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
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.