|
VitalSigns posted:Is it hyperbole tho I mean, the reason is white supremacy, same as transmisogyny 
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
They even say it out loud. They go after Semenya on the intersex issue because it gives them an avenue to rules-lawyer even though they have no evidence that her condition is why she's beating them and the rules make no sense because she's still theoretically allowed to compete in the track events she doesn't win, but their goal is to ban African women from the race period because they're too good at racing ("it's like two separate races"). You can race with us BUT ONLY IF YOU LOSE But idk I don't know their hearts maybe the white woman crying that she deserved a silver medal because only one other competitor really beat her just has nuanced compassionate concerns about Semenya's karyotype and whatever unfair advantage the silver and bronze winners had which I'm sure she'll figure out any minute now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
E: Nevermind, mis-read a post
Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
your follow-ups are great but let's chill on the "WHITE WOMAN" vs "MISCELLANEOUS" joke posts because it's actually insulting to everyone. I follow pro running closely and I did not think you were going that direction with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
E: nevermind; op deletedBRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:your follow-ups are great but let's chill on the "WHITE WOMAN" vs "MISCELLANEOUS" joke posts because it's actually insulting to everyone. I follow pro running closely and I did not think you were going that direction with it. I apologize if I gave any offense or insult to trans or intersex individuals or allies (or anyone but TERFs), that was not my intention. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the argument is that testosterone disorders give women an unfair advantage in running and should be banned. Except it's not banned, you can have as much testosterone as Caster and still compete unless you have an XY karyotype I've been curious about this too. This thread gave me a pretty good excuse to try to track down World Athletics' justification, and I think I found it here. The Fluidity of Gender and Implications for the Biology of Inclusion for Transgender and Intersex Athletes posted:Support for the idea to limit athletes with DSD to certain events would require an assessment of previous successes of such athletes in the relevant events. There have been several champions in athletic events on the restricted list over the previous 25 years that, in all probability, had a DSD. So the argument isn't exactly that high testosterone itself should be banned, but that it appears that specifically in the events that Caster Semenya excelled at (plus the ones she could easily train to excel at), there seems to be a 1700 fold overrepresentation of people with XY DSD at the podium. A reduction in hormone levels would presumably bring that down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Uh huh. And this is different from people with specific biological quirks excelling at certain things, and being allowed to do so... why? Obviously she has an advantage. So does literally every other high-level athlete. There are no average people at the Olympics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
It seems like an unavoidable result of making fundamentally continuously distributed phenomena into discrete phenomena for categorization. The reason fighters almost kill themselves getting into a lower weight class is, ontologically, the exact same reason there's controversy about whether Caster Semenya should compete as a woman. The way I see it, there are two problems. One is the arbitrariness of the classes that arise for political reasons - i.e., we should have divisions for women but not for short people. The other is the desire to compromise and only have a few traits as relevant factors, as opposed to none or all of them. So there are two truly fair options. One is not to have divisions. Women can join the NFL, flyweights can challenge super heavyweights, and so on. The other is to parameterize every relevant trait, with weights for their statistical impact. If you're in the MMA, for example, they could measure all the physical factors you can't easily change, like reflex response time, body weight, arm length, bone density, and a dozen others, each with a coefficient that represents how important they generally are to success, and give you a single number. Those numbers could be divided into A class, B class, C class, etc. This is still a continuous into discrete division, which means it won't be perfect, but would make for more interesting matchups and eliminate sexism, transphobia and any other political concern. I have a feeling as genetic engineering and biotechnology in general advance, they're eventually going to have to do something like this either way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:So the argument isn't exactly that high testosterone itself should be banned, but that it appears that specifically in the events that Caster Semenya excelled at (plus the ones she could easily train to excel at), there seems to be a 1700 fold overrepresentation of people with XY DSD at the podium. A reduction in hormone levels would presumably bring that down. We know the argument isn't that high-T should be banned, because they didn't ban other conditions that result in it. They just banned this one. Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Part of what’s so frustrating about these discussions is that we smoothly move from “in what way can trans youth be enabled to participate in the ordinary extra-curricular activities that are part of growing up” to “how does gender show up in the ultra competitive extremes of elite sport” as if these were the same question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I've been curious about this too. This thread gave me a pretty good excuse to try to track down World Athletics' justification, and I think I found it here. Well considering the side effects are horrible and it's considered medically unethical to give a healthy person hormone reducing drugs for sports qualification purposes, yeah making someone sick would presumably hurt their performance. But if testosterone is responsible for an unfair performance advantage why is the rule only applied to women with an XY karyotype, that don't make sense. Are her testosterone levels an unfair advantage, or not? Would an XX woman with the same testosterone level have an unfair advantage? It seems the reason is because they can't actually prove it's testosterone and women with high T and XX karyotypes would sue for discrimination and win which is what happened before they went with the current contradictory and nonsense justification that courts seem to be fine with for some reason VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's treating it as the same but many of the concepts apply. For example, internal variance of the segregated groups. Where you are born during the year and where the age cutoffs for participation impact children sports careers which then carry on into higher level competitive play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Uh huh. And this is different from people with specific biological quirks excelling at certain things, and being allowed to do so... why? World Athletics seems to have a special rule for sex based advantages, where they try to curtail them to still allow for, in their words, "meaningful competition." It's the same reason they don't currently allow trans women who haven't had HRT for X years to compete. If you're just saying that it's somewhat arbitrary, I agree, of course. Jaxyon posted:We know the argument isn't that high-T should be banned, because they didn't ban other conditions that result in it. As I said in the quote, a 1700 fold overrepresentation of XY DSD at the podium seems likely to be why. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think anyone's treating it as the same but many of the concepts apply. For example, internal variance of the segregated groups. Where you are born during the year and where the age cutoffs for participation impact children sports careers which then carry on into higher level competitive play. I think there's also the issue of sports scholarships at the youth level, in a lot of cases. Now, of course, there are six billion better ways of handling that particular problem in a way that doesn't discriminate against trans people, so I don't consider it a valid excuse, but I think that's definitely one of the reasons that emotions run particularly high around youth sports in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:
Overrepresentation numbers alone don't prove anything unfair is going on or justify disqualification to my eyes anyway. African Americans are heavily overrepresented in the NBA, is that automatically unfair? Should they be disqualified? Should they be required to take drugs to bring down their performance? That runner who complained that racing against African runners was like running "two separate races", if it were proven that African competitors were overrepresented should they be disqualified or forced to take drugs to compete? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:As I said in the quote, a 1700 fold overrepresentation of XY DSD at the podium seems likely to be why. Why is that a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: nevermind; op deleted It wasnt cutting to the chase, it was coming in and dropping a shitpost that literally sounded like some of the poo poo many of the transphobes post on other places online or earlier in this thread. Sometimes actually thinking and looking at what you post is needed because fluffdaddy was correct, it was a godawful thing to post and actively did nothing but make you look like an rear end in a top hat and could be hurtful as hell to people. The last thing this thread needs is more hot takes, legit this conversation on how an intersex woman is being targeted is interesting and likely unknown to most of us. Legit her medical condition is something that can happen to many woman and they don't know until years and years later with testing. It's actually a quirk of biology that results in it. So the way that most animals develop is fairly standard and almost identical, nervous system and digestive forming first with the heart. The reproductive system isn't just formed with male or female gonads, but develops starting with a single layout that is identical, and hormones from the x or y chromosome cause the differentiation into the male and female respective organs. For the rare people with a genetic issue that results in an resistance to the hormones, they don't actually develop correctly, and instead the fetus grows a reproductive system that mimics the opposite sexes, typically a female organ system. It's a quirk of biology due to the shared developmental system. In all respects and purposes to her, her body has a tolerance to testosterone that happened due to a genetic quirk, she developed into a woman with all of the traits, her ovaries are just testies that are inside her. She might have higher T levels but for her, her body actually doesn't respond to it due to her genetic profile. The only "thing" that says she isn't a woman, is people that say that her xy genetic profile says so, which is just transphobic garbage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_gonads I wish I had access to the anatomy slides or information from class, we actually touched on it at the time because it was very interesting and new to many of us, but also because the teacher was heavily invested in making sure we understood that there's genetic reasons for some things, and that bigotry and hatred had no part in our fields. That and a massive feminist and LGBT leader  she was a great teacher and really pushed back on some of the poo poo being spouted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Semenya's personal best in the 1500m (an event she's banned from) is 3:59.92 The world record for women's 1500m is 3:50.07 The men's world record for comparison is 3:26.00 This is all according to Wikipedia so disclaimers apply. So if her performance is within the range of women's performance and falls short of the women's world record holder set by a woman without 46 XY DSD, I don't see how it's really unfair for her to compete or comparable to men and women competing together with men blowing away their female competitors by huge 20 second gaps. Which seems to be the only argument: "people like her are overrepresented" (so what), and "well she performs like a man" (no she doesn't, objectively she does not, not even close, her best time wouldn't even qualify for men's 1500m) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Here's a question: are there are biological conditions/traits that a man could have, that would be judged to give such an advantage in a sport that they are simply banned from competition in the issue of fairness? If such a condition were found, such that men with the condition were 1700 times over-represented in a certain competition, would that be unfair? Heck, same question regarding women's competitions: if another condition with such over-representation were found and it had no relation to testosterone or a masculine appearance (because, let's face it: the whole reason Semenya was investigated was that she looked insufficiently feminine), would it be restricted? I'm going to take a wild guess and say, "no." EDIT: Actually, I take that last part back. If you look at how gymnastics scoring was adjusted to gently caress over Simone Biles, I think it's entirely likely that anything that helped a non-white woman would probably get restricted. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Here's a question: are there are biological conditions/traits that a man could have, that would be judged to give such an advantage in a sport that they are simply banned from competition in the issue of fairness? If such a condition were found, such that men with the condition were 1700 times over-represented in a certain competition, would that be unfair? Men's sport is an open category. If you're against categories entirely, then just say so, but then that's a different debate. Manute Bol being 7'7" or Michael Phelps having a mutant wingspan isn't really relevant here, it's whether there exists an advantage that takes you out of a category.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Men's sport is an open category. If you're against categories entirely, then just say so, but then that's a different debate. Manute Bol being 7'7" or Michael Phelps having a mutant wingspan isn't really relevant here, it's whether there exists an advantage that takes you out of a category. Why is men's sports considered to be open, while women's sports is not? It's not like women are allowed to compete in men's events. There are sports for which women typically outperform men. What if a man had an intersex condition that made him particularly suited to gymnastics? Could he be considered too good to be male? If the category is "woman," and caster semenya is a woman, then how can she possibly be disqualified for being too good?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
I'm currently reading through the court document from Semenya suing the IAAF/World Althetics and I'm hoping that will shine some more light on their arguments. Since the thread seems pretty interested in this topic and it's at least tangentially related to trans women in sports, I figured I should link it in case anyone else is as boring as me.VitalSigns posted:Well considering the side effects are horrible and it's considered medically unethical to give a healthy person hormone reducing drugs for sports qualification purposes, yeah making someone sick would presumably hurt their performance. Perhaps World Athletics only cares about controlling for sex based advantages in women's sports, or they just want to ensure big, restrictive rules like this one don't get anyone outside of the group demonstrated to have a massive overrepresentation. Either way, it would make perfect sense for the rule to be set up this way. I don't think it suggests any ulterior motives. VitalSigns posted:Overrepresentation numbers alone don't prove anything unfair is going on or justify disqualification to my eyes anyway. Personally I'm kind of struggling even trying to imagine what the equivalent overrepresentation would look like, when Africans make up like 20% of the world population, so take what I say here with a grain of salt, but: If African runners had a 1700 fold over representation in medals, I would be pretty confident that meaningful competition could not be had between African runners and non-African runners at the top level. Presuming the other 80% of the world wanted to have a world-wide meaningful competition, I think the creation of a different division, as a random example, would make much more sense than DQ/absolute drug requirements. Lowering participation in sports/racially discriminating/forcing people to take performance lowering drugs to compete all seem pretty bad to me (which is why I personally dislike the XY DSD decision) Jaxyon posted:Why is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, strictly speaking. But if the reason for the women's events is to restrict/reduce sex based advantages for "meaningful competition for women," which seems to be World Athletics' current position, then one group of women having a sex based advantage to that level probably isn't in the spirit of the division, at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:people already called this post out for other reasons but i'll also add on the weightlifting side that wilks coefficients (a bodyweight:weight lifted ratio to loosely standardize performance across weight classes) aren't significantly different between genders, both with and without supplementary hormones. For a while the strongest pound for pound person on the planet was a 100lb australian woman this is old but ive seen you make this argument before about wilks. 1: wilks has different coefficients for male and female. the reason women can compete with men using wilks is because the wilks coefficient adjusts for them being weaker. 2: the guy who came up with it is a sex predator and wilks has been dropped by many and they use DOTS instead (still different for men and women). and hormones matter a lot in lifting, you just cant control it (unless you are on gear), so no one worries about it cause why worry about something you cant control. and people on gear are way stronger than people not on it. do you even lift? does anyone here actually compete in sports???
