The Male Athlete Advantage

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 May 2019 08:53
 
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 May 2019 09:08
 

Actually if you want a solid snap shot of a real interesting media bias, read that article and then Google Caster Semenya’s name.

Most of the media wants you to think that it’s unfair to Semenya. The objective fact, is, however, that for years she’s been racing with an extremely unfair advantage. I guess some social justice warriors can’t do simple math.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6878
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
04 May 2019 10:31
 
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 09:08 AM

Actually if you want a solid snap shot of a real interesting media bias, read that article and then Google Caster Semenya’s name.

Most of the media wants you to think that it’s unfair to Semenya. The objective fact, is, however, that for years she’s been racing with an extremely unfair advantage. I guess some social justice warriors can’t do simple math.

So has Mike Phelps.  He gets praise for being genetically lucky.  Semenya gets “Harrison-Bergeron’d”.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 May 2019 12:16
 
Jefe - 04 May 2019 10:31 AM
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 09:08 AM

Actually if you want a solid snap shot of a real interesting media bias, read that article and then Google Caster Semenya’s name.

Most of the media wants you to think that it’s unfair to Semenya. The objective fact, is, however, that for years she’s been racing with an extremely unfair advantage. I guess some social justice warriors can’t do simple math.

So has Mike Phelps.  He gets praise for being genetically lucky.  Semenya gets “Harrison-Bergeron’d”.

From that link:

The “Michael Phelps” or “Usain Bolt” Genetic Outliers Argument Isn’t A Good One.

Many people who support Semenya use the argument that elite sports are often about genetic outliers dominating. Usain Bolt had really long legs and Michael Phelps had really long arms, so why can’t Semenya have really high testosterone?

That’s a bad analogy. Sports organizations don’t classify athletes by arm or leg length, but they do classify athletes by sex. If they didn’t, women wouldn’t have a chance to excel at the very top levels of sport as men’s world record are consistently 10-12% better than women’s world records in sports like track and swimming. In tennis, even a great like Serena Williams admits she couldn’t get a game off a top male pro like Andy Murray. If sports organizations didn’t classify by sex, there would be almost zero female Olympians save for sports like maybe equestrian.

There is no human right to compete in a particular category of professional sports. Sports governing bodies exclude certain types of people from certain categories of sports all the time. In boxing, a 210-pound boxer can’t fight as a flyweight (112 lb max) as the flyweight would have little realistic chance of winning.

To say that an XY human can’t compete in the women’s category of professional sports unless they lower their testosterone below 5 nmol/L — a figure that is still 7.5 times the value of the average woman competing at the 2011 and 2013 track and field World Championships and a figure that not a single healthy woman born with XX chromosomes, ovaries, and producing estrogen at puberty can reach — isn’t a huge human rights travesty. It’s a protection of women’s sports

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6878
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
04 May 2019 13:06
 
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 12:16 PM
Jefe - 04 May 2019 10:31 AM
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 09:08 AM

Actually if you want a solid snap shot of a real interesting media bias, read that article and then Google Caster Semenya’s name.

Most of the media wants you to think that it’s unfair to Semenya. The objective fact, is, however, that for years she’s been racing with an extremely unfair advantage. I guess some social justice warriors can’t do simple math.

So has Mike Phelps.  He gets praise for being genetically lucky.  Semenya gets “Harrison-Bergeron’d”.

From that link:

The “Michael Phelps” or “Usain Bolt” Genetic Outliers Argument Isn’t A Good One.

Many people who support Semenya use the argument that elite sports are often about genetic outliers dominating. Usain Bolt had really long legs and Michael Phelps had really long arms, so why can’t Semenya have really high testosterone?

That’s a bad analogy. Sports organizations don’t classify athletes by arm or leg length, but they do classify athletes by sex. If they didn’t, women wouldn’t have a chance to excel at the very top levels of sport as men’s world record are consistently 10-12% better than women’s world records in sports like track and swimming. In tennis, even a great like Serena Williams admits she couldn’t get a game off a top male pro like Andy Murray. If sports organizations didn’t classify by sex, there would be almost zero female Olympians save for sports like maybe equestrian.

