The Olympics- Educating the world about gender

After seeing Caster Semenya win her race yesterday, I did a little search about her, and found this article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/26/caster-semenya-and-the-ioc-s-olympics-gender-bender.html

As a result of the difficulty of coming up with a true gender test, some are calling for unisex olympics, perhaps segregated only by size and strength.

From the article-

“This past winter, Bruce Kidd, a Canadian professor of physical education and health, who competed as a runner in the 1964 Olympics, called on the IOC to abandon not just gender testing, but segregation too. Karkazis and Jordan-Young have called for a similar change, noting that size and strength could, in the future, provide a better basis for groupings than sex alone. Already, male and female athletes compete against one another in all equestrian and sailing events, and in some of the luge, badminton, and tennis ones.”

After being involved in contentious debates on the COTH Off Topic forum about transgender rights, I thought that some might be interested in this – although it may not necessarily be what they want to hear, everyone needs to know this.

I feel so bad for Caster - she was raised as a woman, she comes from an upbringing of abject poverty and poor education, which has to make all of this harder on her. And, I agree totally, this is gender biased - there is NO testing for men who are “feminine”, although that can be an advantage in some of the ice skating and gymnastic artistic routines.

It is a tough situation all around. Reading some of the other articles, she has dealt with a lot of depression over this, and has been subject to a lot of crap.

Meanwhile, science is unable to come up with a definitive test…

And I get the other side of it too - is it fair? Is she unbeatable because of a testosterone advantage? I get that, but I feel for her…

The best read I’ve found on this comes from South African sports scientist Ross Tucker: The Caster Semenya Debate

Tucker also did an interview with scientist and trans athlete Joanna Harper. Highly recommended: Hyperandrogenism and women vs women vs men in sport

Shorter version: it’s the testosterone advantage. If you’re Melissa Bishop or Alysia Montano, you cannot compete with Semenya et al. via training or anything ‘natural’. You can only level the playing field by doping.

This is really complicated …

[QUOTE=Magicboy;8808310]
This is really complicated …[/QUOTE]

And some people are really invested in the idea that gender is binary.

[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;8808316]
And some people are really invested in the idea that gender is binary.[/QUOTE]

Well, why do we have women’s events at all?

In sports in which results are determined by strength, speed, height, etc., the best women will never compare to the best men.

Once we decide to have women’s divisions, we have to grapple with these questions, which exist well beyond any concept of gender being binary.

This is a quote from JER’s #3 post:

'I think the fundamental issue is this:
We have a separate category for women because without it, no women would even make the Olympic Games (with the exception of equestrian). Most of the women’s world records, even doped, lie outside the top 5000 times run by men. Radcliffe’s marathon WR, for instance, is beaten by between 250 and 300 men per year. Without a women’s category, elite sport would be exclusively male.

That premise hopefully agreed, we then see that the presence of the Y-chromosome is THE single greatest genetic “advantage” a person can have. That doesn’t mean that all men outperform all women, but it means that for elite sport discussion, that Y-chromosome, and specifically the SRY gene on it, which directs the formation of testes and the production of Testosterone, is a key criteria on which to separate people into categories.

Now, for various biological reasons, and I’ll follow the post above up with another on the specific science of this issue, sometimes that testosterone doesn’t quite “do its job”, and that is when we find ourselves dealing with an athlete like Semenya.

She is NOT a man. And it is enormously disrespectful to call her “it”, or “he”. Nor should any of your wrath or frustration be directed towards her. She’s runningper the rules that were changed by CAS, and it is they who should shoulder the responsibility for the mess that is the women’s 800m.

So going back to the premise that women’s sport is the PROTECTED category, and that this protection must exist because of the insurmountable and powerful effects of testosterone, my opinion on this is that it is fair and correct to set an upper limit for that testosterone, which is what the sport had before CAS did away with it.

The advantage enjoyed by a Semenya is not the same as the one enjoyed by say, Usain Bolt, or LeBron James, or Michael Phelps, because we don’t compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber, or height, or foot size (pick your over simplification for performance here). So Semenya has a genetic advantage, by virtue of A) having a Y-chromosome and testes, and B) being unable to use that T and/or one of its derivatives enough to have developed fully male.

In that regard, if you approached it from the other direction, you could, relatively accurately, say that Semenya has a disadvantage compared to other males with XY and testosterone, because unlike them she cannot fully use T (and/or a derivative – depends on the exact condition).

However, as it stands, her “advantage” is seen and responded to, rather than the “disadvantage” and she competes as a woman. It means that she identifies as a woman, is female, but my contention and the thing that sport might have to address is whether someone who identifies as one gender is necessarily able to compete as that gender.

