Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 01 2016, @11:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the did-you-just-assume-my-gender? dept.

In The Guardian there is a discussion on the participation of transgender people in the Olympic Games, primarily looking at Caster Semenya. Semenya, a South African middle-distance runner, was subjected to gender testing in 2009, but has been cleared to participate in the Olympic Games beginning in a few days time.

"It's a ticking timebomb," Daniel Mothowagae says quietly on a winter's night in Johannesburg as he anticipates the furore that is likely to explode when Caster Semenya runs in the Olympic Games. Apart from being described by many athletics specialists as an almost certain winner of the women's 800m in Rio, Semenya will suffer again as she is made to personify the complex issues surrounding sex verification in sport."

"The debate around hyperandrogenism is as poignant as it is thorny. In simplistic summary it asks us to decide whose rights need to be protected most. Is it the small minority of women whose exceedingly high testosterone levels, which their bodies produce naturally, categorise them as intersex athletes? Should their human rights be ring-fenced so that, as is the case now following an overturned legal ruling, they are free to compete as women without being forced to take medication that suppresses their testosterone? Or should the overwhelming majority of female athletes be protected – so they are not disadvantaged unfairly against faster and stronger intersex competitors?"

""She is proof of the benefit of testosterone to intersex athletes," Tucker argues. "Having had the restriction removed she is now about six seconds faster than she had been the last two years.""

"The Cas panel defined the crucial factor as being whether intersex athletes would have sufficient advantages to outweigh any female characteristics and make them comparable to male-performance levels. "

"Three months ago Tucker conducted a fascinating interview with Joanna Harper – who describes herself as "a scientist first, an athlete second and a transgender person third." Harper made the startling claim that we might see "an all-intersex podium in the 800 in Rio and I wouldn't be surprised to see as many as five intersex women in the eight-person final.""


Original Submission

Related Stories

IAAF Sets New Limits on Testosterone Levels in Women Athletes 36 comments

International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) Sets New Limits On Testosterone Levels In Women

What exactly makes a woman? Track and field's world governing body thinks the answer has to do with levels of serum testosterone, at least when it comes to female runners competing in middle-distance races.

The International Association of Athletics Federation announced a new set of rules Thursday that will ban women who naturally produce higher-than-normal levels of testosterone from participating in races ranging from 400 meters to the mile, unless they agree to take medication. Athletes with the condition, called hyperandrogenism, would be eligible to compete at the international level only if they reduced blood testosterone levels through the use of hormonal contraceptives, including birth control pills. The rule will go into effect on Nov. 1.

"Our evidence and data show that testosterone, either naturally produced or artificially inserted into the body, provides significant performance advantages in female athletes," said IAAF President Sebastian Coe in a statement. "The revised rules are not about cheating, no athlete with a [difference of sexual development] has cheated, they are about levelling the playing field to ensure fair and meaningful competition in the sport of athletics where success is determined by talent, dedication and hard work rather than other contributing factors," he added.

The new stipulations are stricter than those established by the IAAF in 2011, which limited women's testosterone levels to 10 nanomoles per liter of blood. The new requirements reduce the limit by half to 5 nanomoles per liter. That is still far above levels in most women, including elite female athletes, whose levels range from 0.12 to 1.79 nanomoles per liter, states a 22-page IAAF document [auto-download PDF] defending the organization's decision. Meanwhile, the normal male range after puberty is much higher, from 7.7 to 29.4 nanomoles.

Previously, the Court of Arbitration for Sport struck down the IAAF's hyperandrogenism regulations in response to a challenge by sprinter Dutee Chand.