There is no human right to compete in a particular category of professional sports. Sports governing bodies exclude certain types of people from certain categories of sports all the time. In boxing, a 210-pound boxer can’t fight as a flyweight (112 lb max) as the flyweight would have little realistic chance of winning.

To say that an XY human can’t compete in the women’s category of professional sports unless they lower their testosterone below 5 nmol/L — a figure that is still 7.5 times the value of the average woman competing at the 2011 and 2013 track and field World Championships and a figure that not a single healthy woman born with XX chromosomes, ovaries, and producing estrogen at puberty can reach — isn’t a huge human rights travesty. It’s a protection of women’s sports

The phelps advantage was more than long arms.
Low lactic acid production, a rare biological trait,contributed much to his success.

But ok.  If some athletes must get tested for hormone levels, lets ensure all athletes are subject to similarly rigorous screening.  Across any spectrum that may provide advantage.

This may complicate sports by introducing additional categories - such as those in boxing, but should ultimately lead to more equitable competitions…although it might also lead to public identification of biological quirks.

Like the odd ability of the fastest english-channel-swimmer to maintain a higher body temperature (in adverse conditions) than ordinary folks. Does that invalidate the results if that person’s accomplishment too?

A little gattica-esque blood sample within 24 hours of competing should do the trick, yes?


PS- lets not talk about risks or complications on endocrinal modifications for athletes required to alter their hormonal levels to qualify for competitions.

 

 

[ Edited: 04 May 2019 13:16 by Jefe]
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
05 May 2019 09:26
 
Jefe - 04 May 2019 01:06 PM
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 12:16 PM
Jefe - 04 May 2019 10:31 AM
Jb8989 - 04 May 2019 09:08 AM

Actually if you want a solid snap shot of a real interesting media bias, read that article and then Google Caster Semenya’s name.

Most of the media wants you to think that it’s unfair to Semenya. The objective fact, is, however, that for years she’s been racing with an extremely unfair advantage. I guess some social justice warriors can’t do simple math.

So has Mike Phelps.  He gets praise for being genetically lucky.  Semenya gets “Harrison-Bergeron’d”.

From that link:

The “Michael Phelps” or “Usain Bolt” Genetic Outliers Argument Isn’t A Good One.

Many people who support Semenya use the argument that elite sports are often about genetic outliers dominating. Usain Bolt had really long legs and Michael Phelps had really long arms, so why can’t Semenya have really high testosterone?

That’s a bad analogy. Sports organizations don’t classify athletes by arm or leg length, but they do classify athletes by sex. If they didn’t, women wouldn’t have a chance to excel at the very top levels of sport as men’s world record are consistently 10-12% better than women’s world records in sports like track and swimming. In tennis, even a great like Serena Williams admits she couldn’t get a game off a top male pro like Andy Murray. If sports organizations didn’t classify by sex, there would be almost zero female Olympians save for sports like maybe equestrian.

There is no human right to compete in a particular category of professional sports. Sports governing bodies exclude certain types of people from certain categories of sports all the time. In boxing, a 210-pound boxer can’t fight as a flyweight (112 lb max) as the flyweight would have little realistic chance of winning.

To say that an XY human can’t compete in the women’s category of professional sports unless they lower their testosterone below 5 nmol/L — a figure that is still 7.5 times the value of the average woman competing at the 2011 and 2013 track and field World Championships and a figure that not a single healthy woman born with XX chromosomes, ovaries, and producing estrogen at puberty can reach — isn’t a huge human rights travesty. It’s a protection of women’s sports

The phelps advantage was more than long arms.
Low lactic acid production, a rare biological trait,contributed much to his success.

But ok.  If some athletes must get tested for hormone levels, lets ensure all athletes are subject to similarly rigorous screening.  Across any spectrum that may provide advantage.

This may complicate sports by introducing additional categories - such as those in boxing, but should ultimately lead to more equitable competitions…although it might also lead to public identification of biological quirks.

Like the odd ability of the fastest english-channel-swimmer to maintain a higher body temperature (in adverse conditions) than ordinary folks. Does that invalidate the results if that person’s accomplishment too?

A little gattica-esque blood sample within 24 hours of competing should do the trick, yes?


PS- lets not talk about risks or complications on endocrinal modifications for athletes required to alter their hormonal levels to qualify for competitions.