That’s where the hyperandrogenic guidelines tried to find a compromise – they set what was a very generous upper limit of 10, which is much higher than most females, but alas, CAS in their wisdom decided to do away with it.

Semenya, and a few others, are now providing how ludicrous CAS’ decision was.

One final point – there is a position here, made by a good few people who I really respect, which holds that Semenya and others did not choose this, they have not cheated, and it would be inhumane/unethical and violation of human rights to force upon someone a medical intervention that is not for health reasons, and to prevent them from participating in sport if they don’t.

That’s an argument I don’t agree with, but I can see that people may hold, and are entitled to. It’s not wrong, and it is possible to have two disagreeing positions without being wrong on either. What is wrong is to compare Semenya’s advantage to Bolt’s, or Phelps’, because their genetic “luck” doesn’t put them into a different category, and also, Semenya’s “advantage” is actually a “disadvantage” to competing, as I said.

Final point, Semenya will runthe 400 and 800 in Rio, and she will win both. It will cause a Sh!Tstorom of note, and I’m South African, so that will be a lot of fun (said nobody ever) and arguments. So this is a long post, sorry, and the article where I interview Harper is long, but really, this is going to be a big issue, and it pays to know a little before leaping into it! Besides, I thin kit’s a really interesting subject.

Ross"

There are people who are not simply XX or XY through no fault of their own. When we’ve segregated the divisions into “men” and “women,” then where do they belong?

The idea that the Olympics is some sort of meritocracy is also just plain wrong. There are advantages all up and down the path - what country you come from, what resources are available to you for training, plus heaping gobfuls of chance and luck even once you get to the elite level. Being injured at the wrong time. Some sports have very consistent results (swimming) and some sports have very inconsistent results (show jumping).

Maybe a better answer is to remember it’s all just a game and there will always be a certain level of arbitrary. A definition has to be set just so we’re functional, but it doesn’t need so much drama around it. That another athlete comes along who is better than you at your event is part of the game.

[QUOTE=poltroon;8808429]
That another athlete comes along who is better than you at your event is part of the game.[/QUOTE]

What if that ‘better’ is through doping?

So then Melissa Bishop should accept that she will be always finishing behind athletes with hyperandrogenism in her best event, the 800m? If she upped her T levels to their T levels, she’d be a faster runner, too – except she’d be charged with doping.

So then national teams should go out and recruit women with hyperandrogenism to compete in events in which they can dominate? Is this what we want in women’s sport?

Or should testosterone levels be tested in both men and women and then athletes can be classified that way? Testosterone is the big difference in training, strength and recovery. Why shouldn’t a male athlete with T levels similar to most women be allowed to compete against women?

Or do we let everyone dope with T to a specified level to equalize the playing field?

I’m still trying to understand how someone that knows they have an immense advantage would choose to compete and think they won fairly. It obviously isn’t for the love of sport. They are getting ahead just like the dopers. The article states that intersex changes the testosterone and gives the athlete a 10 to 12% speed advantage. That’s huge, and very unfair to the female that is “genetically” female.

(if I’ve misused the terms from the linked article I apologize)

[QUOTE=JER;8808448]
What if that ‘better’ is through doping?

So then Melissa Bishop should accept that she will be always finishing behind athletes with hyperandrogenism in her best event, the 800m? If she upped her T levels to their T levels, she’d be a faster runner, too – except she’d be charged with doping.

So then national teams should go out and recruit women with hyperandrogenism to compete in events in which they can dominate? Is this what we want in women’s sport?

Or should testosterone levels be tested in both men and women and then athletes can be classified that way? Testosterone is the big difference in training, strength and recovery. Why shouldn’t a male athlete with T levels similar to most women be allowed to compete against women?

Or do we let everyone dope with T to a specified level to equalize the playing field?[/QUOTE]

Yes, that would make as much sense as any of the rest of it.

What about Equestrian? Should men have to compete against women, most of whom weight less than men and so give their horses an advantage at least in jumping? COTH people may say it isn’t the rider’s weight, it’s their ability/talent, but weight does “weigh” on the horse in jumping.

Or should we limit Equestrian to horses of a certain height and weight? Should we allow stallions to compete with mares? Should we allow Thoroughbreds to compete with warmbloods, when some have said Thoroughbreds have an advantage in some events?

Should a 6-foot-tall woman compete with 5-foot-something women in events such as the high jump?

The questions might never end.

Did all this drug-testing and suspicion exist back when the Olympics were Games for amateurs? Or did the idea that the competitors were all ladies and gentlemen and amateurs put them above the suspicions of their peers?