Related: The Caster Semenya Debate
The Olympics, Science and Intersex


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday August 01 2016, @11:59PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 01 2016, @11:59PM (#382888)

    All athletes naked (olive oil optional), fed the same food for the few weeks preceding the Olympics, sleeping together in dorms, getting randomized identical equipment, no sex/weight categories...
    Fair and simple sports, therefore the complete opposite of what the games have become.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:56AM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:56AM (#382936)

      The Olympics were also historically supposed to be for the working class, not profession athletes, and were supposed to bring together diverse and far flung countries in friendship. Now the Olympics are for superhuman professionals who have dedicated every waking moment of the last 15 years of those lives to the Olympics. And are primarily used as an excuse for countries and people to air their grievances about certain issues and differences.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:15AM (#383439)

        Working class? Brush up on history. The ancient Olympics were very much professional events: the performers made their living as athletes sponsored by the elite of Greece. The modern games were founded to promote manly virtue among aristocrats. The lower classes were never part of either games by original design.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:22AM (#382892)

    The boundary between genders is fuzzy and/or subjective. If we have separate men and women events, some boundary conditions are going to have to be applied. If we don't have separate events for each (traditional) gender, then "regular" women get shafted (no pun intended). The chosen boundaries are not going to make everyone happy, but there is no perfect alternative.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:39AM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:39AM (#382897)

      The boundary between genders is fuzzy and/or subjective...

      You're right, but if I was a woman 800 metre runner who didn't need to take drugs to suppress my testosterone levels to the levels of a woman, I'd be extremely upset at having to run against Caster Semenya.
      When she was forced to take testosterone suppressing medication, she fell back to the pack. Now the powers that be have decided she not longer has to, she will win the gold.

    • (Score: 3, Troll) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:39AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:39AM (#382898) Journal

      Competitive individual sports are about to die anyway. Gene "doping", anti-aging, and other enhancements will end athletics as we know it. Denying radial health advancements to athletes will be considered immoral.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:10AM (#382915)

        The concept is laughable anyway. The best woman athlete isn't the best athlete, and when we bring other animals into the mix, humans are often doomed. I don't see the point of any of it. Science is more interesting than watching people throw balls around or perform athletic feats.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:25AM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:25AM (#382922) Journal

          For sure. Although there's a fair bit of science involved with turning humans into Übermenschen. Soon to be a lot more as we milk the last of the Wheaties sponsorships while altering genomes.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:45AM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:45AM (#382930)

          > Science is more interesting than watching people throw balls around or perform athletic feats.

          Science tells me that when people are bored, they either add to or subtract from the population.
          Channeling that energy and not letting them get bored has benefits.

        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:27AM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:27AM (#382951) Journal

          Next event: human vs. cheetah vs. wolf vs. ibex 5 mile run.

          Event after that: human vs. cheetah vs. wolf vs. ibex 100 mile run.

          I'm giving Mr. Wolf the 5 mile run, but Mr. Human wins the 100 mile run.

          Mr. Cheetah would have had the advantage in a 500 meter dash. Mr. Ibex would get a decent marathon.

          Naturally, give a gold medal to the otherkin!

          Final event: Jumanji

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:52AM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:52AM (#383068)

            I'm giving Mr. Wolf the 5 mile run

            Temperature dependent. A nice warm/hot day to a human is pretty rough on wolves/dogs. They like their cold climates. If you allowed the humans to compete without wearing clothes, just like the wolves, its pretty easy to determine a temp/dew point where the wolf has no chance at all past 500 meters or so, of course the cheetah is winning that anyway...

            Which brings up the interesting point that lower testosterone people have a stereotype of being better at some things, ditto higher testosterone people, so it should be theoretically possible to design a balanced something, probably resembling a biathlon, that's gender hormone neutral. It sounds like a fun "big data" scientific study to gather performance data to balance a game such that its T neutral. Another idea I have for a balance of high-low T is something like precision javelin tossing, not just who tosses it the furthest but who hits closest to a scarecrow's heart.

