Bajan Tuh De Bone

Yup but Kratoch under went a test. Back then they were mandatory for all females although it wasn't the same test as what they have these days. It was a simple chromosome check done from a cheek swab.
If you didn't show XX then you were a man

JK was more manly dan Caster & wudduh surely get call dese days.

Jock wrote:JK was more manly dan Caster & wudduh surely get call dese days.

Yuh got dah rite...

From '72 Oly, dey had 2 pics of de shot putt champs about tuh throw & de only diffrunce between de male & female (russian) was dat she did a bit smaller dan de man.
If dey din say yuh wudduh swear um did 2 men.

BeachBum wrote:

Jock wrote:GB, yuh see de pic in yestuhday paper?
If s/he did offuh you piece you wudduh tell s/he dat you doan bull

Yuh mean you don' even tink he would double-check first fo' he sey so?

BB, you feel dah if a woman look suh man-ish and she offah me piece dat I wud even be interested enuff tuh peep in she trousers??

Gearbox wrote:BB, you feel dah if a woman look suh man-ish and she offah me piece dat I wud even be interested enuff tuh peep in she trousers??

As much as yuh does drink, I would hope yuh 'in dah hard up.

BTW, de South African made a celebration gesture afta de race dat 'in look feminine to me. If uh fine de pic, uh gine post it.

BeachBum wrote:

Gearbox wrote:BB, you feel dah if a woman look suh man-ish and she offah me piece dat I wud even be interested enuff tuh peep in she trousers??

As much as yuh does drink, I would hope yuh 'in dah hard up.

Dat's a low wun ...if I get hard up all I gotta do is find me way home...and drinks nevah stop me from doin dah.

BeachBum wrote:BTW, de South African made a celebration gesture afta de race dat 'in look feminine to me. If uh fine de pic, uh gine post it.

Would you agree dat if she has a female reproductive system then she is a female? I know that hasn't been verified or made public as yet...but in my book dat defines a female. If she capable of getting pregnant and giving birth then she can't be nuttin else but a woman.

Gearbox wrote:

Jock wrote:JK was more manly dan Caster & wudduh surely get call dese days.

Yuh got dah rite...

wait an nuhbody aint question JK? wha dat picture de woman even gota bulge in she pants. dat is wha i was saying bout dem eastern europeans in the 80s man. bare manish women was representing.

Gearbox wrote:Would you agree dat if she has a female reproductive system then she is a female? I know that hasn't been verified or made public as yet...but in my book dat defines a female. If she capable of getting pregnant and giving birth then she can't be nuttin else but a woman.

I tink I gine out on a limb dat she ent a woman. De behaviour (swearing in de camera) in a interview, pulling a double-biceps pose afta de race. Dah 'in feminine behaviour.

BeachBum wrote:I tink I gine out on a limb dat she ent a woman. De behaviour (swearing in de camera) in a interview, pulling a double-biceps pose afta de race. Dah 'in feminine behaviour.

So what's the difference between her and a female body builder? ...they flex biceps too...and I've seen plenty women swear in front of cameras already.

ol skule wrote:wait an nuhbody aint question JK? wha dat picture de woman even gota bulge in she pants. dat is wha i was saying bout dem eastern europeans in the 80s man. bare manish women was representing.

Exactly...JK look like she got a bigga tool dan most men.

Gearbox wrote:Would you agree dat if she has a female reproductive system then she is a female? I know that hasn't been verified or made public as yet...but in my book dat defines a female.

But dat is wuh de test is for - to determine wuh s/he is & merely having a pokey ent sufficient.

Gearbox wrote:If she capable of getting pregnant and giving birth then she can't be nuttin else but a woman.

Ah.....not dese days but dah's anudduh story.

BB, pulling a pose & swearing ent say nutten dese days. It mite not be wuh you consider feminine but um ent mean a ting.