[QUOTE=JER;8808448]
What if that ‘better’ is through doping?

So then Melissa Bishop should accept that she will be always finishing behind athletes with hyperandrogenism in her best event, the 800m? If she upped her T levels to their T levels, she’d be a faster runner, too – except she’d be charged with doping.

So then national teams should go out and recruit women with hyperandrogenism to compete in events in which they can dominate? Is this what we want in women’s sport?

Or should testosterone levels be tested in both men and women and then athletes can be classified that way? Testosterone is the big difference in training, strength and recovery. Why shouldn’t a male athlete with T levels similar to most women be allowed to compete against women?

Or do we let everyone dope with T to a specified level to equalize the playing field?[/QUOTE]

The reason we disallow doping isn’t because it gives people an advantage. The reason we disallow it is because it harms the athletes. We allow innovations that are not harmful - massage therapists, whatever that crazy spotting thing that the swimmers are doing, better equipment, faster suits, etc.

Again, I think you’re overthinking this. National teams have ALWAYS recruited athletes with genetic advantages for the game. People who are taller have an advantage in volleyball. People who are shorter have an advantage in gymnastics. The ability of national federations to do this early and often is very much about money - no one is doing this in Argentina, but the infrastructure to ruthlessly search the countryside for prodigies is substantial in China and (less so now) Russia.

There are probably hundreds of people who could have been faster than this year’s Olympians if only they’d had the opportunity to train. But they live in the wrong country, in the wrong town, were born to the wrong parents.

We are so weird about gender. Obviously, there needs to be some sort of definition but I’m not personally that invested in what it is. The main danger is not self-classification by athletes but totalitarian countries imposing gender on their athletes, just as we had national federations imposing doping on their athletes. Create a definition that is in the interests of the individual athlete and her health and well-being, and is not about who will win the contest.

Melissa Bishop has no particular god-given right to win these races over any other athlete in the field. It’s a race, it’s going to be hard, there’s always someone with the potential to be faster.

[QUOTE=Gestalt;8808543]
I’m still trying to understand how someone that knows they have an immense advantage would choose to compete and think they won fairly. [/QUOTE]

Or maybe not so much ‘fairly’, but that they can find satisfaction in their victory.

I compete in another sport in which a participant is a trans woman. Although she is older now, she was a top-rated athlete in the sport as an adult man.

She is about 6’3", broad-shouldered, over 200 lbs, bigger than your average man. She reached maturity as a male, and has greater bone and muscle mass than a human who reached maturity as a female.

Given her success in the sport in her first life, it seems strange to me that she would find satisfaction in competing in a sport with women. This is a sport in which being 6’3" and strong confers a considerable advantage, although technical skill is a requirement too. There are plenty of open and mixed competitions available in the sport, so it’s not as if one is forced into competition restricted by gender.

(FWIW, people in the sport are accepting and welcoming and tolerant. She is also not the only trans person in the larger community of the sport.)

[QUOTE=Anonymoose;8808744]
Did all this drug-testing and suspicion exist back when the Olympics were Games for amateurs? Or did the idea that the competitors were all ladies and gentlemen and amateurs put them above the suspicions of their peers?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Eastern Bloc was notorious for shady practices of all sorts, including the fact that because they were state-supported, they weren’t “amateurs” in the sense that athletes in the rest of the world had to be.

[QUOTE=JER;8808849]
Or maybe not so much ‘fairly’, but that they can find satisfaction in their victory.

I compete in another sport in which a participant is a trans woman. Although she is older now, she was a top-rated athlete in the sport as an adult man.

She is about 6’3", broad-shouldered, over 200 lbs, bigger than your average man. She reached maturity as a male, and has greater bone and muscle mass than a human who reached maturity as a female.

Given her success in the sport in her first life, it seems strange to me that she would find satisfaction in competing in a sport with women. This is a sport in which being 6’3" and strong confers a considerable advantage, although technical skill is a requirement too. There are plenty of open and mixed competitions available in the sport, so it’s not as if one is forced into competition restricted by gender.

(FWIW, people in the sport are accepting and welcoming and tolerant. She is also not the only trans person in the larger community of the sport.)[/QUOTE]

It would be pretty easy and not terribly unreasonable to make a rule that you couldn’t switch the gender you compete as at the international level after a certain age. But again, I don’t really see athletes choosing of their own free will to self-identify as a different gender just to compete as an elite athlete.

This upsets us so. By comparison, athletes change citizenship to improve their Olympic chances with some regularity, and that doesn’t seem to bother us particularly.

