|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is why I have found the entire argument about fairness invalid. The point is to use every advantage granted to you in life to defeat your peers. No one ever gets up in arms about rich folks or those with a genetic quirk getting ahead. Why should transgender athletes be any different even if there were advantages? I'm curious, if you think the fairness argument is invalid/silly because sports aren't fair, would you be okay with trans women who haven't undergone HRT competing in women's sports, since they are women? Sure, the fairness argument doesn't seem to be sound, but it is valid; if there WAS a reason to think that 98-99% of women would never be able to compete at the top level of their sport purely because of easily identifiable circumstances of their birth, then that might not be a good thing for women as a whole. That's some gattaca poo poo. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 7, 2022 |
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It is already the case that over 99% of women will never be able to compete at the top level of a sport. It's also the case that over 99% of men will never be able to compete at the top level of a sport. Yes, but not due to easily identifiable circumstances of their birth. Generally, if a woman is passionate and talented about athleticism from their childhood, and they receive the support they need, there's every chance they can compete at a national or international level. Their goal might be ambitious, but it's possible. If it were the case that cis girls would know that no matter how hard they worked, they wouldn't be able to compete at the top levels just because they were born cis, that's a completely different thing to what you're describing. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Arguing for fairness is sports is like arguing if there is fairness under capitalism. It can’t be fair by the very definition of the subject. There will always be those with advantages (real or perceived by bigots) others could never obtain. It’s 100% an invalid argument used to define arbitrary rules that are defined by the elite. Of course but there's levels to this. Capitalism is definitionally unfair, sure, but when peoples bosses commit wage theft, and someone says that's unfair I wouldn't exactly call that an 'invalid argument.' I'd probably agree with them, personally. Just because there is genetic and social variations that convey advantages to one person that another person could never hope to get, doesn't mean that it's absurd to call out other, possibly controllable types of unfairness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:I strongly disagree. Wage theft is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. You have to dismantle the system to remove it. Calling it out is good but adding rules to capitalism doesn’t actually resolve the root cause. Sure, I grant you all this but just to fully clarify, if someone says, "wage theft is unfair." that is invalid to you? Or would you agree that, despite capitalism being definitionally unfair, and how many of the rules are arbitrary, things can still be particularly unfair under capitalism? virtualboyCOLOR posted:For sports: they’re fun. Let people have fun. Those that want to be the “best” should be able to use every advantage. It’s a competition. Hell, the Olympics were excluding CIS women for having too much testosterone. It’s stupid, arbitrary, and only exists based on the whims of the elite. Those that care about “fairness” here are either bigots, fooling themselves, or have other ulterior motives. Does that extend to people who think trans women who haven't undergone HRT shouldn't be competing against cis women? Or are there other reasons someone might care about fairness in that case? Edit: Dog King posted:Like Bel Shazar was implying, it is the case that many people know they'll never be able to compete at the top levels of certain sports because of how they were born. Like if you're not tall enough, or not coordinated enough, or have some kind of actual disability. Oh I wasn't trying to suggest it was universally true, I said generally because I think it's generally true, that's all. And thankfully, we've been able to fix that issue for many people with disabilities with the Paralympics, and we have several sports that actually give you an advantage if you are short. Those are both really good things imo! The amount of women athletes who know they'll never be able to compete at the highest level no matter how hard they try, purely because of the circumstances of their birth is nowhere near 99%. I think if it stays nowhere near 99%, then that's good. It'd be rad if we can get whatever percent it is lower. To answer your question, the reason I think cis women's participation in high level sports is valuable, is cis women make up around 49% of the world's population, There isn't really anything deeper than that. If it's sustainable, I'm all for additional divisions in sports where it's beneficial. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The entire conceit is that there's a maximum level of gud you can git as a woman, and anything beyond that is unfair. The Semenya issue is the perfect example of that: here is a cis woman, who is simply too good at what she does, and there's all sorts of bitching about the fact that she is just too good for pretty much all other women to compete with her. This is not a trans issue because she is not trans, but it's relevant to the discussion because it proves the idea that being a woman in sport is, too often, defined as being somehow weaker or worse. Any deviation from that is simply not okay! While I agree the Semenya decision was truly ridiculous, I don't know if this maximum allowable performance for a woman thing really works. If people believe trans women without X years of hormone therapy have a sex based biological advantage that isn't 'fair' then surely intersex cis women like Semenya would also face some sort of scrutiny that might result in hormone ajustments? It feels like a natural extension of the argument to me. And with that understanding, rather than the maximum allowable performance one, incredible cis athletes with no record of intersex conditions like Florence Griffith Joyner and Serena Williams would be permitted to excell without any intervention by sporting authorities, which seems to be the case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well yes that's true, I didn't mean I knew for a fact, only that I looked up the record holders and there was nothing saying they are. There's one woman who has beaten Semenya's time at her main event (800m) after the 2005 drug policy changes, and there is data that suggests there is a significant performance advantage for intersex people. Under those situations, I don't think, "Well someone with even better performance than her might or might not be intersex!" is a very compelling. Especially when my position is completely based on the 1700x number. Please keep in mind, I'm a Semenya fan. My position has never been, "She's too good someone needs to stop her!" In fact I'm the opposite. Semenya has had to deal with an absolute insane amount of poo poo for the past ~13 years. Things that her non-intersex competitors never had to deal with. Things even her intersex competitors who didn't get their info leaked never had to deal with. All while doing the most intense training productively possible. You can't tell me that doesn't leave a mark. In a just world, either one where she didn't have to take blockers, or one where she did and it didn't harm her, I think she would have beaten Jelimo. VitalSigns posted: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 Semenya's event is the 800m. Semenya has never ran the 1500m in the Olympics for a reason. Kipyegon's 800m is 3 and a half seconds slower than Semenya, and AFAIK we don't know how much of an effect the hormone blockers have or how long it takes. Jaxyon posted:But she doesn't, and nobody is even claiming or demonstrating that she does. World Athletics literally went to court with her and argued that she has a sex based advantage (and won) Edit: v v goondolences  I know the feel. I have these genes that gave me incredibly severe rheumatoid arthritis 1 year into college. Very cool, genetic lottery. Really glad you let me get all that debt first.
Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Reading VitalSign's posts, I honestly think wires are too crossed to continue. I don't believe anyone who beat Semenya's 1500m score must have XY DSD, I thought I said her 1500m wasn't her event? I've never suggested there's people running around hiding their DSD from officials, never suggested Jelimo definitely has DSD. My argument is that it seems like the advantage from DSD has lead to a massive over-representation in medals earned. I did not intend to paint some picture of everyone with DSD having a 10 second advantage over all other women at every event they participate in. I guess I'm just no good at explaining myself and I'm sorry for wasting peoples time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2022 02:31
|
|