“Personal household and national income is far more relevant to performance than hormonal makeup,” he says. The countries with the highest GDP produce the most gold medals. The richer the athlete, the higher the likelihood of a winner, says Kidd. In other words, the salaries of your parents are a more accurate success indicator than testosterone.posted by Danila at 10:56 AM on June 11, 2012 [45 favorites]
“We don’t require this kind of radical equality for other factors that make a difference, so why should we single out this one?” asks Kidd.
This is disgusting. How can anyone justify this, in the name of sport or otherwise. This is body policing, gender policing, and downright disgusting. How on earth can forced body modification like this be legal, let alone ethical?Well, what would be the point of having an Olympic female category if the only people competing were people born male?
If they are going to create a level of acceptable testosterone for female athletes, are they also going to create a level of acceptable testosterone for male athletes?I believe there already are. As well as standards for things like Hemacrit levels. There might potentially be people who are naturally outside of the acceptable range of "normal human".
Why not just get rid of gendered divisions in sports, or classify everyone by hormone levels rather than external presentation?Well, that is what they're doing, but calling one branch 'male' and the other 'female'.
Men with low testosterone are being unfairly disadvantaged because they are being forced to compete in a higher class than they are biologically able.Sure, but the fact is the vast majority of human beings are never going to be Olympic athletes anyway. Genetics and other immutable biological factors (which may not be genetic, but can't be changed anyway) are going to play a huge role, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
There are not tons and tons of men out there transitioning by law to becoming women. It's a false fear.I don't think it really matters. From my understanding, especially in stuff like running the difference is great enough that a typical man who trains hard can already beat women's records. So even with a small number of transwomen in the field they could dominate.
Check the IAAF regulations, but I'm pretty sure "Men" is already "Co-ed".I think this is actually not true. From what I understand, women are not allowed to compete in the men's ski-jump, even though women are supposedly naturally better at it. I do think the male category should actually be co-ed.
I mean, I'm not at all attached to the Olympics, so seeing it collapse under the twin pressures of "must win at any cost" and heterosexual/cis-gender panic would be pretty sweet.If by "Sweet" you mean "no more natural born women in the Olympics" That might be popular on metafilter, but I doubt most women would actually prefer that.
Lindsay Perry, another scientist, says sometimes whole teams of African women are dead ringers for men. “In football, some of the other girls were on the other end of the spectrum, you’re like, ‘No way that’s a girl,’” he says.I am sure Mr. Perry would be shocked and offended to be accused of racism, but really? How is this not just plain ol' bald-faced racism? How many white athletes have been suspected of being not-womanly-enough?
Which would conceivably invalidate your marriage, put your rights as a parent in jeopardy, cause all kinds of other life drama.
Is all that really worth winning a medal? -- Sara C.
And what prevents men from putting on dresses, alleging as how they are trans women and going into women's bathrooms and [committing unspecified perversions] and totes getting away with it because of our feeble PC sensibilities? After all, that happens virtually daily. -- FrownerThe problem isn't that kafziel, specifically would be willing to do that, but that there are people who are born men who want to transition anyway and why not become Olympic athletes as well, if they are able too?
Yes, exactly! Genetics and other immutable biological factors play a huge role in who is good at sports! Sports are not fair! Some women are going to have testosterone levels equal to men.Right, it's not fair. On the one hand it wouldn't be fair to ban women who have unusually high testosterone levels. On the other hand it's not fair that most women will never be able to perform as well as they do. So you have two unfair choices: let them compete, or don't let them compete (or, apparently alter their testosterone levels)
No more divisions; all competitions going forward are open. After all in most Olympic events the top competitors are there in part for having won the genetic lottery; whether one is a man or a women would just be one other lottery bingo.Right, but that would just mean almost no female athletes at the Olympics (except maybe in ski jumping or a few other sports)
To accomplish that goal, the Nazis forced Hitler Youth member Hermann Ratjen to live and compete for three years as Dora Ratjen....one medal they didn't get was in the women's Olympic high jump. Ratjen finished fourth in the event.If the answer to that question is no (as I'm guessing it would be for almost everyone in this thread), then it's incumbent upon you, Arsenio, to take the time to explain how exactly a biological advantage in hormone levels is different from a biological advantage in height.
Please spend a few minutes googling for commentary about the East German women's Olympic teams and get back to us (1976 is a pretty hot year for "OMG THOSE ARE DUDES" articles).I would argue that the situation is markedly different, not least because AFAIK it's fairly widely acknowledged that Soviet coaches did in fact provide their athletes with steroids.
And even if only .1% of the world's population is in that fuzzy zone, ~60 million people are a significant pool who'll feel put upon.Judging from the actual number of incidents that have occurred, the number seems to be far smaller than .1%.
