The Olympics- Educating the world about gender

[JER]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8808908]

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.[/QUOTE]

It might make sense if you think about it from the POV of the athlete’s health, safety and well-being. Just to be clear, I’m talking about the health, safety and well-being of the non-hyper-androgenized athlete here.

When you pursue an impossible standard in your sport, you are quite likely to sacrifice your health, safety and well-being in the effort. You overtrain, you get injured, your immune system weakens, you develop psychological problems from the pursuit of the impossible.

At the elite level, the ‘impossible’ is often very small. Tenths or hundredths of seconds. Centimeters. Records are broken in small increments. But the amount of training you have to do for that one small increment is often very substantial.

A few weeks ago, a woman in the UK was notified that she’d won a bronze medal at the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Someone placed above her had tested positive for doping after their samples were retested (many, many medals have been reallocated this way). She was a track athlete, I think a thrower. The BBC called her to talk about how it felt to get a medal eight years later.

She went silent, then started to cry. She then tried to explain that because she was trying to be as good as the top people (dopers, it turned out) that she’d overtrained and been injured repeatedly, and finally had to retire due to her injuries. She didn’t know they were doping, she just thought they were better, and believed if she more work in, she could succeed. She always thought she wasn’t good enough; in reality, she was, but she never knew it.

I am in no way saying that the hyper-androgen women are doping. They are not. But they have an advantage that training won’t bridge. To train harder to be their equal is a fool’s errand, and one that could very well have a measurably detrimental effect on the athletes health, safety and well-being.

[Palm_Beach]

[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;8808912]
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]

If you read my post well above, which is a quote out of an article JER linked, it makes more sense. Testosterone improves performance. So how do you differentiate between a woman with naturally high testosterone levels and one who is doping without some kind of medical exam? You can request drug testing of athletes, but you cannot force them to submit to a medical exam. So they set a threshold. Which then got overturned.

WRT your comments about effeminate men, who I presume are participating in judged events, this is of no effect because you are not measuring a substance that is proven to enhance performance. You are comparing apples to collard greens.

@Eclectic Horseman;8808913

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

Again, the link posted by JER explains this. Women cannot compete with men. They are a “protected” class and men cannot enter competitions restricted to women. Some competitions are open to all, like marathons, but frequently there is an overall winner (always a male) and a women’s division winner.

[JER]

[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;8808912]

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

The reason that scientists like Ross Tucker advocate using testosterone levels as an objective criteria is to allow for all humans with similar T levels to compete against each other. There are men who don’t produce T or are resistant to their own T, so therefore do not benefit from it.

It’s not about ‘masculine’ or ‘effeminate’, those are subjective criteria that have no basis in this process.

[Lady_Eboshi]

Here’s how the IOC might find a workable, equitable solution:

Take blood from 1,000 female elite athletes who have tested negative for doping and record testosterone readings. Average them. (If 1K doesn’t work for you, cohort size of your choice).

Establish a bell curve for the “normal” female testosterone level. Every Olympic entry must test within that range. This eliminates by definition pretty much all the cheaters, plus anyone presenting with anomalous levels which for whatever reason can be expected to give them an unfair advantage.

Let’s face it–a woman with very high androgens might easily be expected to CRUSH her opponents in any contest depending on direct muscular strength–eg. Judo. That contest would not be fair, as that individual by definition would be biologically advantaged in a way that is not the norm.

A ruling of this kind just might have to go against an individual in favor of the greater good of fairer play for all.

First world problem though, all the way around. In Rio, especially, plenty of children go to bed hungry or worse every night.

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8809108]
Here’s how the IOC might find a workable, equitable solution:

Take blood from 1,000 female elite athletes who have tested negative for doping and record testosterone readings. Average them. (If 1K doesn’t work for you, cohort size of your choice).

Establish a bell curve for the “normal” female testosterone level. Every Olympic entry must test within that range. This eliminates by definition pretty much all the cheaters, plus anyone presenting with anomalous levels which for whatever reason can be expected to give them an unfair advantage…[/QUOTE]

There WAS a set level for Testosterone. 10 mnol/L. 99% of women have a testosterone level under 3.8 mnol/L. So the set level was WAY to one side of the bell curve.

When that level was in effect, Semenya’s performance dropped significantly. But about a year ago, the Court of Arbitration for Sport temporarily removed that limit until the IAAF (equivalent of FEI) could provide acceptable support for that limit. And whadya know, Semenya started dominating again…

It’s also worth noting that athletes who transition from male to female ARE subject to testosterone limits, and must take medications to limit their testosterone to that level in order to compete as women. But intersex athletes like Semenya are not held to that same limit. So two different standards - I find that in itself discriminatory.

Finally, no one is saying that Semenya should be barred from the Olympics. Absolutely she should be allowed to compete, if she qualifies. But she should be competing in the proper category - the male category. Not the female. And the kicker there is that her times are respectable for a male, but far from world class - there’s no way she would be able to qualify for the Olympics as a male. But put her in the female division, and she’s absolutely unbeatable.