            The Olympic officials are fine with trashing all kinds of traditions ranging from venues to events to rules so asking them to "fine tune" some events to null out testosterone isn't all that ridiculous of a request.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:42AM (#382901)

      The discussion has focused on women with more testosterone than normal, who outperform other women, thus bringing up the question of another category in sports. There is another group that has a trend towards the mean - men who have low testosterone. Perhaps there is a third category determined by a range of testosterone levels in Men and Women, and this category falls between the traditional two sexes? Men, Women, and a category in between.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:05AM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:05AM (#382940)

      Yes, but this is a horrible boundary. She has testicles. Women are horrible at running, just about any decently fit male could beat a female Olympic athlete.
      So, practically, the .000000001% of "women" who are born inersex could easily make up 100% of all female athletes, and they would do better than the current crop.

      the entire point of of the female team is to allow women a chance to compete, this ruling means in reality everyone in the Olympics should have testicles. It means next year, China, who puts loads of effort into winning the Olympics is almost certainly going to contact every testicle bearing young woman in China, and get them into training pronto.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:57AM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:57AM (#383016) Journal

        Women are horrible at running, just about any decently fit male could beat a female Olympic athlete.

        Really?
        Cuz World and Olympic records certainly don't support that claim.

        There is less than a second between women and men in the 100 meter. [wikipedia.org]
        There is less than two minutes between women and men in the 5K race. [wikipedia.org]

        So unless by "beat" you mean something other than out-run, your assertion is just off base. Or perhaps by "decently fit male" you mean Male Olympic and world record holders.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Offtopic) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:09PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:09PM (#383080)

          Ops probably confused by eliteness level.

          You're talking about the top elite 0.00001% of competitors in the whole world. I'd say Army Soldiers are merely in the top 10% of fitness and the numbers at that level are incredibly dismal

          http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-pft-two-mile-run-score-chart [military.com]

          A dude who just barely passes the 2-mile run at AIT, just barely, would be a 100%+ score for a woman. A woman who just barely passes at basic would result in a score of 8 (out of 100) if she was he.

          Another way to look at it is the girls run times go to a twelve minute mile. I'm old and out of shape and apparently in 2016 I can outrun a significant fraction of teenage girls. I can out speed-walk some teenage girls. With a hiking pack in regular clothes, when sufficiently motivated by weather or whatever, an old man like me can out hike at least some girls who are trying to run.

          For non-military people you need a 50 in each event to graduate basic, and a 60 in each event to graduate AIT and stay in the service. You'll get kicked out after two below 60s. Also in your promotion packet for E-5 and above ranks (sgt, etc) each PT point counts the same as a college credit for your total point score (there's about a zillion other things that can earn you promotion points)

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:04PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:04PM (#383235) Journal

            Ops probably confused by eliteness level.
             
            Considering we're in a thread about the Olympics and he responded to a direct quote, no, I think someone else is confused.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:59PM (#383256)

          That second difference is about a 10 meter difference at the finish line. Run them side-by-side and the differences would be HUGE. Besides, go look up the high school national championships and you'll see that about half the boys in the finals run faster than women Olympics sprinters, and look at the Penn Relays and you'll see that percentage is much higher for the college-aged groups. In terms of record times, the top women's 100 m times were the top men's times about 50 years ago.

          About 15 years ago the Williams sisters took on a guy ranked 200 on the men's circuit and they lost very easily. There's this distorted idea in people's heads that the differences between the sexes in these physical sports is much narrower than they are because they remember King beating Riggs, ignoring or forgetting he was 50+ years old (he also claimed he wasn't trying very hard, which people write off as sour grapes, but other people buy into it because of the over-the-top chauvinistic mein he wore leading up and promoting the match).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:00AM (#383017)

        You are wrong. TFA says the women's marathon record corresponds to the 5000th all time best male time. 'any decently fit male' can't beat that. Only very serious athletes can. The top women are very fast by any standard.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by mojo chan on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:35AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:35AM (#383024)

        She has testicles.

