Talk:Caster Semenya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Controversy

Regarding the controversy regarding the gender of this athlete during the 2009 Athletics world championships - the 'innocent until proven guilty' rule applies. Recent edits to this entry includes references such as 'he/she' - these should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noswal (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender contraversy is not a "guilt" but uncertainty, thus he/she describes the gender better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberzs (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I made an edit that omits the use of he or she, thus achieving neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberzs (talk • contribs) 06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Removing all references to he/she is not 'neutrality'. If you think it is you really shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopedia. As of 20th August 2009 Caster Semenya is a woman and competes in athletics as a woman. To suggest otherwise, even by the use of gender neutral language, is to use Wikipedia to support unproven rumour or hearsay. This article should be reverted until the results of any gender test are known. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Semenya is participating as a women, but is she a woman is under the question, it is a fact to be revealed not a popular vote or discussion. And besides, I do not think that you are to tell on how I should think or whether I should or should not edit anything. --Laberzs (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably you can now go and edit the Lady Gaga article to a 'gender neutral' POV because of rumours about her anatomy? Semenya's status has not changed to 'gender unknown' just because the IAAF has requested a test. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2009

• • • • • Lady GagGa is a man ??? Blimey !

This article discusses the difficulty of determining a person's male or female sexual identity. It says we are all a mixture of both, neither 100% male or female. Maybe Caster is just unlucky she looks like a geezer, or maybe she could be like Stella Walsh who won Olympic Gold despite having male AND female genitalia. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1208012/Woman-man-little-bit-How-deciding-Caster-Semenyas-gender-complex-think.html

(UTC)

• • • • I will do that after IAFF will request Lady Gaga's gender to be verified.--Laberzs (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm going to attempt to revert this. There are two possible scenarios that I see. In the first case, Ms. Semenya is a biological female, and therefore the article must be written with this in mind. In the second case, she is a biological male or gender-ambiguous, but Wikipedia policy, as seen in, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Carlos, and in the spirit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, is to refer to people, especially living people, in the gender with which they identify. Wikipedia policy is to do this immediately without discussion. malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Since Semenya being male implies cheating, writing "he/she" is equivalent to writing "murderer/innocent man". GregorB (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. We have a standard on Wikipedia that living people are accorded dignity to be represented as the gender identity they clearly use. In most cases a person lives as a woman or a man and is referred to using the appropriate gender pronouns. No matter the test results Semenya identifies as a woman and will be referred to as such until she self-identifies otherwise. -- Banjeboi 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if the IAFF decided she cannot compete as a woman, that would not mean it is appropriate not to use the female pronoun in this article. The IAFF ruling only extends to her sporting engagements, it does not make it acceptable or appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to her in any other way for as long as she self-identifies as female. JackAidley (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This individual is neither lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender as far as anybody here knows (at this point in time) so why does this come under the scope of the LGBT portal ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.141.138 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because an article about someone whose gender has been challenged has similar issues to articles about trans people, so the LGBT project has interest and expertise in the relevant issues. --Alynna (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I took out a weired statement that's not helping. You can read it at the spot this comment is currently in in this version of this page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is silly to not have any personal pronouns at all in the article. The results of the test have not yet been published. Semenya claims to be unconcerned about the test and rumours, although has reportedly considered boycotting the medal ceremony. That's a terrible sentence. It should say "although she has reportedly considered....." If Semenya is intersexed or even if she is biologically male, she's living as a woman and should be referred to as one. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're conflating living in good faith as a disturbed, consistent transsexual person and passing as a woman to defraud the Commonwealth Youth games. It seems provocative and aggressive to saturate the article with female pronouns when such a case is legally disputed—it is taking a side and promoting in the court of world opinion, which could influence the judges of Semenya's fate. The Homosexualist (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I really doubt that the "gender judges" are going to be basing their decision on Semenya's Wikipedia article. Even if they consider her to be biologically male and strip her of her medal, that's not really license for us to say the motive was fraud. Semenya certainly seems intersexed to me, and may have legitimately self-identified as female all her life. Absent any direct evidence, even if she's judged ineligible and stripped of her medal, we would be wrong to suggest fraud. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Female or male

Hmmm I draw your attentions to Stella Walsh and Sarah Gronert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.126.97 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Have a look at the pictures in this article.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberzs (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily so. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema She was a dutch athlete expelled from womans events, but based on recent rules of IOC would have been allowed to race today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.218 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that he/she has a male name? It is an odd name too, for an African.

It's actually an anagram for 'Yes a secret man'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.176.95 (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you lived in South Africa, you'd know that it's not an unusual name for a black person (at least on this part of the continent) and I honestly don't see how it could be seen as a male name, get to understand my country a bit more before making those sorts of remarks.--41.246.88.183 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We should presume that Caster Semenya is a female until it is established otherwise.

It is said that there is a higher proportion of hermaphrodites amongst Bantu. That may be so. If Caster is a hermaphrodite, is he male with female characteristics, or female with male characteristics?JohnC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

• 3年B組金八先生 女形競艶（Opinion by UEHARA Suguru） —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.23.150 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

According to a yet unverified press report the Athletics South Africa conducted a gender test already in March. The result was that Caster Semenya is definitely intersexual. This result was withheld both from her, her family and the IAAF. It is being speculated that Athletics South Africa and its head coach used medications to bring her testosterone to normal levels for doping checks. 84.188.147.190 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blick is probably reliable, but if it's true it will be picked up by other sources soon enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Semenya is a she by dint of self-identification, and that Semenya is perhaps intersexual by biology. I also think the test should be called a "biological sex test" and not a "gender" test. Gender is a person's identity and sex refers to a person's biological characteristics in the appropriate areas. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen an article discuss that it's a sex test,and not a gender test. If you can find a good reference, you should add the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What would a "gender test" be, in your opinion? "Gender" refers to identity and social performance, "sex" to biology. If there were such thing as a "gender test" she would clearly pass it as female, because she was assigned that gender at birth and lives as a female. What they are doing to her is a sex test -- still very dubious, as there is no deterministic test for male/female, because biological sex itself is ill-defined (as a binary trait).--87.162.2.246 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. I've seen some news reporters refer to Semenya's "gender test" and bring on gender therapists to talk about it, and then get confused when the subject becomes self-identification and not biology. It's Semenya's sex, not her gender, that's in dispute. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender is a synonym for sex, no matter how they use it in certain fields of science. There's no point in complicating things because someone took a sociology class. 89.44.241.20 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, but enough people seem to agree with you out there that we probably ought to use "gender test" in the article, even though it's entirely the wrong term. 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but the word "gender" in English is originally a linguistic, not biological term, that simply means "type" or "kind" of noun or noun referent. It has nothing to do with biological sex for us. It comes from the same Latin root as the word "genre", "type or kind of art", and "genus", "type or kind of animal". As you may know, in languages such as Spanish, each noun has to be one of two types, roughly corresponding to "male" and "female" when referring to animals and people, but to nothing in particular when referring to inanimate things. But other languages have four, five, six, or even seven genders, roughly corresponding to any number of "types"; maybe "fish", "tall, thin things", "green things", or nothing in particular.

Because they tend to align with male and female in European languages familiar to English, the two ideas got conflated in English and "gender" came to mean "sex" in common usuage, and then in biology. So I doubt Biology has drawn this new distinction between "sex" and "gender" as it was Biology that conflated them as a technical term in the first place. I suspect this new distinction is the work of "gender studies", and wonder how definitive it is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i worded it wrong, one of the definitions of gender in the dictionary is as a synonym of sex, i didn't mean to imply it was the only one. So technically it isn't wrong unless you only take into account how it is used in whatever field it is that uses it for the social identity thing. 89.44.241.20 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex is sex, not gender. In the general public's eye it may seem to be one and the same but science measures sex, society measures gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.74.11.10 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY

"A transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer person's latest preference in gendered nouns and pronouns should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child)." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, only that she is not transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer. She has never defined herself as anything other than a woman. That someone questions your gender doesn't make you trans.--87.162.2.246 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what your problem is with the use of gender-neutral language, given that this person's gender is disputed? The use of gender neutral language ensures that no factual inaccuracies will be present in the article with regard to gender, the use of 'she' and 'her' does not, while adding nothing to the article.Kie (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the rules, mostly. I think the reason is that we don't want to hurt that person, so we say what they want. If you read news articles, they do the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against using gender neutral language. Kie (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is. Go ask at the link I provided above. If they say it's OK, then it's fine with me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I really can't be bothered, I tried to make the article as accurate as possible without publishing anything at all libelous - I'm not overly familiar with the plethora of rules that exist on this site, I'd hoped it could be resolved with sensible discussion rather than with numerous appeals to authority. I'm not jumping through hoops to ensure it is accurate, if you want to make it possibly inaccurate to ensure that a person who will likely never read this page is not offended then good luck to you. Kie (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I know all the rules here can seem very arbitrary. This particular rule I don't really care about, I just know that some people feel very strongly, and I try to respect that. There are lots of people who can explain why, I'd imagine, but it sounds liker we're done here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'd just like to say that this is fascinating. I think I understand why the policy MOS:IDENTITY is the way it is. You all have mentioned many of these sound reasons; questions of libel, of common courtesy, but most of all "expediency" - simplicity's sake. Imagine the headaches there would be for Wikipedians to have to get definitive answers as to a person's gender! And, after all, who's to say exactly? There are almost always intermediate forms where one distinct thing and another blur: there are gray areas around most concepts. Nevertheless, I can sympathize with ambiguous feelings expressed by others above, and have begun to cast about for theoretical cases in which provisions in the policy for its violation would be appropriate to envoke. (The most obvious of these would be cases of blatant lying). I wouldn't want to imply that any such theoretical case of these possible cases would apply here, I'd rather take them to the Talk page for MOS:IDENTITY. We should be prepared for any eventuality.

Outdent. The spirit of this remains the same and will be followed here - we support an individual's right to expression and dignity. If someone identifies as female we do as well; if reliable sources dispute that expression we reconcile what they report with the subject's wishes. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a well known nutter though, to be fair, if she's identifying as female purely to compete in events, then she should be referred to as 'he'. Given that there is some level of doubt, there's no need to use gender-specific terms when perfectly adequate gender neutral pronouns exist. Kie (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't refer to me or any editor as a well-known nutter. And no, we have no reliable sources the show Semenya identifies as anything but female so there exists no reason for us to compromise our standards to bow to gossip. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Feels futile, but ...

A male has XY and a female has XX chromosomes. THAT is what determines male or female. Not the external genitalia (or lack thereof). Not the person's "gender identification." If there really is a policy on referring to a male as "she" and vice-verse, then it's just an attempt to say "reality can be anything you want it to be." But reality is what it is, whether you like that or not. If Caster Semenya is proven to have XY chromosomes, then Caster is a male, and it is un-intellectual and dishonest to use "she" in this article. Regardless of how certain people may "feel" about it. Tragic romance (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That would make her biologically male, yes, but it wouldn't make her a "boy" or a "man." To call her "he" when she clearly self-identifies as female is like telling a gay person they're gay because they choose to be. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, two things. First, if you're a boy, and you call yourself a girl, then wikipedia has rules that make sure we'll call you a girl too. Second, it turns out that XX and XY don't cover it. Certain types of XY (Androgen something something) have vaginas and are more feminine than normal women. Anyways, there's lots of types of XX and XY, as well as XXY, XYY, XXX, and so on (I could be wrong about the exact letters, and I think there's one with for Xs or Ys maybe). It's kinda crazy. I never heard of it before reading about this runner. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of gendered pronouns in languages, specifically English, has always been the choice of the speaker, rather than the referent. Activists may set etiquette for certain established classes of gender-dysphoric people, and those could be accepted, but it is inexcusable to let the subject dictate what we write when they so obviously have monetary incentives one way or the other. The Homosexualist (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case the speaker is wikipedia, and not any individual editor. Wikipedia has chosen to go with what the person in question likes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Under which policy, and how long ago was that established? And was this policy verified by community consensus, or something created boldly just to settle this controversy? The Homosexualist (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY. I don't know the specifics. You can ask there. Another user was curious how it came about. This is the first article I've ever worked on where it came into play, although I do agree with it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is a guideline, not a policy, which means it is not binding
2. The hard-and-fast rule is for "transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer person"s
3. Otherwise, it says to use what the person uses to refer to themself if there is no dispute.