[QUOTE=poltroon;8808845]
The ability of national federations to do this early and often is very much about money - no one is doing this in Argentina, but the infrastructure to ruthlessly search the countryside for prodigies is substantial in China and (less so now) Russia. [/QUOTE]

I have no idea what your evidence is for the above. ‘Ruthlessly searching the countryside for prodigies’ is something you ascribe, in a very 1970s way to China and Russia. While that may have been the case in China some years ago, and might still happen in sports which are incentivized in some way (football is getting a big push now as big business in China), young Chinese and Russian athletes seek out sport clubs out of their own interest rather than a totalitarian recruiting scheme.

Even that evil empire, the USSR, was not trolling the peasantry for potential medalists in the way you might think. My athlete friends who grew up there in the 60s, 70s, and 80s got started in sport out of their own interests, just like kids in the west. One was rejected by several sports as being ‘too old’ at 12, then took a bus by herself to a fencing club and eventually became a national team athlete.

If you want a present-day example of ‘ruthless recruitment’, just look across the pond to the UK. The world-dominant powerhouse British Cycling goes around with a stationary bike to school after school, put zillions of kids on the bike regardless of experience or interest, and then see who can make the power values needed to be a top cyclist. If you haven’t got the physiology, they’re not going to spend 5 minutes with you no matter how much you love cycling. State-supported, too, if we go by the National Lottery.

This is why the ruthless totalitarian dictatorship known as Great Britain is taking that damn bike around to schools. To find these people and correct these wrongs.

I’m not sure how you see this happening. A gleeful dictator decides that men will compete as women to up the medal count? And sport governing bodies allow this?

How does a regime impose gender on an athlete? This is all handled through sport orgs, for the purpose of sport. Until the recent CAS ruling, if you wanted to compete as a woman, you had to bring your T level into line (not going into details here, you can read elsewhere for that) if you wanted to compete under the rules of that sport’s international federation.

Then what you’re saying is that you believe that there should be no separate women’s competitions? Or is that you believe that anyone self-identifying as female should be able to compete in a women’s competition? If so, then what’s the point of having women’s competitions at all?

I appreciate the background you brought, JER. I do think it serves us to have separate women’s competitions. I am fine with the rule being T levels or whatever makes sense for the athletes who find themselves in a gray zone, for their health, safety, and well-being. If this rule though means that people have to undergo inappropriate (from a medical point of view) treatment to compete, that is less okay.

What does not make sense to me is worrying about the impact on other athletes who may be bested by these athletes. This is just a Thing That Happens When You Do Sport. Other people win, sometimes.

It also seems unfortunate to me that any individual athlete has to bear the brunt of such a controversy and have such a loss of privacy.

Of course no one is talking about the issue of sex discrimination which was alluded to in the article in my original post. If women with high testosterone levels should be disallowed, then what about effeminate men? In events in which grace, artistry and fluidity matter, why do we allow them to compete with more stereotypically masculine men?

Isn’t it sex discrimination if we disallow masculine women to compete but permit effeminate men?

[QUOTE=JER;8808346]
Well, why do we have women’s events at all?

In sports in which results are determined by strength, speed, height, etc., the best women will never compare to the best men.

Once we decide to have women’s divisions, we have to grapple with these questions, which exist well beyond any concept of gender being binary.[/QUOTE]

That was exactly what the quote in my original post asked. Why indeed do we need events divided by gender?

The modern Olympics were born in a time of rising nationalism, heavily influenced by notions of eugenics all right-thinking Progressives harbored at the time. In sum, they were envisioned as a way of proving the physical merit of a given people without having to go to war, which had recently become a contest not of man but of technology.

It was never “amateur” only. It was never altruistic. It was never apolitical. It was never “fair,” and there was always doping. There were also always people with er, “unusual traits” who were recruited or chosen to go for the gold.

I do not believe the playing field can ever be perfectly level, because no two human beings have identical attributes. I DO believe that the closest we’ll get to “fairness” is for biological males to compete against same, and females likewise. I do not believe that a mental “identity” which may conflict with said biology should allow one special dispensation to compete against the other sex.

What I question the most is the amount of human effort expended in narrow, arbitrary, and entirely human-constructed fields of endeavor that are, essentially, meaningless and forgotten once everyone goes home from the event. Is 1/5th of a second faster in the 400 butterfly worth 10 years or more of someone’s life in monomaniacal quest for ephemeral “gold?”

It’s curious that as physical prowess has become all but meaningless to the economic life of most people in advantaged nations, “sport” has taken on an importance formerly reserved for religion and governance.

No answers . . . just observations.