        This is untrue. It was just a nasty rumour.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:45PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:45PM (#383124) Homepage
      Is there a boundary between the two canonical sexes, or is there a no-mans-land between them?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:07PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:07PM (#383203) Journal

        It's what you'd expect from something that's supposed to be binary but is determined by a huge, complex set of cascading reactions under imperfect conditions: a bimodal distribution with two massive peaks at either end and a bathtub-shaped trough in the middle. Basically, think "spectrum" here but with most of the power density at the red and violet ends and very little indeed from yellow-orange to indigo-blue.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:18AM

        by dry (223) on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:18AM (#383477) Journal

        As the sibling post says, it is a spectrum that is fuzzy in the middle. At the extreme are the people that are born with both testes and ovaries, very rare.
        Generally for the fuzzy cases, surgery is used to make them unfuzzy. Doesn't always work. A few weeks back heard interviews with 2 people. A "man" who had to have a phallus constructed for him as an infant. He identified as female. And a "woman" who had her phallus shrunk, she identified as male. The worse part with her was she was about 8 yrs old when the surgery was done, basically cutting the middle out of her phallus, very painful and very embarrassing when all the Doctors would come around to stare at the unusual case. Both were very resentful about the Doctors decision.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:11AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:11AM (#383516) Homepage
          Absolutely. My point was that there's not am infinitely thin boundary between "male" and "female", such that with one quantum leap (correctly using the term - the *smallest* leap that makes a difference) takes you from one to the other, but a wide band with an area and freedom to move around. Sure, the population density of that wide band is very low, an estimate I saw recently was that under .1% of the population, and from the number of people I know, that seems believable, which means that perhaps the athletics associations shouldn't be bending over backwards to accomodate them - as that inevitably disrupts the sport for those who are clearly one or the other. You can't always accomodate minorities. I have an genetically-borne essential-body-part-doesn't-work-quite-right condition which affects about 4% of the population, and almost nothing is done to accomodate us in pretty much everything in daily life. I don't demand everything is done to accomodate us, I simply reserve the right to think that those who are ignorant of our existence and do something which is clearly unfriendly are, well, ignorant.

          Back to your later point, on the unintended consequences of interfering at birth, standing from a point of almost total ignorance, but with an open mind very much wanting to have a good long chin-wag with those who have first-hand experience, my view is this:

          Comparing:
          (a) leaving things as they are, and the child grows up with something slightly freakish about their body; and
          (b) mangling the body without concent, and the child grows up with something cosmetically less freakish about their body, later realises that they've been mangled without their concent, and realises that there was something freakish about their body, even if the gender coin-flip came down the right way;
          then (a) clearly dominates (b). And that's even if the mangling was in the direction that the individual agrees with as an adult. The ones where the coin-flip falls the wrong way are obviously even clearer cases.

          Sure, doctors should fix mechanical problems, but these cases are not ones of mechanical need, their of enforced conformity to a clearly not universal norm. The non-conformity is "bad" because in the past it was considered "bad" and no other reason - which is pure wrongthink. "You've got to do that because everyone does that" is actually the root cause of a wide range of troubles in the world (c.f. brainwashing kids into religion).
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:40AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:40AM (#382899)

    it seems more logical to me that genetic profiles of what constitutes men, women and an intersex person. the deciding factor should be the ability for someone to reproduce and give birth multiple times. the basic idea is that if you match a the genetic profile of someone that is unable to continue the human race under normal conditions (without supplementary hormones or a c-section) that you be relegated to the intersex class... unless you already have a child born normally. the point of this being that it would identify what humanity could become versus anomalous human mutations that have no hope of having a lineage without third-party intervention.

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:03AM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:03AM (#382912)

      Many women can not reproduce for one reason or another. They may not even know it until they try.

      In fact, women lose the ability to reproduce as they age. According to your criteria, women become intersex when they hit menopause.

      I suppose what you really meant is that you want to exclude women with a 'y' chromosome.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:29AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:29AM (#382924) Homepage Journal

        Y, yes. XX = female, XY = male, anything else = a mutant and not eligible to compete.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:08AM

          by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:08AM (#382941)

          You can be a mutant and still have the right number and arraignment of chromosomes.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:47AM (#382963)

            Buddy, we're all mutants on this planet.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:10PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:10PM (#383207) Journal

            Uzzard here stopped his studies in biology at the point in the textbook where two of every animal got on the big boat...

