any such suspicion, or what they were defending against. Then we are told that the real motivation for the test was not suspected cheating but a desire to determine if she has a "rare medical condition" giving her an unfair competitive advantage. The reader is expected to fill in the gaps as to what that condition might be or what that has to do with her gender.

Then we are told that the president of the IAAF stated that the case could have been handled with more sensitivity. Specifically what he was referring to, the reader is not told.

Next, we learn that a week ago, Wilfred Daniels, a manager for middle distance, resigned because he and other officials failed to tell Semenya she was being subjected to tests to determine her sex. The reader doesn’t know what this “manager for middle distance resigned from, Semenya’s team, or the IAAF. The reader doesn’t know when these tests were done. And this is the first time the reader is explicitly told that the tests we are talking about are gender tests.

Then the reader is told that Semenya is not upset about “it” because she’s very tough and confident and can take it, and that she had a makeover.

Finally, the readers are told that the IAAF official says that she’s a woman, but maybe not 100 percent. The reader assumes, I suppose, that he’s privy to the results of the tests, otherwise how would he know? So the reader can fill in the gap, I suppose. He knows the truth, that she has some kind of medical condition that makes her not fully but on balance a woman. So those tests they’ve read about must have said that she’s some kind of intersexed person or something to some extent.

Then nothing. It’s been a week or more and there have been thousands of new sources and events regarding this case, but the reader thinks nothing more has happened. We will not advance this article any more until we hear confirmation that the results of the test that have been leaked to the press because to understand the days events we have to explain what has happened and we cannot be told these things. We are waiting for the results to be properly released. Yet, if you have been keeping up with the news from the world outside of Wikipedia, you will realize that it’s irrational to expect that this will ever happen.

Also, though we have tried valiantly to keep the gossip and rumors out of this article, but by hinting at the facts without actually stating them, in my opinion, it ends up sounding like so much gossip and begs rumors. It’s incoherent, disorganized, and not very informative. The section is a mess.

Let me make clear where I am sure that we do agree. If a man knowingly and willingly pretends to be a woman in order to gain an advantage in any sport this is clearly unfair on other sportswomen and this form of cheating should be made public. There is no evidence that is is the case with Caster and plenty that it is not. In any case it would not be correct for us to make this kind of judgment in advance of an official announcement. So, we should say nothing here in that respect.

I agree that WP in not censored. We should not remove material just because it may be seen as offensive by some people.

Now WP policy. There is a very clear policy that personally sensitive material in a BLP must be very well sourced to be included. In this case you are talking about a newspaper report that refers to a 'medical report'. There is no indication of where, when, or by whom this report was produced or any evidence that it even exists at all. We cannot state what the report claims as fact and it is no use trying to circumvent the issue by saying, 'somebody else said that ...'. In the libel laws of most countries, and morally, doing that is just as bad as stating the claims as fact.

Finally my personal opinion, which I suspect may be shared by many others. In an ideal world, if an athlete is challenged on their eligibility to enter a particular event, that fact should remain secret until a decision is made by the sport's controlling body. If the athlete is found eligible then nothing need ever be said. If they are found not eligible then a public announcement should be made that the athlete is not eligible to compete in a particular event. That is all that the public have any right to know unless it is proven that the athlete knowingly and willingly tried to cheat the system.

Let me address one specific remark you made: We are waiting for the results to be properly released. Yet, if you have been keeping up with the news from the world outside of Wikipedia, you will realize that it’s irrational to expect that this will ever happen. I hope you are right and the detailed results of any tests are never released to the public and thus we never quote them in WP. The public has no right whatever to know the results of any tests any more that it has the right to know the most personal and intimate details of you or me or our families. Such information should only ever be included here if Caster releases it publicly herself.