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Here's a question: are there are biological conditions/traits that a man could have, that would be judged to give such an advantage in a sport that they are simply banned from competition in the issue of fairness? If such a condition were found, such that men with the condition were 1700 times over-represented in a certain competition, would that be unfair? I agree that it probably wouldn't. But my point is that it should be, or rather should be incorporated into a division system. Like, let's say a mutation developed in the 80s due to all the beige plastics that caused people to start having webbed hands. Fully, not just a little. And by the mid 21st century there were enough people with it that they started destroying Olympic swimming events. Overrepresented even more than the 1700fold example. The medalists were exclusively people with this mutation, for a decade. It would make perfect sense to have a non-webbed division to open up the pool to more competitors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, strictly speaking. But if the reason for the women's events is to restrict/reduce sex based advantages for "meaningful competition for women," which seems to be World Athletics' current position, then one group of women having a sex based advantage to that level probably isn't in the spirit of the division, at least. Caster Semenya is a woman, and has lived her entire life as such.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I'm currently reading through the court document from Semenya suing the IAAF/World Althetics and I'm hoping that will shine some more light on their arguments. Since the thread seems pretty interested in this topic and it's at least tangentially related to trans women in sports, I figured I should link it in case anyone else is as boring as me. I agree that a combined men and women race wouldn't be meaningful competition because the women world record holders wouldn't even qualify for the Olympic teams and all the track world records would be held by men, but that's clearly not what's going on. Dog King posted:The medalists were exclusively people with this mutation, for a decade. It would make perfect sense to have a non-webbed division to open up the pool to more competitors. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:What if a man had an intersex condition that made him particularly suited to gymnastics? Could he be considered too good to be male? Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if this happened tbh. In 1992 a woman, Zhang Shan, won a silver medal in a mixed sex shooting event. Women were banned from that event for the next Olympics. Couldn't have her taking the gold, you understand. In 2016, trans man boxer, Patricio Manuel won his first and only professional boxing match. No boxer since has ever agreed to a match with him, for obvious sexist transphobic reasons. It's less likely than those two examples above but you know, there's a trend here. I could see the competitors making it a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Why is men's sports considered to be open, while women's sports is not? It's not like women are allowed to compete in men's events. There are sports for which women typically outperform men. What if a man had an intersex condition that made him particularly suited to gymnastics? Could he be considered too good to be male? There's plenty of sports where women are allowed to compete with men. There's no rule against a woman playing in the NFL, or the NHL, or the NBA. It doesn't happen, because women aren't competitive with men in (most) top level sports.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are the women medalists all exclusively women with XY DSD? No, they are not, as I implied in my sentence immediately before you cropped the post. You can also see this in Gentleman Baller's original post on the over-representation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Dog King posted:No, they are not, as I implied in my sentence immediately before you cropped the post. You can also see this in Gentleman Baller's original post on the over-representation. I didn't pick up that implication which is why I asked. I'm not sure what the thought experiment has to do with the topic if it differs in such a critical way (group is overrepresented as a percentage of population ≠ group is exclusively winning every medal) What conclusion are you drawing from the thought experiment? To me it seems the conclusion would be that we shouldn't worry about it unless women with XY DSD were winning all the medals, is that what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Yeah, for what it's worth: Caster Semenya holds no world records, in any event. This woman, who is apparently simply too good to be allowed, has been bested by another woman in every event she contests. I don't think you can reasonably call that an advantage that is so overpowering that it simply cannot be allowed. She is very good as what she does, and as a result she is extremely difficult to defeat. Well, that's elite sport for you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Pretend I'm a moron. How is overrepresentation at the podium measured here? And is the podium top 3?