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:18AM

          by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:18AM (#382991) Journal

          No, they should be able to compete. Against members of their own "intersex" gender.
          A league of their own, so to speak.

          I submitted a story about this issue a couple months ago, and got nothing but flame for it. And here the issue is back on the big stage, with actual scientists weighing in.

          Its going to get harder and harder to sweep under the rug to assuage the feelings of the 2% at the expense of all women's sports. The only rational thing is a third gender for competition purposes.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 02 2016, @10:21AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @10:21AM (#383050) Homepage Journal

            Okay, you do realize you're essentially arguing in favor of creating an old fashioned freak show though, yes?

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:46PM (#383125)

              Yes but compared to what it seems is going to happen (turning women's events into a old fashion freak show) it is probably better.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:48PM

              by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:48PM (#383359) Journal

              The alternative is to disenfranchise all women athletes and turn their sports participation over to transgenders.

              Those who choose to join the freak show should not be denied.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:27AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:27AM (#382923) Homepage Journal

      Nothing wrong with having abnormal physical ability for your gender. All olympic athletes have that. What you're born you should compete as though, without hopping yourself up on tons of hormones even if you take them in your non-athletic daily life.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:33AM

        by dry (223) on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:33AM (#383480) Journal

        The problem is that the Doctors are really quick to jump in and use surgery to decide an infants sex. Born with a vagina and large phallus, they'll cut out the middle to make it "normal". Born with a vagina and testes but a small phallus, they'll construct a phallus for you and do away with the vagina. Probably flip a coin if you're born with a testicle and an ovary.
        Sex is determined by the hormones at certain periods of development. Usually the hormones are determined by genetics, but not always. Having exposure to both testosterone and estrogen at the right (actually wrong) point in development causes physical confusion and people that you can't clearly say are male or female.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:50AM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:50AM (#382904) Homepage Journal

    In simplistic summary it asks us to decide whose rights need to be protected most.

    The rights I'd like to see protected most are:

    • The right to hold a sports competition using whatever rules the event holder wants
    • The right of people to decline to participate or view the competition if they don't like it
    • The right of people to not have their resources used to support the competition, so the competition will have to raise funds and venues, etc., only from those who are willing
    • The right of people to talk about, broadcast, or copy what they want without someone having a monopoly on particular ideas or data

    Within that framework I bet we could see an interesting creative variety of approaches to the subject of intersex athletes. Instead we'll get one size fits all.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:59AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:59AM (#382907) Journal

      The right of people to not have their resources used to support the competition, so the competition will have to raise funds and venues, etc., only from those who are willing

      You'll have your Olympics and pay for it too.

      The right of people to talk about, broadcast, or copy what they want without someone having a monopoly on particular ideas or data

      I'm sure someplace has a list of the Olympic trademark horror stories, but I can't be arsed to find it right now.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:28AM (#383012)

        I'm sure someplace has a list of the Olympic trademark horror stories, but I can't be arsed to find it right now.

        ATFY (arsed that for you):
        https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=olympics [techdirt.com]

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:25AM (#383009)

      No, what you'll see is something like Professional American Football or Baseball. Hardly anyone watches minor leagues and fewer watch equivalent women's sports. Women attract an audience doing volleyball, because ::boing boing boing:: Sex Sells. Sports are 100% testosterone fueled, even when the game they play is not.

      Protip: most WOMEN do not give a fuck about sports. Men are far more competitive physically, women are more competitive so psychologically. So, until we Gossip, Soul Destroying Remarks, or Crying to RomComs for Distance as Olympic sports don't expect women to give ENOUGH of a fuck about these games to make competing against men (or mannish people) profitable or desirable to anyone.

  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:24AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:24AM (#382921)

    This is a perfect example of the revolution eating itself. Good. Title IX will be a memory in another decade because of this stupidity. Personally I didn't have a problem with women competing in a different division, it made sense considering biological reality. What I had a problem with was Title IX destroying mens sports in a deranged attempt to impose a Orwellian Separate but Equally Funded world for sports where women had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a lot of sports to achieve balance and when they couldn't even be persuaded to play for a free scholarship the mens program had to be canceled. But now the revolution has went through the looking glass and gone so far the Mad Hatter would deem it daft. Since the feminists started this, let them die from the monster they created, as the entire concept of 'woman' becomes crimethink.