 

 

The issue is whether it’s fair for women with typical chromosomes to compete against other intersex women who have XY chromosomes, because XY’s tend to have traits like internal testes, no womb or ovaries and heightened testosterone levels. The answer is that it’s not physiologically fair because XY’s will be naturally faster, stronger, with more endurance and just generally more athletic. You seem to be conflating that with the idea that all sports competitors should have equal advantages across all genetic categories.

[ Edited: 05 May 2019 09:31 by Jb8989]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6878
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
05 May 2019 10:03
 
Jb8989 - 05 May 2019 09:26 AM

The issue is whether it’s fair for women with typical chromosomes to compete against other intersex women who have XY chromosomes, because XY’s tend to have traits like internal testes, no womb or ovaries and heightened testosterone levels.

Summary: Biological differences that provide advantage are unfair.
Like Phelp’s decreased lactic acid production.

Jb8989 - 05 May 2019 09:26 AM

The answer is that it’s not physiologically fair because XY’s will be naturally faster, stronger, with more endurance and just generally more athletic.

Summary: It’s not physiologically fair for athletes with biological advantages to compete against athletes who are not similarly biologically advantaged.

Like Phelp’s advantage of decreased lactic acid production - which provides him with greater endurance than athletes without a similar biological advantage.
Like the fastest-channel-swimmer’s biological advantage of increased body temperature - which provided him with greater endurance than other swimmers because he was warmer than the others - in the cold waters of the channel.  Less risk of hypothermia, more energyy for concentrating on the swim itself, instead of the temperature.

Jb8989 - 05 May 2019 09:26 AM

You seem to be conflating that with the idea that all sports competitors should have equal advantages across all genetic categories.

I seem to be looking at this from a meta-perspective where unfair advantages is considered in every case, not just those of xy chromosome athletes.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
05 May 2019 12:19
 
Jefe - 05 May 2019 10:03 AM

Summary: Biological differences that provide advantage are unfair.
Like Phelp’s decreased lactic acid production.

The nature of sport is adversarial. The built-in purpose is for genetically unique people to rise to the top of their respective games and then beat each other in fair competition. The only thing equal about sports are the rules of competition, because otherwise exploiting biological advantages is the point. Why else do you think that performances haven’t stopped improving over time?

Jefe - 05 May 2019 10:03 AM

Summary: It’s not physiologically fair for athletes with biological advantages to compete against athletes who are not similarly biologically advantaged.

Everyone at some point in their life has to stop playing the kid’s game seriously. Some of us later than others. Those who make it to the top of the top have way more in common psychologically and biologically than they do not in common. So a distinction by male and female makes sense for a level playing field, because a distinction by talent is already organically being played out.

 

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6878
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
05 May 2019 12:40
 

Splitting hairs on biological advantage…

From a meta perspective the Phelps advantage is essentially the same thing.  A biological mutation that results in a rare advantage not available to most other athletes against whom he competed.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
05 May 2019 14:01
 
Jefe - 05 May 2019 12:40 PM

Splitting hairs on biological advantage…

From a meta perspective the Phelps advantage is essentially the same thing.  A biological mutation that results in a rare advantage not available to most other athletes against whom he competed.

I’ll respectively disagree, but it did get me thinking about what an intersex division in sports could possibly look like.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
05 May 2019 14:08
 

A little light comic relief:

BM tried to get legally categorized as intersex because he said that he was a dickhead.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6264
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
12 May 2019 09:16
 

All I could find on the internet is that all over the place trans females are being banned from competing against women.

I think that someone needs to drill down on a Transgender Division ASAP, but surprisingly the NCAA, WADA and all the individual sports governing bodies aren’t moving toward another division. I gotta imagine it’s a money thing.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  806
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 May 2019 14:44
 

One woman’s perspective.

A victory for female athletes everywhere

 

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6645
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
13 May 2019 15:33
 

Champion powerlifter is stripped of titles because she was ‘still a man’ when she won the female records

  Mary Gregory set world records in the women’s squat, bench press, and deadlift
  Now, RAW Powerlifting Federation has said she was ‘actually male’ at the time
  Body president said they use ‘physiological classification’ not ‘identification’

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Image Attachments
 
Resize_of_woman_or_man.jpg