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't pick up that implication which is why I asked. It's only tangentially related to the topic, because the topic itself is trivial. It has an answer in the title of the thread. I'm concerned with what I see as a larger, longer-term question. In a decade or two, trans people will be socially identical to cis people thanks to cultural advances, and a decade or two after that they'll be biologically identical thanks to scientific advances. The question that interests me is what to do about overwhelming innate advantages in sport, because that issue is only going to become more severe as time goes on, both from the increasingly extreme selection of bodies that has been increasing over the last century, and genetic engineering. The conclusion I draw from it is the same one I stated earlier, that division criteria should be more detailed and relevant and agnostic to gender or transness. VitalSigns posted:To me it seems the conclusion would be that we shouldn't worry about it unless women with XY DSD were winning all the medals, is that what you mean? Semenya should be able to compete in the divisions as they are now, because she's a woman. That's not a conclusion though, it's a starting point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Pretend I'm a moron. How is overrepresentation at the podium measured here? And is the podium top 3? My assumption is that they are saying "these people are X% of the population, they should be winning X% of the medals if it's not an advantage." It's really, really stupid because I don't think anyone is claiming that this condition doesn't confer an advantage. The only disagreement is whether that advantage should mean Semenya and others with the same condition should be barred from competing. If we banned everyone with extraordinary physical gifts from sport, I don't think sport would be very popular to watch. It would, of course, still be fun to participate in because "everything is about winning and losing" is something you should grow the gently caress out of in grade school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, for what it's worth: Caster Semenya holds no world records, in any event. This woman, who is apparently simply too good to be allowed, has been bested by another woman in every event she contests. Right, and this is the reason this "debate" is so absurd. People see a woman performing well, who happens to be intersex, and presume that is the sole reason she is performing as she is. And this is what is happening regularly with every single MtF athlete who performs well. It's a fallacy. Men's and women's divisions exist in running because elite men are statistically separable from elite women and there is no way that women can compete with the men. Right now, there is no credible evidence to suggest that MtF athletes are statistically superior to cis female athletes due to androgenization during puberty, in any sport. I don't expect that evidence is going to emerge. If it did, then we would be stuck in a place where it is impossible to be equitable to all and we would have to make a decision about what we value. But that would be a debate for another time, and in the meantime, even if we're wrong, it does not mean the death of women's sport. We can afford to be wrong about how competitive MtF athletes are in the name of equity for transgender individuals. There is some evidence that loving with testosterone levels in adults isn't going to normalize things particularly well, and the World Athletics guidelines regarding testosterone (and other guidelines that have sprung from that) are bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Pretend I'm a moron. How is overrepresentation at the podium measured here? And is the podium top 3? They're not, the argument made in the IAAF case that Gentleman Butler linked (and seems to have inadvertently misquoted unless I'm just looking at a different section than him because the number I see is 140x not 1700x), is that of all competitors in elite events (not medal winners, competitors total), 7 women in 1000 have 46 XY DSD versus 1 woman in 20,000 out of the general population, or 140x the number you would expect in the competitions if there were no advantage. The guy who is the source of the statistic also claims that women with 46 XY DSD are indistinguishable from males in terms of sports performance. When asked why, if their bodies perform exactly like biological males' bodies in competition, these women aren't posting male medal-winning numbers, his answer is basically "because they suck at running lol". Non-elite men would do well in women's races but wouldn't win all the time so this what they are just unremarkable "gonadally male" runners who can only compete at this level because they're running against the girls. It's very dumb. I'll quote from it directly later when I'm not on my phone. The arguments from Semenya's team are very good, I love that IAAF has no answer to the question of why they didn't look at other characteristics which are also overrepresented in elite competitions, but apparently this didn't bother the court even though it seems to me that it completely demolishes their reasoning. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Caster Semenya is a woman, and has lived her entire life as such. Yes? I agree? I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest otherwise? VitalSigns posted:Sorry could you explain why you think there can't be "meaningful competition" between women with XY DSD like Semenya and other women, in light of the fact that she doesn't hold the world record and the world record record holder doesn't have that condition? It seems to me there is meaningful competition already if women with XY DSD aren't holding the world record in the event in question. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's fair to say the WR holder isn't XY DSD. You can't tell if someone is XY DSD by looking at them. We don't actually know which 800m medallists have XY DSD. We only originally found out Semenya is XY DSD because of some piece of poo poo leaking confidential medical information to lovely tabloids. For extremely very obvious reasons, World Athletes has not publicly revealed which medallists are XY DSD. On top of that, I think if we are being fair, the cheating scandals in women's running were so bad that European Athletics wanted to void all pre 2005 records, so comparing pre-2005 and post-2005 times is kind of iffy. Sorry, this is getting really down in the weeds and I don't think either of us want this, but I never said I don't think there can be meaningful competition between women with XY DSD and other women. You used the comparison of Africa. If Africa got 1700 times the amount of medals that we would expect, wouldn't they have like, every medal a hundred times over? Now to me THAT is not meaningful competition. But that doesn't mean intersex people having 30 medals instead of a fraction of a fraction is also necessarily not meaningful. I'll try to restate the argument to maybe reset: "We are aware of a theoretical way an intersex woman could have sex based advantages in sports. A study demonstrated an advantage in several events. In 3 of those events, and 2 other, related events, there are ~14 000% more XY DSD athletes than we would expect, and XY DSD women seem to have ~170 000% the medals than we would expect based on their population size. That number is arguably too large. " Now I have my own criticisms of the argument to some extent, but I think it's way more likely that this argument is why they implemented the rule change and not because of the other explanations in this thread. VitalSigns posted:They're not, the argument made in the IAAF case that Gentleman Butler linked (and seems to have inadvertently misquoted unless I'm just looking at a different section than him because the number I see is 140x not 1700x), is that of all competitors in elite events (not medal winners, competitors total), 7 women in 1000 have 46 XY DSD versus 1 woman in 20,000 out of the general population, or 140x the number you would expect in the competitions if there were no advantage. It's a 140x of competitors, but if you read a few more sentences down, it's 1700x over representation at the podium. The quote I put in this thread contained both numbers. Edit: I think you might be looking at the court record. I haven't really started reading that yet. I got my data from The Fluidity of Gender and Implications for the Biology of Inclusion for Transgender and Intersex Athletes Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Yes? I agree? I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest otherwise? The entire rule and reasoning exists based on the concept that Semenya is not a woman, or not women "enough". If there is no distinction, how is a woman winning a woman's division title a threat to the women's division? Or not in the spirit of it? Also I'd like to add, while the discussion of Caster Semenya's treatment does touch on some issues that crossover with transgender athletes, she is not transgender. I feel it's important to add that because sex and gender issues are frequently confused, as are intersex and transgender issues. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The entire rule and reasoning exists based on the concept that Semenya is not a woman, or not women "enough". Because Caster Semenya ostensibly has a sex based advantage, and the position that women's divisions should try to ensure there aren't significant sex based advantages is a coherent one. I don't know about you, but I think trans women who haven't undergone HRT are also women, but perhaps a trans woman who hasn't undergone HRT winning it might not be in the spirit of the women's division. This isn't to say there can't be a women's division that doesn't care about sex based advantages of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's fair to say the WR holder isn't XY DSD. You can't tell if someone is XY DSD by looking at them. We don't actually know which 800m medallists have XY DSD. We only originally found out Semenya is XY DSD because of some piece of poo poo leaking confidential medical information to lovely tabloids. For extremely very obvious reasons, World Athletes has not publicly revealed which medallists are XY DSD. If the argument is that 46 XY DSD is such an overwhelming advantage that no meaningful competition can be had between Semenya and everyone else, I'd hope there'd be a better argument than "well you can't know for sure that every woman who has ever beaten Semenya wasn't intersex too" I mean really, that's what you're going with? A woman (Faith Kipyegon) beat Semenya's all-time personal best in the 1500m just last year in the 2021 Olympics, so if she also secretly has XY DSD why isn't the rule being enforced then, like is it important or not And mb if the case says 1700x somewhere and I haven't gotten to it yet, like I said on my phone right now, I'll finish reading it later VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 00:16
|
|