    So suck it up ladies, if you still wanna play you are going to have to play with the big boys.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:18AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:18AM (#383039) Journal

      You're really, really deranged by this stuff. Could it be that you know even the most womanly woman is more of a man than you, let alone more of a human being?

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:46AM

        by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:46AM (#383065)

        it may very well be he is deranged, but he happens to be correct in respect to how title ix HAS made the schools dump a lot of 'minor' sports to have woman's sports... just a fact it was an 'unintended' consequence of the money aspects of the schools toeing the title ix line...
        personally, i have problems with it: certainly like that woman have sports opportunities, BUT don't like that a LOT of 'minor' sports -both men's and women's- have gone bye-bye, like wrestling, MEN's gymnastics, MEN's soccer, MEN's lacrosse, etc...
        we have a hugely successful woman's gymnastics team at our university, but no men's gymnastics; and while i certainly am pig-enough to enjoy fit young ladies rolling around in their bathing suits, i do appreciate the athleticism and strength of male gymnasts, too... too bad, i guess... similarly, a great chick soccer team (if great can be applied in the same sentence with soccer, which sucks), but no men's team; great chicka lacrosse team, no men's team...
        (don't get me started on how they have watered-down woman's lacrosse with stupid chick rules...)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:20PM (#383089)

          I am an adult (30) male amateur gymnast, and I have to say that I'm sorry I wasn't able to do any of the basic gymnastics as part of my public high school (or other) life. Essentially, I am strong, flexible, and coordinated, but not fast. In elementary school, I set the school record for situps, and was top 5% for flexibility and pullups. In high school, I set the school record for pushups.

          It took a long time before I found the correct exercise(s) for me as an adult to stay fit. Everyone needs something that they enjoy doing, including the people that don't like running. For me, crossfit was so-so, yoga was interesting but not challenging. The answer, for me, was "gymnastic rings", which I discovered 8 months ago. Gymnastic rings require phenomenal strength and flexibility. "Entry level" items (wrists to toes, 5 strict pullups, 60s plank, shoulder dislocations, etc.) frequently make them unapproachable.

          The "entry level" exercises were never part of my middle-/high- school gym. We never did pullups, rope climbs, L-sits, V-sits, yoga, etc. My school didn't have a male gymnastics, wrestling, weight-lifting, or "throwing" team (the sports where being strong/flexible are critical). I'm not upset/mad, I'll probably never be competitive-level, but it is sad to see that the sports that I really enjoy and excel at were simply not offered as byproduct of "inclusion".

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:10PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:10PM (#383179) Journal

          Personally I don't think any higher-education institute ought to be running these sports programs. It's another sink for time and money and how many stories of corruption have we heard from them again...? School is where you learn, dammit, not where you kick/swat a ball around. The fact that the overgrown children we call professional athletes make so much while teachers and firefighters make so little is a huge problem.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:08PM (#383206)

            i played certain sports in HS and under different circumstances i would have played in college and i was very serious about one of them. I have to agree with you though. we have little country schools where 18 year old males graduate with a poor education but being very skilled at a sport that 98% of them will never play professionally/again. It's just feeding off kids' future for money. I'm not saying there's no benefit to sports but let community orgs pop up and fill this need. If we're going to have tax funded schools they should be teaching something kids can use to earn a living. that also means leaving out non market viable subjects as well. If you can't bake a cake that's yo momma's fault, not bob and sally taxpayer's.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:43PM (#383281)

            Different perspectives, of course. School is either:
            1 - A place where children can learn the knowledge/skills which help them live healthy/productive lives, and become good citizens.
            2 - A place where children can learn the knowledge/skills which will help them in the workforce.
            3 - A place where children are prepared for (1) and (2) because they are taught self-improvement.
            4 - A place where children learn social/group skills.