The CIR test is used to distinguish between testosterone produced naturally by the athlete's body and synthetic testosterone introduced from an outside sourceIt's hard to search for this, so maybe someone already knows of some examples of male athletes with naturally high testosterone who were accused of cheating?
Olympic-level athletic ability, in combination with the resources to actually develop that ability and pursue an Olympic career, is fairly rare.No. The entire point is that it's not rare for people born men to be able perform at the level of female Olympic athletes. So if you allowed transgender women to compete, they would dominate.
I don't think men get a free pass from testing (they get a free pass from being de-gendered because of their testosterone levels). In fact, I think men with naturally low testosterone are being discriminated against because they can't compete in leagues with people of similar biochemical functioning.Right, but as it's been pointed out, Caster could never qualify for the men's track and field in the Olympics anyway.
These differences include hormones, a genetic quirk that makes an athlete have more of certain hormones is no different than the numerous other genetic quirks that make them an athlete in the first place.It's not just "Genetics" it has to do with things like hormone levels in the womb and stuff like that as well.
This is just absolutely frustrating, because what they are doing is defining who gets to be a woman. Even if you're a cisgendered female, if you're not womanly enough, then they can declare that the thing you've been working at your whole life is invalid, or they can force you to take mind and body altering chemicals that will turn you into an entirely different person?Right, but so what? if you are going to have "Mens Sports" and "Woman's sports" then obviously you need to have some standard for what makes someone a man and what makes them a woman. It's especially complicated when you consider the doping issue. If you didn't have standards for hormone levels, women would be pressured to artificially elevate their own hormone levels in order to win. Which is something that's obviously happened again and again.
Clearly you couldn't just open it up to "self-identification", or you would might suddenly have a lot of transgendered athletes.How awful!
No. The entire point is that it's not rare for people born men to be able perform at the level of female Olympic athletes. So if you allowed transgender women to compete, they would dominate.URGE TO KILL...falling. Okay.
That's such an uncharitable, bullshit reading of the comment you are replying to.It's not that comment in total isolation, but why? What do you think I'm missing in that comment?
In a move critics call “policing femininity,” recent rule changes by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, state that for a woman to compete, her testosterone must not exceed the male threshold.In order to compete as a woman, your testosterone levels must not exceed the male threshold, even though that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually a woman. This is, definitionally, the policing of testosterone.
If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring.
If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring. So far, at least a handful of athletes — the figure is confidential — have been prescribed treatment, but their numbers could increase.Emphasis mine. You see, the issue is that Semenya was not just a unique(!!!) sort of case.
1. Being transgender is pretty rare, compared to the general population. If you're terrified that there's going to be a huge influx of trans athletes with looser regulations, you're not thinking about this.How rare do you think it is? It seems like being in the Olympics could be a huge motivator for someone who otherwise wouldn't consider transitioning. According to this article a high school in rural Thailand has a 10% ratio of boys who identify as transsexual.
3. Trans people are their identified gender, without even bringing "trans" into it. I don't care what your personal feelings are on this one. If you feel otherwise, or feel the need to qualify a trans person with "trans" status all the time, you're not thinking about this.You have to have some way of distinguishing people if you're going to discuss the issue.
This is the Olympics. If you're worried about random dudes walking in off the street to mop the floor with those pushover girls, you're uh...welcome to try. I'd love to see what happens.Not 'walk in off the street', but with stuff like running, probably a decent percentage of men who would train heavily could beat the top female athletes in the world.
Requiring that athletes prove their sex through genital examinations, chromosome tests or hormonal levels and requiring that they then undergo medical treatments they do not want to be allowed to compete is fucked up. Resolve conflicts some other way.Why do you think people care whether or not you, personally, think it's fucked up? If you are going to have male sports and female sports, you need a standard that defines male and female. Otherwise why bother having distinctions at all?
Trans people typically work to have hormonal levels closer to that of their identified gender. This does affect muscle mass. If you're worried about a bunch of manly, beefed up trans women rampaging in and dominating weaker athletes, you're not thinking about this.So then what's wrong with requiring that in order to compete? That's actually what is being proposed: requiring women with high testosterone levels to reduce those levels to a pre-set standard in order to compete.
41% of respondents reported attempting suicideetc. It goes on [PDF]. Do you sincerely believe there are just boatloads of people willing to go through that for the sake of a medal? Maybe a few hypothetical overachievers, but stacked against actual statistics, that makes a poor argument.
compared to 1.6% of the general population,ii with rates rising for
those who lost a job due to bias (55%)...
Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of
harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost
one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
Our sample was nearly four
times more likely to have a household income of less than $10,000/
year compared to the general population.
Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment,
mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job
outcome, such as being fi red, not hired or denied a promotion
because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
Large majorities attempted to avoid discrimination by hiding
their gender or gender transition (71%) or delaying their gender
transition (57%).
Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the
underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or
selling drugs).
Respondents who had lost a job due to bias also experienced
ruinous consequences such as four times the rate of homelessness,
70% more current drinking or misuse of drugs to cope with
mistreatment, 85% more incarceration, more than double the rate
working in the underground economy, and more than double the HIV
infection rate...
The problem is that it's going to be impossible to divide people into two groups based on sex when people as a group aren't only of two sexes. People in the middle are going to think they've been misclassified.There is 0 reason this can't be addressed on a case by case basis. This sort of thing is so rare it doesn't even pop up as a real consideration every 4 years.
I have yet to see anyone indicate why groupings by testosterone levels are more capricious or arbitrary than groupings by age, height, weight, gender, or location of origin.Obviously they're not. Your question is, however, irrelevant. We have already decided upon the arbitrary standard to be applied in this case, and it is gender.
You'd be surprised how many XY, cis-, males would sign themselves up for the women's competition in order to have a better shot at a gold medal.Did you read the thread? This point has been brought up and dealt with repeatedly. In summary:
This is not an easy situation and anyone who believes it is easy has blinders on.It is not easy. But there are already systems in place to address it and the governing body has done a largely passable job making use of those systems. This additional rule has no value, and is motivated by all the wrong reasons.
Given that, even if you want the competition to be as broad as "any woman can compete in the women's competition. Non-women cannot", you then have to come up with a hard and fast definition of "woman" which everyone can live with.Quoting myself in re-response:
But there are already systems in place to address it and the governing body has done a largely passable job making use of those systems.posted by kavasa at 5:55 PM on June 11, 2012
You know why it's coming up here? Because some people are arguing that they should not do so.I'm not sure how you can think this? It's coming up here because they're introducing a new rule. This rule is that they have taken a certain level of a hormone in the blood and declared that level to be "the male threshold." Persons who go past this threshold can then still compete if they take certain medical steps. That's why it's coming up here. Like that is precisely and entirely why it's coming up. And in turn it came up because people were mad about perceived lack of femininity on the part of some competitors, precisely the opposite of the reason you've stated.
3. People with intersex conditions diagnosed in infancy are raised to avoid all sorts of life activities, one of which is sport. Those of us born genitally variant are taught to avoid locker rooms where our "shameful" variance might be noted (even if surgically "corrected," our genitals still often look atypical). Those who are hormonally variant know what happens to people like Caster Semenya. Those who know they have atypical chromosomes are aware that international sporting competitions will test them.got me thinking: I wonder if maybe part of why we're seeing such pressure to exclude naturally extra-high-performing women from events like the Olympics but no similar pressure to exclude naturally extra-high-performing men is that the extra-high-performing men are already and have always been competing, so their performances don't seem quite so unusual to people (and it helps that their performance reinforces stereotypes about men's physical abilities and masculinity). But maybe many of the naturally extra-high-performing women (taking, for example, the current IAAF definition of female versus male) have historically self-selected away from sport out of concern for the social ramifications of seeming too un-feminine? Going farther back than the last couple decades, of course, there were many much more direct obstacles to women's participation in sport, particularly at elite levels. These women's abilities have always been a part of the entire human spectrum, but many people would never have known about this upper tail of female athletic ability previously. (The fact that it clashes with stereotypes about women's physical abilities and femininity would be particularly unhelpful here as well.)
The point is to determine who is the best, not "who is the best with a testosterone level lower than X".First of all, they do all kinds of testing in the male category as well. As I mentioned people with naturally high Hematocrit levels couldn't compete either. There may be some maximal testosterone level that would disqualify you from competition entirely. It would be interesting to see if there is anyone who would 'naturally' disqualify themselves (either with testosterone or Hematocrit levels)
But if women can never be The Best in any ultimate sense at sports, Jesus, why bother? I'm not a sports person, though I'm related to several, so this question is moot to me, but it is a hell of thing to be told over and over how weak and second-class your gender is and how you need a weak little special league if you want to pretend-compete. It has a lot to do with why fewer women follow sports, in my opinion; it feels too much like Ladies Auxiliary instead of the real thing.Well, there are lots of women who actually are "sports people", and actually enjoy competing and watching women's sports. In some categories women (who compete against women) seem to be more famous then men Gymnastics would be one example but I feel like I hear more about female tennis players then male tennis players.
Following her investigation, officials at Athletics South Africa were found to have lied about her case, withholding important medical information from her and international authorities.To me, this is almost a smoking gun that Semenya has some sort of condition (whether intersexed or what) which gave her a huge advantage... but South African athletic officials hid that information from everyone including Semenya! Which is extremely problematic.
« Older Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward: 40 years after Wa... | pointer... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by strixus at 10:45 AM on June 11, 2012 [35 favorites]