[anon68314200]

I really don’t know that changing the rules for 99.9% of people to accommodate .1% of people is really a workable way to move forward with anything. I also don’t think that the Blade Runner should have competed in the Olympics.

It is possible that some new events can be created. Fastest 100meter Human Runner. Highest Human Jumper. Longest Human Jumper. They are adding and subtracting events all the time.

But to change the way EVERY event is run to facilitate the participation of a very small number of people is not the way society, in general, should move forward.

[GoodTimes]

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I don’t think it’s as simple as a set testosterone level at the time of the Olympics.
I’m a cardiac Sonographer, there are set parameters for size and function in respect to the heart. The differences between males and females is significant even when indexed to body surface area.
I don’t really know of any studies on the hearts of trans, etc athletes, but given how the heart reacts to various disease processes I don’t believe it would ever change completely.

So essentially any athlete who grew up with male hormones would have a larger (diameter and muscle mass) heart and aorta than a “normal” female even when indexed to BSA. Any athlete who grew up as a biological female would always be at a disadvantage cardiac wise in comparison to “normal” males.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8808935]
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.[/QUOTE]

HA! Look up the top public salaries paid in every state in the USA. Not to spoil the suspense, but they are all college sports coaches, mostly football.

Look at what the athletes make in any professional sport–from sponsorships if not from salaries.

Now tell me that “physical prowess has become all but meaningless to the economic life of most people in advantaged nations.” :winkgrin:

[Gestalt]

[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;8808913]
That was exactly what the quote in my original post asked. Why indeed do we need events divided by gender?[/QUOTE]

Because there would be very few female winners? I’m not sure if you are serious with that question.

Winning in sports, being the best in your field can give you huge rewards. Lots of money in sports, lots and lots of money. If you always place 3rd to the male that identifies as female you probaby aren’t going to get the endorsements, scholarships, medals, money, etc. Being the winner opens a lot of doors.

[lidador]

[QUOTE=GoodTimes;8809172]
I’m not sure what the answer is, but I don’t think it’s as simple as a set testosterone level at the time of the Olympics.
I’m a cardiac Sonographer, there are set parameters for size and function in respect to the heart. The differences between males and females is significant even when indexed to body surface area.
I don’t really know of any studies on the hearts of trans, etc athletes, but given how the heart reacts to various disease processes I don’t believe it would ever change completely.

So essentially any athlete who grew up with male hormones would have a larger (diameter and muscle mass) heart and aorta than a “normal” female even when indexed to BSA. Any athlete who grew up as a biological female would always be at a disadvantage cardiac wise in comparison to “normal” males.[/QUOTE]

A bit off topic (I’m not asking about gender at all), but out of curiosity: How much can you influence heart size (diameter and muscle mass) through athletic development? Does starting the development as a child vs. as an adult affect how much you can change it?

As in, can people who don’t start developing athletically to a high level until they are adults ever “catch up” in heart size (say in % of maximum, given their genetics, assuming we can measure such a thing) to people who have been performing at a high level continuously their whole lives?

[Eclectic_Horseman]

[QUOTE=Gestalt;8809797]
Because there would be very few female winners? I’m not sure if you are serious with that question.

Winning in sports, being the best in your field can give you huge rewards. Lots of money in sports, lots and lots of money. If you always place 3rd to the male that identifies as female you probaby aren’t going to get the endorsements, scholarships, medals, money, etc. Being the winner opens a lot of doors.[/QUOTE]

As others suggested in the article that I posted at the beginning, size and strength could, in the future, provide a better basis for groupings than sex alone. There are other ways, and fairer ways, to divide up events.

And the topic of this thread, btw, is not “a male that identifies as a female” as you put it. Caster Semenya was born female-- she simply has a condition that gives her extremely high testosterone levels. Just like (as the article says) Lance Armstrong’s extremely large heart or Michael Phelp’s double jointed ankles. Those biological rarities also give those athletes an advantage, but because it is not about gender, no one gets disturbed about it.

[GoodTimes]

[QUOTE=lidador;8809927]
A bit off topic (I’m not asking about gender at all), but out of curiosity: How much can you influence heart size (diameter and muscle mass) through athletic development? Does starting the development as a child vs. as an adult affect how much you can change it?

As in, can people who don’t start developing athletically to a high level until they are adults ever “catch up” in heart size (say in % of maximum, given their genetics, assuming we can measure such a thing) to people who have been performing at a high level continuously their whole lives?[/QUOTE]

Everyone will basically have a “normal” heart dimesion and mass that is specific to them. With exercise since the heart is a muscle it will dilate slightly, and build slightly more mass, the heart rate and blood pressure will remain low, and this is what we call an “athletic heart”. If one were to stop exercising the heart would return to “normal” within a few months.
The heart will not continue to grow like the bicep of a body builder though, and if the heart were to grow past normal parameters it would be from underlying disease factors, not from exercise.