Unfortunately, the world is not perfect and various bits of alleged information have been released and quoted here. I agree that the current article has a number of rumours and anomalies which make it a bit of a mess. The only way round this problem, in my opinion, is delete yet more material from the article. I do not feel strongly enough about any of the remaining statements to delete them myself and WP is not clear enough that they must be deleted. If you find the current article unacceptable I suggest that you delete any material that you consider incomplete or misleading yourself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask you to reconsider your decision. I think under the circumstances it would be best if you made some attempt at editing or re-writing the "Gender" section. I promise to try and help you. Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing here is my decision, I just gave my opinion. The article has now been locked. Although I can see why that was done I think it was perhaps a little heavy handed. There were plenty of editors dealing rapidly with the more obvious vandalism and the locking means that we cannot now improve the 'Gender' section.

I am very happy to work with you and others, when the page is unlocked, to try and improve the wording. My opinion is that we should not ever include any personal details that have not been released or approved by Caster herself. Imagine if she was your daughter or sister. Would you want such personal details made public? Would you think hat the public had a right to know such details, even if they had been medically confirmed? I understand that many allegations have already been published and are thus public 'knowledge', but WP is an encyclopedia, we have no obligation to include press speculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to you not doing it yourself, which is your decision. But you are right that this lockdown is perhaps heavy handed for the reasons you describe. As we do agree about this, can we work together to get it undone? I don't know how, but would follow you as support if you thought it would be helpful.

Your rhetorical device about putting myself in the position of her family memeber is quite convincing. I certainly would not like that to happen to me. However, as you say, they have already been published just about everywhere, so what we do here is highly unlikely to make any difference with regard to the effect on Semenya or her familiy.

I would ask you, however, to put yourself in the position of the IAAF. It is the job of the IAAF to gender-test atheletes whose gender has been called into question and to release the facts of those tests to the public if they show doubt as to whether they should allow the athelete to run with the women. They must not consider embarrassment if doing so would threaten women's sports. I unfortunately see no other way, do you?

I do disagree when you call the leak of the results of the test "speculation". The results of medical tests are not "speculation", but first-hand knowledge of experts, even if they have been made public improperly. Semenya, her family, and her supporters to my knowledge have not claimed that the information in Australian Leak is false, to my knowledge, and neither has the IAAF. Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, while the IAAF still won't confirm or deny the report, they have stated that it should be "treated with caution".[1] - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I think the lockdown will only last a week or so. Regarding the fact that the speculation (see later) has already been published, remember that WP is more permanent. Newspapers and magazines get thrown away and forgotten about after a while, WP provides a permanent reference and reminder.

Regarding you 'speculation' comments 'First-hand knowledge of experts' would be something along the lines of, 'Dr Smith published a report stating that ...', reliable second-hand knowledge might be something along the lines of a newspaper saying, 'Dr Smith showed us a copy of his report which said...', but we have neither of these, just a reference to 'a medical report'. There is no evidence that such a report even exists; that is just speculation. No one should be expected to deny speculative press reports as that just creates more press interest.

I have considered what I would do in the position of the IAAF, and stated it here. Obviously it is their job to enforce rules of fair play and ensure that no athlete competes with an unfair advantage. This would include the taking of drugs, artificial mechanical aids, gender issues, and other things. In the case of suspected ineligibility under gender gender rules I would arrange for private and discrete testing and, only if the results showed that the athlete was not eligible, and had not deliberately cheated, I would inform the athlete in private and let them decide how to deal with the matter. They may just decide to withdraw from further competition for 'personal or family reasons' or they may prefer to give a press release on the subject or even ask the IAAF to release the information. It is not that hard a problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom Line

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)

Media leaks

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)

Uhh...

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)

Mail and Guardian

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)

Chrisus - you retroactively edited the comment above that The Squicks replied to, to add 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)

The ASA "Lies"

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 and it just looks like a non sequitur on my part. Not nice - Alison ^❤ 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the "Gender" issue in the article

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)

Editing this page

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)

re-merge "Gender controversy" section

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 . 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)

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)

News

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)

African Athletic Association

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)