            If you believe that the purpose is (1), it seems just/right/good to teach them "physical fitness" (yoga, pullups, running, etc.) as part of general "care of your body". Sports & conditioning are a significant component towards not letting your body deteriorate.

            If you believe the purpose is (2), the purpose of sports should be to "teach teamwork and communication" (like you will see in virtually any workforce nowadays).

            If you believe the purpose is (3), the purpose of sports should be to teach progressively more difficult skills in an effort to show that "you can teach yourself anything".

            If you believe the purpose is (4), the purpose of team sports is the same as (2).

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:10PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:10PM (#383296) Journal

              Conditioning and sports training are not the same thing as the sort of money-sucking, corrupt college football programs I'm referring to.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:21AM (#383995)

              Different perspectives, of course. School is either:

              School should be about encouraging people to be lifelong academics who are interested in or actively study the universe around them. Hitting balls around isn't academic at all.

              Sports & conditioning are a significant component towards not letting your body deteriorate.

              But doing these things in school is a waste of time. Most people won't bother unless they're forced by the school, and a few people will be humiliated by these classes. Then there are the diminishing returns. Even if we were to agree that the classes should exist, why are they so long, and why do they have focus around sports rather than simple exercise? Not everyone likes sports, and since this has nothing to do with academics, it's hard to justify.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:22PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:22PM (#383308)

          it may very well be he is deranged, but he happens to be correct in respect to how title ix HAS made the schools dump a lot of 'minor' sports to have woman's sports... just a fact it was an 'unintended' consequence of the money aspects of the schools toeing the title ix line...

          Maybe the purpose of college should be something other than competing in sports? Cut way back on what gets spent on major sports, particularly football, and maybe schools can continue programs in other sports.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:11PM (#383238)

        Yes calling the troll names really demonstrates how you're better than him.

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:54AM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:54AM (#382934)

    She isn't just a woman with a high testosterone level. According to this article [nydailynews.com], she does not have ovaries, a womb, and does have internal testes. It is clear that she is intersex at least by the definition wikipedia uses [wikipedia.org].

    On the one hand, all things equal she is obliged to medical privacy. But on the other hand, when she is claiming to be the fastest woman at these events, a leak of her medical records might be considered whistle blowing. Not sure anyone's hands are clean in this, which tends to be the way the Olympics of corruption go.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by mojo chan on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:39AM

      by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:39AM (#383025)

      Check that article carefully. It's based on a since retracted article in an Australian newspaper. It was retracted because the leaked test results were false. She doesn't have male organs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:12AM (#382990)

    There was a similar story last month.

    /article.pl?sid=16/07/18/0012251 [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:22AM (#383008)

    Intersex people have an intermediate sex.
    Transgender people have changed their gender.
    Gender refers to social behavior. Sex is physical.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:35AM (#383030)

    We are slowly approaching the point where professional sports is the only job that doesn't have gender equality. And yet, the reasoning put forward by those defending the current rules are the exact same as what has been used to argue against gender equality in every type of job for the last 50 years.

    Professional sports is also among the most public jobs, being on TV all the time. They should go in front rather than trailing behind everybody else, if politicians really want to show us that gender equality is the way forward.

    "But then only men will be able to compete", I hear people scream. Yes, I already addressed that above, see "exact same as what has been used to argue against gender equality in every type of job for the last 50 years". Everybody else was forced to find a solution. Let the Olympics and the politicians find a solution.

    A suggesting could be to use weight classes. Because the problem is not actually hormones, it's the amount of muscle mass. A person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome could have XY testicles, tongs of testosterone and yet be weaker than any woman competing in the Olympics.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @12:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @12:23AM (#383414)

    The differences in skeleton between male and female when running also matter a lot. The extra hip width is less efficent as the upper body needs to compensate more to counter the extra torque from the legs being further apart. If theyre talking about transgender specific events, they will need to have to differentiate between skeletal make-up as well.