We should fall back to Neutral point of view policy then, and avoid using the antagonizing language, even if the wording may not flow as beautifully as a result. The Homosexualist (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fisher is right. Ordinarily a Y chromosome causes an embryo to develop into a male phenotype (so both XXY and XYY people develop into males, not females), but if a person has androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which the body produces testosterone but the cell receptors can't accept it, then the person can be XY and female. AES has varying levels of severity. In its most extreme form, AES people grow up into women (with breasts and everything) and don't even know they have it until they fail to menstruate or conceive.

A person's physical gender is the sum of genes, gene expression, body chemistry, internal organs and anatomy—both below the belt and above the neck. If you ask me, this last is the most significant. Waves of testosterone (or not) during fetal development cause changes in brain anatomy. (On girls with total AES, the testosterone has no effect, so they'd have female brain anatomy.) A transsexual who grows up feeling like a girl trapped in a boy's body, it seems to me, is literally right.

In any case, all this is moot for Ms. Semenya. Even if it does turn out that she's an intersex person of some kind, we are to use her preferred pronouns. It's just polite. The only circumstances under which it would be proper for us to refer to Semenya as "he" would be after discovering that Semenya is really a man who deliberately and knowingly committed gender fraud to enter the race, and that doesn't seem to be what happened. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually we would still refer to her as she if she continued to identify as a woman. We likely would report the updates but still respect her wishes. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

During the American Civil War alone, there are documented cases of women pretending to be men so that they could serve in armies. We refer to these women as "she" because their preference was not "I am a man" but rather "I must pretend to be a man to achieve some other purpose." If Semenya turns out to be not a woman or intersex person but rather a man who lied about being a woman for some non-identity reason, then Semenya would be "he." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those civil war examples are interesting but we'd have to actually treat each case if they were trying to live their entire lives as a man or just cross-dressing to join a war effort or a mixture, if uncertain we present what a consensus on reliable sources state. In Semenya's case, if she still presented herself in a female gender identity we would do so as well and neutrally present information about her gender identity conflicting with her being born with male genitalia etc. Even intersex people are referred to as the gender they present as. In the good old days before Wikipedia was the top search result this was less important but now whatever we report here affects real people in the real world so we err on the conservative side even if we think a BLP is omitting some information. -- Banjeboi 12:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_at_Caster_Semenya

Check it out if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, reasonably enough. - Hordaland (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(message without heading)

HELLO THERE WIKIPEDIA, CASPER WAS BORN ON POLOKWANE THE FORMER PIETERSBURG - PLEASE CHANGE THAT, IT WAS CALLED PIETERSBURG DURING THE APARTHEID GOVERNMENT AND CHANGED TO POLOKWANE AFTER THE DEMOCTATIC GOVERNMENT... THANK YOU (Unsigned comment 25 August 2009 by 155.234.240.25)

Under the same logic, we would say Vladimir Lenin was born in Ulyanovsk, Russian Federation instead of Simbirsk, Russian Empire. But we don't, because that would amount to historical revisionism. Semenya was born in Pietersburg. —the Homosexualist (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but we are actually supposed to use the name that the city had at the time of the historical event in question, in this case a person's birth. That way we say that Immanuel Kant was born in Prussia, not Russia. Here is the archived discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender Questioning

As far as I'm concerned, if Semenya was a white person, huge headlines about her wouldn't've been made. The media are biast.

If 'she' is a guy, why couldn't they say so quietly, not tell the whole world?

124.187.16.95 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't these women [2] disprove your "bias" theory? None of them seem to have been black. Eventually, it was going to happen to an African as well. Chrisrus (talk) 18:23, 26 August 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".[3] - 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)