World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
All Olympians are genetic outliers. Do you really want to be the DNA police? Then every Michael Phelps medal should be returned because that man is naturally different from the rest of us. But he's a man so we're not talking about him.
https://www.biography.com/athletes/michael-phelp-perfect-body-swimming
What's interesting is Katie Ledecky can beat him on long distance swims, if we go by their times. So how much of an advantage is gender in many sports at this level? And let's look at disability - Usain Bolt had/has scoliosis, Ledecky has POTS, and many other athletes have "disabling" conditions. So why would intersex get a special category that isn't allowed? It's just transphobia.
Here’s a source for Katie Ledecky beating Phelps: https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
Looking at the other comments, you are clearly not here to discuss, but I will make a good faith attempt and play devil's advocate.
The difference between intersex and other conditions you mentioned is that it blurs the lines of a specific set of parameters that are specifically used to create categories between sports. Men and women are not fighting each other for more than anagraphic reasons (I hope we can all agree on this), and if a condition invalidates that distinction (I.e. gives some advantages that men have over a women), then it breaks the boundary of such categories in a similar way as it would be having someone from a heavier category fight in a lighter one (BTW, this is routinely done by having athletes go in terrible dehydration regimes).
Now this has nothing to do with this specific case, as there is no any objective proof for any of this, nor that she is intersex nor that she does have any advantage, but it's purely a way to frame the answer to the question "what's the difference between having scoliosis and being intersex".
Edit:
I will add one more thing, comparing a sprinter to a long-distance swimmer is exactly like comparing someone who runs 100m with those who run marathons. Clearly there is an advantage, considering that Katie Ledecky is an absolute monster, but she would have beaten the 3 worse times only that men did in this Olympics, and that she would have been almost a minute behind the winner, meaning almost 2 full lengths. Of course men have an advantage...also if you took the time from https://www.worldaquatics.com/athletes/1001621/michael-phelps, you probably have seen that he was 15 at the time...
The thing is, other hormones can give advantages too. That people put so much stock into testosterone alone is bad science. That intersex conditions that involve testosterone are so hated is transphobia. Women should be in their neat little boxes and men in theirs and any anatomy that changes that is taboo and should be banned. Like where should an intersex fighter compete? If this woman was intersex and had LOCAH or PCOS or other conditions, should she not be allowed in any division of Olympics?
Why don't we have testosterone classes instead of (or in addition to) weight classes, if it matters so much? All athletes with the same level of testosterone can compete, just like athletes that weigh the same compete against each other. Why dont we organize it that way instead? Isn't that more exact and fair?
I didn't mention testosterone at all. I am not a specialist and I mostly don't care about the details. I specifically talked in functional terms: if whatever condition gives you some advantages that men have, then it breaks the categories that are established. In this way, that condition would be different from -say- having huge feet like Phelps, even if they give you an advantage, because there are no categories based on foot size in swimming.
Everything else is an interesting hypothetical discussion, and maybe one day categories will be based on more parameters. Fact is, today they are like this, rough and using proxies such as gender and weight to make fights that are more-or-less fair.
Well, everyone else here is specifically talking about testosterone. That's the "problematic" chemical. It's relevant because it's a normal endogenous chemical we make and some women naturally make more. It can help with more muscle mass and bone density. That it's testosterone is entirely relevant.
That's like speaking on Gaza and saying "it doesn't matter where it is." Like yes it absolutely matters. The context and specifics matter when discussing complicated topics.
All athletes that beat other athletes have a presumed physical advantage. A physical advantage isn't an issue. It's testosterone that's the issue according to the people bitching about it.
No, it's a physical advantages that derive from a condition that renders certain parameters (whatever they are) similar to stronger categories (in this case, men).
If it's just testosterone or a combination of hormones and other things it doesn't matter in the perspective of the discussion I was trying to have (which answered your question, by the way)...
I've already provided multiple examples where the physical advantages, resulting from a neurochemical anomaly, exist and no one had an issue. Why is testosterone special? And if testosterone ISN'T special, then why aren't they testing for other enodgenous neurochemicals like lactic acid and banning based on that? Why doesn't this group of lactic acid anomalies get kicked out and refused placement?
Again, it's transphobia.
You are arguing a point I specifically didn't make. So I don't know what to answer you, since none of it has to do with my actual opinion.
Your argument is that intersex conditions blur boundaries for sex in sports. My argument is that these categories are arbitrary and I'm explaining why.
You: the color orange messes with the boundaries we have in place for red and yellow! It can't be involved!
Me: the boundary for yellow and red is arbitrary and visible light exists on a continuum anyway!
Actually me:
I fully recognize that this is arbitrary, I fully recognize that any "limit" is somewhat arbitrary. The only difference is that I acknowledge that sex is a "good enough" proxy for now.
I still don't understand how would you avoid that women will never see a medal again in any combat sport, athletics, swimming, tennis and many other sports if you stop using sex as a category. What categories would you use, and are they pragmatic enough that they can be implemented easily?
You see how when you demand orange not exist, and that's apparently "good enough" for you, that it doesn't represent reality? Instead of demanding these boundaries, if testosterone matters, then organize people into classes by testosterone. This allows women with higher T to compete as well as men with lower T. For many categories, testosterone will be unnecessary to test anyway.
"Women will never see a medal again," hmm don't be so confident about that.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNG16aYg/
It's often the way sports are designed that keep women out intentionally
I am saying that it's better to have 10 corner cases that can be dealt with than 2000 corner cases.
I am really curious how you would design running in a way that having stronger muscle doesn't help, or combat sports in a way that power doesn't help etc. Also, women have their own category with almost in all cases same rules. How does this keep women out?
Go check all time-trial based sports, let me know if any women would have won anything.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men
I give up. You have tons of data available that you can still compare from Olympic games that just happened. I specifically didn't mention "every sport ever invented", but I mentioned "most sports" and you quote something that is supposed to prove...what? Lol
Nevermind. Continue living in a fantasy world in which Phelps swims slower than Ledecky (at 15, but who cares?!), because denying reality is a great way to approach problems.
But that's literally every condition. Thats everything a top physical athlete has - their entire physique is a physical advantage over others. How is it different than say, Michael Phelps producing less lactic acid which allows him to have greater endurance? Why is lactic acid okay to be different with, but not testosterone? Both are genetic abnormalities that confer an advantage.
The reason is that they can't be transphobic about lactic acid.
So why men and women should compete separately? If you think they don't, then fine. If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is "because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women". What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.
Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don't think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it's a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.
I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production. Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.
You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it's what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn't make the rules and frankly I don't care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it's a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.
There are sports that are designed in a way that give estrogen dominant people advantages. Testosterone isn't an advantage for every sport, and Testosterone in isolation isn't an "advantage men have over women," because it comes with a cost including lower lifespan. Cool that you think that way?
The way many sports are designed gives testosterone dominant people an advantage. That's patriarchy for ya.
Height isn't that important for swimming or even running - ShaCarri is like 5'1".
Lactic acid is not related to gender, that's my point. But you clearly believe in gender determinism and think sex chromosomes make up a huge part of genetic makeup when it is quite tiny. Women and men have more in common than we have different.
My criticism is that categories based on gender are unscientific. Which you agree with but say you can't be bothered with the details so its good enough. Well, some of us are smart enough to actually analyze this and know enough about medicine to criticize the heuristic of Testosterone as a metric for athletic competitions when there's more involved than just T.
Is it for boxing?
How is this relevant when you look at advantages in a single competition? This is not a "is it good in life"-situation.
hence it doesn't have a separate category? BTW, swimmers are taller than average, because being tall is generally ad advantage. It's one of many factors, but it's there.
This seems...unlikely. I would say that combat sports have not been "designed" with this in mind, and many other sports are done in the only way they could: swim as fast as you can, run as fast as you can, jump as high/far/etc. as you can.
Then you should understand my answer: it doesn't break the boundary of established categories.
Are you a medium? Do you read my mind on arbitrary topics? Can you give me 6 numbers for next lottery?
Jokes aside, I didn't talk about chromosomes, I didn't talk about testosterone (only once you brought it up), I specifically referred to functional difference, whatever the origin, and also mentioned that the reality is not so easy (not binary).
Perfect, this is a completely separate discussion, one I might agree with even. I wouldn't know how to make it better, it's not my area of expertise. What I know is that in many sports women holding record would barely qualify if they were to compete against males, and I think that would not be fun nor fair for anybody. I also think that in combat sports that would be potentially dangerous. Happy to see alternatives in the future.
My argument is that if testosterone is considered an advantage in a sport, then athletes shouldn't be banned for their anatomy, but instead the sport should adapt and sort athletes by T levels if it truly matters. Men shouldn't be getting hurt by other men with higher testosterone, either. And we should be MORE inclusive of athletes who don't fit the gender binary by getting rid of these men's/women's categories that aren't really helpful or accurate anyway.
If a sport included both men and women at the higher level, then they will compete at lower levels. It's not like we'd be asking women to box men for the very first time in an Olympic setting, if we organized the groups by testosterone and some women and men ended up competing.
Some sports including fighting sports can have rule changes or be redesigned to give women advantages. If we look at those warrior challenges, many of that has to do with center of gravity. If women can get their hips over stuff, they are good, but for men it's often their shoulders. If women run the course a little differently, they can often do really well. That's not because they are "worse" athletes, they are just athletes different than men.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNG16aYg/
I may even agree with you here, but I think this is going to be a nightmare. Continuous testing, plus, while sex is a proxy for many attributes at once, testosterone is only one. Then you need many more parameters to compare and create categories, on a global scale. This assuming we actually understand such parameters well enough.
I guess the difference between low testosterone men (assuming there are many in high competition levels) and high ones is smaller than high testosterone women and low testosterone men. So yes, I agree, but this is hardly a problem in practice.
I really don't see how you could do this in most sports and make it fair and interesting. Sure, you jumped 20cm lower, here is your gold medal because there is an estimated disadvantage for you of 25cm. Yes, you arrived 45s after, here is your gold medal. It seems like a terrible idea and even harder to implement in sports with points (football, tennis, volleyball etc.). Considering the relative low amount of "corner cases", keeping sex as a category seems more reasonable imho, although with its limits. I am interested in what women athletes think.
There is nothing moral behind "worse". There are differences that simply provide advantages to men and make them faster/stronger/taller which is an advantage in many sports.
So which is it that's an issue? Is it sex or is it testosterone? And how do you define sex? What if someone has testosterone but isn't responsive, in the case of people who are XY and appear to be cisfemale and are simply nonresponsive to testosterone?
We weigh people continously.
We aren't asking for other parameters. Stop strawmanning. I asked for testosterone and weight for combat sports.
Why must this fully be accurate and correct when you're completely fine with the less precise heuristic we have currently going based on gender?
It's not a problem in practice because we force a false gender dichotomy that literally disqualifies these specific athletes.
They are only "corner cases" because you define gender as red and yellow and thus leave out orange, green, and purple.
Women athletes think a variety of things because they are a variety of people.
There are advantages to men when the only men allowed to represent men are high testosterone and the only women allowed to represent women are low testosterone.
Are you misunderstanding my argument on purpose?
You and I both know that testosterone is not the only thing. There are people who have different sensitivity (low reception) to it, for example, then there is the problem that testosterone (and probably other stuff too!) has an historical effect on development that is not captured by a snapshot in time. I am not strawmanning, I simply assumed that since both of us know that testosterone level at time T is insufficient data, you would need at least more parameters to make fair categories. If that's not the case and you actually meant just using testosterone level and weight, than I think this is a bad idea. Actually, I think this is worse than the sex categorisation. This way you are 100% bundling together people with high T and low reception (I.e. didn't get most of the benefits) with people with low T and high reception. You are also exposing yourself to men artificially lowering testosterone levels after having gotten all the historical developmental advantages to compete in "lower" categories (similarly to how it happens today with weight).
No, I don't. They are corner cases because we can look at the reality and observe that this is a problem with a relative small incidence. I think your proposal will present way more corner cases and problematic situations.
Seriously. Phelps is pretty much genetically ideal for a swimmer, but nobody claimed it was "UnfAiR!!" when he swept the board multiple olympics in a row, garnering more gold medals than anyone in history, before or since.
One female boxer looks a bit "too" muscular and the bigots are up in arms. Fucking assholes.
I actually encountered someone a couple of days ago herr on Lemmy that said it was unfair of Phelps to compete because he was too genetically superior. It was bizarre. Course it was on a thread about Phelps criticizing Chinese athletes who were doping so I imagine it was just a tankie trying his best.
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
And Simone Biles is arguably the greatest athlete of all time.
Here's a source for Katie Ledecky beating Phelps: https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
Simone articles:
https://www.upworthy.com/simone-biles-deserves-goat-status
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNswsHfp/
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/nov/05/simone-biles-world-gymnastics-championships
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/sports/other/simone-biles-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time/ss-BB1qLsIQ
https://asdnext.org/blog/the-return-of-the-greatest-athlete-simone-biles/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/simone-biles-excellence-resistance-greatest-athlete/619149/
https://www.sbnation.com/2019/10/13/20912350/simone-biles-medal-record-gymnastics-greatest-ever
https://www.msn.com/en-my/sports/other/simone-biles-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time/ss-BB1qLzmw
She doesn't. Phelps when he was 15 made a time 9 seconds slower than the record established during these Olympic games (although in 25m pool) by Ledecky in the 1500m. He, still at 15, swam 5 seconds faster than the 800m time Katie Ledecky just did in this Olympics (although in 25m pool), only 2 seconds slower than the record she established in 2016. See this.
Despite Phelps being a completely different athlete, not training for it, it's quite reasonable to assume that once he was not a teenager anymore he could easily beat Katie (especially since long distance swimming requires maturity and experience to dose energy etc.). I think this reinforces the obvious fact that men do have advantages, and I really don't see the point of trying to deny it.
If you want even more info, look at juniors (under 18) records:
Source? According to this article, you're wrong:
https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
What do you mean source? I have literally posted you a page with the times and compared to the world records she established.
The only example your article shows where she swims faster is the table at the bottom. If you look closer, you will see that for the 800 and 1500 freestyle, the times are exactly the ones in the link I shared. These times compare the world records she did, with a time Phelps did when he was 15 in 2001! The only difference with what I shared is that they took the short course time for the 800, while I used as a reference the long course. The other which is lower is the 400m freestyle. I didn't quote this, but this is from the same competition in 2001, still when Phelps was 15! None of these competitions are what Phelps actually swam in his professional career, and how does it make sense to compare times in your peak athletic age (usually mid-20s) vs one-time races from when Phelps was in Junior category?
If you open the link I shared, you will see that he literally has 1 entry for 1500m, 800m and 400m, all from FINA Swimming World Cup 2000-2001, which is probably before he even specialized. Everything above 400m in swimming is considered long distance, and he is a sprinter instead.
The article you cite is making a point, which is the relative superiority of Katie Ledecky compared to peers, which is fair. When it then talks about swimming speed it turns into complete garbage, because it takes garbage data. I have genuinely no idea what are you trying to prove, I have showed you with numbers that Katie Ledecky's records are tens of seconds behind even what Juniors do in men's category, once you take athletes that practice the same discipline (long distance swimmers).
I hope this is enough source for you...
So your source and my source both agree that Katie Ledecky beats him on 800m and 1500m?
Are you in bad faith?
Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn't even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?
Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.
There are plenty of sports where being a teenager gives you an advantage over adults. A teen isn't a 5 year old. Per data, I'm correct.
Swimming is not one of them for fucking sake.
Are you done dancing around rethoric arguments to avoid saying that you were wrong?
Comparing the performance of a non specialized teenager swimmer with that of a specialized adult woman in peak adult performance is a shitty comparison.
This is a fact that can be easily confirmed if you do 10 seconds of research and you check swimming records by age category.
It's fine, you used as source an article that made this claim based on shitty data, you have been shown that the data was shitty. The mature thing to do is to say "OK, that was a false claim".