Skule, if yuh read wuh I post yuh wud see dat JK did under go de test in force at de time. All female at Oly had tuh be tested back den regardless of how manly or womanly dey look.
In fact wen Princess Anne tek part (Montreal '76) dey was a whole lotta tawk in England bout wedduh she shudduh get test like evuhbody else. IIRC, de IOC basically say get test or stan home.

Well dis gine only mek matters worse.
Wid dis former(?) "hacker" involve it cud be even more bizarre.
Cud be dat he enhance wud did alreay so?
..or maybe s/he was originally a mannish girl who get turn intuh a girlish man?
...or... sh*te I totally confuse now

Jock wrote:

Gearbox wrote:Would you agree dat if she has a female reproductive system then she is a female? I know that hasn't been verified or made public as yet...but in my book dat defines a female.

But dat is wuh de test is for - to determine wuh s/he is & merely having a pokey ent sufficient.

But my point is this; how much testing does it take to know if a woman has a uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries...isn't that something that can be determined rather quickly without all the complicated blood work that these people talking about???

Jock wrote:Well dis gine only mek matters worse.
Wid dis former(?) "hacker" involve it cud be even more bizarre.
Cud be dat he enhance wud did alreay so?
..or maybe s/he was originally a mannish girl who get turn intuh a girlish man?
...or... sh*te I totally confuse now

Shouldn't that East German coach have been from ever coaching any living thing again?? ...or was he forced to do what he did under the regime at the time?

Jock I was saying from the start how come dem questioning she gender an nuhody aint tackling the steroid angle at all. now we hearing bout this east german coach things starting to look fishy

But people, I don't think you're getting the whole picture.
First GB

Gearbox wrote:But my point is this; how much testing does it take to know if a woman has a uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries...isn't that something that can be determined rather quickly without all the complicated blood work that these people talking about???

That may be your point but it is not the IAAF's point. There is a checklist of items that must be addressed where this question arises. This is the IAAF standard & until it it met there can be no declaration.
Reproductive organs alone, whether functional or not, do not satisfy the requirement.

Skule, the testosterone test was part of the same gender testing operation. High testosterone on it's own is not conclusive of steroid abuse although it's highly indicative. They need further tests to determine this.
But if she is really a he then the higher levels would less indicative of steroid but more indicative of sex.

See how confused it can get?

Which is why they have all the various points of testing - to try to ascertain with some confidence what is really what.

Remember that Semenya came out of nowhere with incredible times, looking very macho. Bound to raise eyebrows & that is why the IAAF asked for the test & did so before the WC. They allowed her/him to compete so that if the test said female then she would not have been denied the opportunity.
You can take back medals unfairly won but you can't award those unfairly denied.

Jock wrote:But people, I don't think you're getting the whole picture.
First GB
That may be your point but it is not the IAAF's point. There is a checklist of items that must be addressed where this question arises. This is the IAAF standard & until it it met there can be no declaration.
Reproductive organs alone, whether functional or not, do not satisfy the requirement.

So it goes back to my very first question as to whether or not a "man" can have female reproductive organs. I understand that the IAAF have their own standards and tests, but my opinion remains that if she has female reproductive organs she is a natural female...even if she happens to also have high levels of testosterone naturally. All I have been saying is that I disagree with the IAAF's determination of a female.

Now if she happens to be on steroids then that's a whole different matter altogether.

Gearbox wrote:So it goes back to my very first question as to whether or not a "man" can have female reproductive organs. I understand that the IAAF have their own standards and tests, but my opinion remains that if she has female reproductive organs she is a natural female

Actually there are people who challenge this definition. They have the organs but chromosomes say the opposite. So which are they?

Gearbox wrote:...even if she happens to also have high levels of testosterone naturally. All I have been saying is that I disagree with the IAAF's determination of a female.

But your definition is for one purpose, theirs is for a different one.

Gearbox wrote:Now if she happens to be on steroids then that's a whole different matter altogether.

That is a different matter altogether. In fact the level may not even be an issue unless it can be shown to be unnatural. Levels can fluctuate widely especially among highly trained athletes so unless there are chemical markers to indicate artificial use then a series of tests to establish a baseline are needed before any determination is made.