Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 13 September 2009

Template:Anti-vandal-notice

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Caster Semenya, nor for a general discussion relating to gender classification in sports nor of intersexuality in general. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Caster Semenya, nor for a general discussion relating to gender classification in sports nor of intersexuality in general at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: South Africa This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Athletics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Biographies Language and linguistics Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 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'. Misplaced Pages 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), Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages should continue to use feminine pronouns unless she changes her public stance on her gender. æk_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 Misplaced Pages 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_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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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_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_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. 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 |  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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1208227/She-wouldnt-wear-dresses-sounds-like-man-phone-Caster-Semenyas-father-sex-riddle-daughter.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Africa articles
• Unknown-importance Africa articles
• Unassessed South Africa articles
• Unknown-importance South Africa articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Athletics articles
• Mid-importance Athletics articles
• WikiProject Athletics articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment