The IAAF should repeal new ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS and CAS to rule against the regulations
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
This is to petition the IAAF to repeal and not implement it's new policy titled ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR THE FEMALE CLASSIFICATION (ATHLETES WITH DIFFERENCES OF SEX DEVELOPMENT) as published on 23 April 2018.
Additionally, to petition Court of Arbitration for Sport "CAS", to rule in favour of any parties that may seek oppose same IAAF policy and regulations, when tabled before them. The grounds for petitioning against the regulations are that, the basis for their formulating are fundamental flawed in logic, and that implementation of the regulation may violate the basic rights of female athletes.
Sport in general is a competitive undertaking and those who excel in any of the various disciplines will do so cause they enjoy certain natural endowments outside of the norm. They train harder than the norm and perform fitness and dieting regimes that require discipline outside of the norm. It is these consideration that should make any sports governing body and agency tread carefully when they deliberate in measures that seek to level the playing field, especially those measures that seek to declassify and reclassify athletes to sex categories. So measures should be well considered, take account of all associated factors and be near absolute in the final conclusion, once all factors and determinations have been considered.
We are of the opinion that the IAAF is not even scratching the surface to fulfilling this requirement and that it has instead acted with blatant disregard for statistical principles and logic and for human rights in general.
Given their published regulations (herewith attached) and other statements available publicly we take issues with the following:
- We now know that biological sex is a fluid combination of chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal and phenotypic factors that in their various combinations will not always fit neatly into the male female binary necessary for differentiation in sport. A single factor can not by itself and without the consideration of other factors, declassify and reclassify one group from a female category to a male category of athletes. Whereas abnormal levels of circulating testosterone in the blood; due what the IAAF has called congenital conditions known as differences of sex development "DSD"; may give some female athletes advantages in size, strength and power over their counterparts, this is not unique to the Relevant Athletes athletes affected by these regulations (athletes enjoy advantages in general); it also is not absolutely clear how this one difference by itself can be deemed adequate to reclassify females to males.
- Give that one differentiating factor cannot be sufficient for reclassification, it is thus important that any policy for exclusion of any group of female athletes, be supported by performance considerations, as this is the only basis for the classification and separation of the sexes in competitive sport. Outperformance and correlations due to any one single factor, are by themselves an insufficient condition for exclusion from a category. It is the statistical significance of the outperformance that must be of consideration. We are not clear if the IAAF considered statistical significance in their considerations and unsure of the breadth of the samples to consider such statistical significance.
- Even where statistical significance has been considered, it is insufficient for any determination for exclusion to be without a determination for inclusion. It's insufficient, for instance to say hyperandrogenous women's performance is statically significantly different to that of elite female athletes without determining it's statistical significant to the performance of elite male athletes. We have not seen any reports suggesting that male performance was part of the calculations and determinations in their study and policy.
- Selecting the 5 events mentioned, or the range of Restricted Events between the 400 metres and the mile, is a classic case of cherry picking data that will suit a pre-determined result and conclusions. This selective consideration or ignoring of inconvenient data not only leads to fallacious conclusions but is a clearest example of the bias and the intended or unintended discrimination and the antagonistic attitude the IAAF has targeted towards of a certain group of athletes. This could be grounds not only for sexism but also racism and favouritism.
- Doping is the manipulation of the athletes biological and physical endowments to gain an advantage and is not allowed by sports governing bodies including IAAF. How can same IAAF endorse the manipulation of an athletes biological and physical endowments for another performance related reason? It is a logical inconsistency.
- Once the IAAF decides it is valid to exclude a group of female athletes as a result of significant outperformance coming from one differentiated factor or another, it must also suffice that all types of differentiated conditions that may give a portion of advantages and outperformance to female athletes, should be investigated and those athletes reclassified in the similar manner as proposed by these eligibility regulations. The basis based on outperformance would have to consider tests of various factors not only based on physical endowments but all factors that give a female athletes an advantage, including the amount of funding the affected athletes receives. We seek to level the playing fields after all.
If the objective is to level the playing field, which sports does more than any undertaking or activity globally, then any sporting body should jealousy guard and ensure that a girl from Ga-Masehlong, Limpopo with her physical advantages, disciplined, dedicated training and eating regime and a girl from Rawicz, Leszno, with her physical advantages, disciplined, dedicated training and eating regime have the same opportunities to express themselves, compete and be global superstars as those who also enjoy monetary injections into their sport.
Complete your signature
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!