What's the difference?

[dimreepr]

Caster Semenya's physiology leads to controversy and endless testing, with a constant murmuration of unfair (undertones of cheating) “she's just too good”.

Usain Bolt's physiology leads to adoration and hero worship “he's just too good”.

 

[Daecon]

She doesn't have a penis.

[MigL]

She looks like she might have one.

She blurs the distinction between man and woman.

 

Either you consider naturally elevated testosterone levels just another physical ability ( like strength, endurance, co-ordination, etc ), and get rid of the men's and women's classes, and hardly any women will ever win an event.

Or, you set an upper boundary for natural testosterone levels in women athletes, because right now, she has an unfair advantage over other ( normal ? ) women. And no 'normal' women will ever win an event.

Instead of supplying athletes synthetic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, Russian doctors will start enhancing testosterone producing glands, and suppressing androgen producing glands in women athletes when they approach puberty, so that you have basically males with female genitalia.

Either way is unfair to a 'normal' woman whose testosterone level falls between the 5 and 95 % Gaussian.

[StringJunky]

She illustrates that gender is a continuum and stuck in the middle.

[MigL]

Then you have a choice to make...

Be fair to her in particular.

Or be fair to women in general.

 

Does 'the good of the many outweigh the good of a few' ?

Edited August 20, 2016 by MigL

[StringJunky]

Then you have a choice to make...

Be fair to her in particular.

Or be fair to women in general.

 

Does 'the good of the many outweigh the good of a few' ?

Tyranny of the majority?

[Delta1212]

There are lots of athletes with biological advantages over "normal" people. Frequently that is how the stand out athletes got to the top of their sport. Not because they didn't work hard, but because the ones who work hard and have a biological advantage are going to beat out the ones who only have the biology or who only work hard.

 

At what point do we decide that Usain Bolt's stride or Michael Phelp's body shape or any of the dozens of other advantages top athletes make use of is unfair to everyone else?

 

Some people get more results from the same amount of execerise. Is that an unfair advantage over the people who have to work harder for the same results? Does someone with a novel mutation that increases their red blood cell count have to be banned from competing in any sports to make things fair for people with a different biology?

 

How do you draw a line and say "No, you are not allowed to compete because you are too naturally good at this and it isn't fair to others"?

 

What about the people who are naturally not good at these things? Do we draw the line above them so that they have a chance? You aren't allowed to compete in Olympic sprinting unless you have asthma, because allowing people without it gives them an unfair advantage over asthmatics who wouldn't be able to compete?

[StringJunky]

She was born a woman, therefore, she qualifies to compete in womens events. Simple. Like Delta says, where do you draw the line. That's her talent.

[MigL]

And none of that addresses the concerns I raised.

I'm not saying the choice should be one way or another, just that with advancements in medical tech, some women, or, all women are going to be disadvantaged.

You'll have women with the testosterone level of men making it unfair for other women, or you'll have to disqualify women with man-level testosterone.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm glad Its the Olympic Committee's problem.

[StringJunky]

And none of that addresses the concerns I raised.

I'm not saying the choice should be one way or another, just that with advancements in medical tech, some women, or, all women are going to be disadvantaged.

You'll have women with the testosterone level of men making it unfair for other women, or you'll have to disqualify women with man-level testosterone.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm glad Its the Olympic Committee's problem.

If they aren't born with that testosterone level and it's high then that's doping , which is illegal. How do you differentiate the natural from the doper, I don't know but I stand by the principle

[MigL]

No-one is born with their adult levels of testosterone.

That level rises at puberty ( and your voice changes, you lose 'baby' fat, gain muscle density and grow body hair ).

 

Remember back in the 70s and 80s when Russian female gymnasts of 18 yrs age looked like they were 12 yrs old.

The Russians were accused of delaying the onset of puberty for those athletes to gain an unfair advantage, as estrogen tends to lower muscle density and store additional fat.

Alas no-one could prove it.

Edited August 21, 2016 by MigL

[dimreepr]

No-one is born with their adult levels of testosterone.

That level rises at puberty ( and your voice changes, you lose 'baby' fat, gain muscle density and grow body hair ).

 

Remember back in the 70s and 80s when Russian female gymnasts of 18 yrs age looked like they were 12 yrs old.

The Russians were accused of delaying the onset of puberty for those athletes to gain an unfair advantage, as estrogen tends to lower muscle density and store additional fat.

Alas no-one could prove it.

 

 

Then we have no choice but to accept it, as with this case.

Nice post Delta +1.

[Delta1212]

And none of that addresses the concerns I raised.

I'm not saying the choice should be one way or another, just that with advancements in medical tech, some women, or, all women are going to be disadvantaged.

You'll have women with the testosterone level of men making it unfair for other women, or you'll have to disqualify women with man-level testosterone.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm glad Its the Olympic Committee's problem.

While that broadly may be the reasoning behind split-gendered sports, the rule does not split things up by hormone level. It splits it up by gender.

 

For what you are describing to be a relevant situation, we would need to split up events by hormone level, like weight classes in boxing.

 

Then you'd get a mix of men and women competing against each other in different events depending on how much testosterone they have.

 

That's not what the rules are as they stand, though, and so should have no bearing on the people who have and continue to compete under the current divisions.

[MigL]

I'm not suggesting we should do anything.

I'm simply stating that the current situation is unfair to a large number of women.

 

Did you see the race Delta ?

It looked like two different races.

One group of women ( masculine looking ) were so far ahead of the other group ( feminine looking ) that they could have raced on different tracks.

I, myself, didn't see it as a fair competition.

 

( I also don't see how to change things to make it fair for everyone )