So to answer you question, no, Olympic level athletes would all have similar cardiac efficiency regardless of how long they’ve been training.

[Anonymoose]

[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8808935]
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.[/QUOTE]

According to the film I saw last night about US Olympic athletes training, it is not the 1/5 second but the 1/100 that is worth training beyond your body’s limits, pushing yourself till you projectile vomit, then saying “Coach can I take a break” and being told no. Coaches who put a trash can by your training apparatus knowing you will train till you vomit. This is the American athlete way, according to this NBC Olympic film.

[danceronice]

For those arguing that there are sports where “effeminate” males are rewarded…uh, not sure which ones you mean, because it’s definitely not gymnastics or figure skating. We joke about girls in the sports fighting the “puberty monster” but there is a reason why men’s singles programs in figure skating are longer and their base jump content is higher. Men are not rewarded in the scoring system for exhibiting flexibility on par with the top female skaters. It’s very rarely that you will see a man perform, for example, a clean Bielmann spin or I-spin. In women’s singles, if you can’t do those positions, you’re at an enormous disadvantage. Meanwhile, triple axels are still rare for women and quads done only rarely by a tiny minority of the top females (and even then only true jumping beans where jumps are their strongest skating skill.) A Senior man without a triple axel is almost unheard of and the few for whom it’s a weak jump have to make it up by having at least two solid quads. Having a female body that doesn’t remain boyish is an enormous disadvantage in jumping skills, so female programs are weighted differently. If they were held to the same requirements including jump difficulty as the men, few women would ever be able to skate a clean complete program.

Meanwhile in gymnastics, males compete on different apparatus and are judged on disparate skills–women do not do rings, even bars, horse or high bar. Male vaults and floor are entirely about explosive power, with no dance skills in the floor. A rare prodigy like Simone Biles can do tumbling passes of greater difficulty than the men, but she’s a rarity. Male events are built in large part around male upper body strength. Compare the shoulders and upper back muscles of the men to the women. Female events reward flexibility and spinning more often, including beam (an event with no male equivalent) where balance and a low center of gravity are huge advantage. A male with the body of a female would be at a massive disadvantage in male gymnastics, and he wouldn’t be permitted to compete against women.

Don’t confuse male figure skaters wearing sparkles or being flamboyant for skating like girls. In singles, the programs are not at all alike in terms of ‘start value’ and expectations, and in pairs and dance, you NEED a more “masculine” build (upper body strength) because a major part of your job is safely lifting your partner, in the case of pairs above your head, sometimes with one arm. Even the Chinese male pair skaters, who are often not TALL, can press-lift over men over their heads.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

[QUOTE=danceronice;8811900]
For those arguing that there are sports where “effeminate” males are rewarded…uh, not sure which ones you mean, because it’s definitely not gymnastics or figure skating. We joke about girls in the sports fighting the “puberty monster” but there is a reason why men’s singles programs in figure skating are longer and their base jump content is higher. Men are not rewarded in the scoring system for exhibiting flexibility on par with the top female skaters. It’s very rarely that you will see a man perform, for example, a clean Bielmann spin or I-spin. In women’s singles, if you can’t do those positions, you’re at an enormous disadvantage. Meanwhile, triple axels are still rare for women and quads done only rarely by a tiny minority of the top females (and even then only true jumping beans where jumps are their strongest skating skill.) A Senior man without a triple axel is almost unheard of and the few for whom it’s a weak jump have to make it up by having at least two solid quads. Having a female body that doesn’t remain boyish is an enormous disadvantage in jumping skills, so female programs are weighted differently. If they were held to the same requirements including jump difficulty as the men, few women would ever be able to skate a clean complete program.

Meanwhile in gymnastics, males compete on different apparatus and are judged on disparate skills–women do not do rings, even bars, horse or high bar. Male vaults and floor are entirely about explosive power, with no dance skills in the floor. A rare prodigy like Simone Biles can do tumbling passes of greater difficulty than the men, but she’s a rarity. Male events are built in large part around male upper body strength. Compare the shoulders and upper back muscles of the men to the women. Female events reward flexibility and spinning more often, including beam (an event with no male equivalent) where balance and a low center of gravity are huge advantage. A male with the body of a female would be at a massive disadvantage in male gymnastics, and he wouldn’t be permitted to compete against women.

Don’t confuse male figure skaters wearing sparkles or being flamboyant for skating like girls. In singles, the programs are not at all alike in terms of ‘start value’ and expectations, and in pairs and dance, you NEED a more “masculine” build (upper body strength) because a major part of your job is safely lifting your partner, in the case of pairs above your head, sometimes with one arm. Even the Chinese male pair skaters, who are often not TALL, can press-lift over men over their heads.[/QUOTE]

The comparison was made in the article that was posted. I immediately thought of diving, and particularly sychronized diving? But there are probably others.