That really doesn’t answer my question, it just splits it up between different bodies.
So let’s say it’s just a specific governing body of a sport? I’ll reword it with a minor changes:
Should athletes be genetically tested by that body or just examined to see what’s between their legs? If the former, do the women with Swyer Syndrome perform in the male or female divisions? How about people with both sets of genitalia? They exist. What about people who are XXY or XYY?
And if you think the latter- please do justify that sort of invasive examination for the purposes of athletic competition.
I think you can give a general answer to that question which applies to all members of, at the very least, the boxing league Khelif is in.
That really doesn’t answer my question, it just splits it up between different bodies.
Sorry, that’s just reality.
I can’t give you a general answer that applies to all of women’s sport, and for a specific answer regarding a particular women’s sport, you’ll need to consult with the governing body of that sport, and recognize that body may pander to interests (commercial, or the preferences of its participants and other stakeholders, etc) that have nothing to do with how you prefer to define “woman”.
I not telling you to accept or be happy with anything. I am saying that if you want women’s sports to work the way you think they should work, you’ll need to go through their governance bodies.
It exists because people come together to play it. And maybe because some people are willing to pay for tickets to watch it, or sometimes because powerful people want it (to sell product, to train people in national defense, etc).
If you’re not engaged with any of those stakeholders, you can’t change the sport. Ideas about the limited women’s class of sport will only change if the players & organizers want it to change – or in the rarer case, because the ticket buyers demand change. But many of these sports are not driven by ticket sales, so there is limited opportunity to win hearts and minds.
This isn’t about the external genitalia, not sure why you keep going there. This is about the levels of hormones over an amount of time that is known to impart a muscular advantage. The IOC needs a formula for this to decide who can be in the class. This would not be a determination of who is female.
I think the thing we are trying to regulate is the muscular advantage imparted by certain hormones over certain periods of time. Whether the person being measured has been labeled male or female doesn’t make any difference.
If it is about hormones, why then also not test for growth hormone (GH)? People with more than average GH might have longer legs, giving them an advantage in certain sports.
There is also Adrenaline, Cortisone, etc. also giving certain advantages.
Maybe we should try to cancel out ALL natural variations, to make the competitions more fair.
In the end, we can only allow exact clones from each other to compete to each other.
And end up with competitions which equal to throwing a dice, because nobody can be truly be “the best” anymore, which can be defined as “possessing the best set of natural variations that makes this person a born winner”.
I think the debate is about what a reasonable class is. I don’t think that an appendage, or identity for that matter, is a reasonable proxy for capability class. In my mind you really have to go one of two ways.
You either make everything class-less (think UFC 1) where all weights, sizes, abilities, genetics compete for a singular title
Or
You make science-based classes, based around whatever the best proxy for capabilities are (testosterone, chromosomes, height, weight, body fat percentage, some combination of the former, etc)
If you use nothing as a proxy, there would be a lot of people unable to compete but it would at least be unequivocally “fair”. If you use science-based capability classes you would have a wider range of “fair-ish” competitions, but there might be some weird overlap where some men, some women, and those in-between bridge accepted norms.
If you use nothing as a proxy, there would be a lot of people unable to compete but it would at least be unequivocally “fair”.
The thing is there’s always going to be people unable to compete. I don’t have the ability to compete in the Olympics, and that’s OK. I’m not asking for them to make a class for people like me specifically.
I don’t know what the “right” solution is, but my opinion has always been that the premier class should be unrestricted and anyone can compete. Whether we have subdivisions is another question, and then what those subdivisions should be is another. Is gender/sex the correct subdivision, or should it be something else? There are many women who can kick my ass despite being a 6’ tall man. Gender/sex is not a definitive proxy for capability.
The determination of who may compete in limited-class sports must be made by rules.
It’s not a matter of who you or I think is a woman who qualifies. Only the governing body of that sport makes that determination.
deleted by creator
That really doesn’t answer my question, it just splits it up between different bodies.
So let’s say it’s just a specific governing body of a sport? I’ll reword it with a minor changes:
Should athletes be genetically tested by that body or just examined to see what’s between their legs? If the former, do the women with Swyer Syndrome perform in the male or female divisions? How about people with both sets of genitalia? They exist. What about people who are XXY or XYY?
And if you think the latter- please do justify that sort of invasive examination for the purposes of athletic competition.
I think you can give a general answer to that question which applies to all members of, at the very least, the boxing league Khelif is in.
Sorry, that’s just reality.
I can’t give you a general answer that applies to all of women’s sport, and for a specific answer regarding a particular women’s sport, you’ll need to consult with the governing body of that sport, and recognize that body may pander to interests (commercial, or the preferences of its participants and other stakeholders, etc) that have nothing to do with how you prefer to define “woman”.
So just accept that’s how things are and be happy with it? That’s what you’re saying?
I not telling you to accept or be happy with anything. I am saying that if you want women’s sports to work the way you think they should work, you’ll need to go through their governance bodies.
What a terribly passive way to think.
What is a sport? Why does it exist?
It exists because people come together to play it. And maybe because some people are willing to pay for tickets to watch it, or sometimes because powerful people want it (to sell product, to train people in national defense, etc).
If you’re not engaged with any of those stakeholders, you can’t change the sport. Ideas about the limited women’s class of sport will only change if the players & organizers want it to change – or in the rarer case, because the ticket buyers demand change. But many of these sports are not driven by ticket sales, so there is limited opportunity to win hearts and minds.
This isn’t about the external genitalia, not sure why you keep going there. This is about the levels of hormones over an amount of time that is known to impart a muscular advantage. The IOC needs a formula for this to decide who can be in the class. This would not be a determination of who is female.
So it is entirely based on hormones?
I guess in that case, men with hypogonadism would fight women. Right?
In that case, maybe they shouldn’t classify it between “men” and “women” classes.
I think the thing we are trying to regulate is the muscular advantage imparted by certain hormones over certain periods of time. Whether the person being measured has been labeled male or female doesn’t make any difference.
Again, in that case, let’s not classify it between men and women.
If it is about hormones, why then also not test for growth hormone (GH)? People with more than average GH might have longer legs, giving them an advantage in certain sports. There is also Adrenaline, Cortisone, etc. also giving certain advantages. Maybe we should try to cancel out ALL natural variations, to make the competitions more fair. In the end, we can only allow exact clones from each other to compete to each other. And end up with competitions which equal to throwing a dice, because nobody can be truly be “the best” anymore, which can be defined as “possessing the best set of natural variations that makes this person a born winner”.
Harrison Bergeron
This has been discussed for decades now: https://www.academia.edu/3811639
I think the debate is about what a reasonable class is. I don’t think that an appendage, or identity for that matter, is a reasonable proxy for capability class. In my mind you really have to go one of two ways.
You either make everything class-less (think UFC 1) where all weights, sizes, abilities, genetics compete for a singular title
Or
You make science-based classes, based around whatever the best proxy for capabilities are (testosterone, chromosomes, height, weight, body fat percentage, some combination of the former, etc)
If you use nothing as a proxy, there would be a lot of people unable to compete but it would at least be unequivocally “fair”. If you use science-based capability classes you would have a wider range of “fair-ish” competitions, but there might be some weird overlap where some men, some women, and those in-between bridge accepted norms.
The thing is there’s always going to be people unable to compete. I don’t have the ability to compete in the Olympics, and that’s OK. I’m not asking for them to make a class for people like me specifically.
I don’t know what the “right” solution is, but my opinion has always been that the premier class should be unrestricted and anyone can compete. Whether we have subdivisions is another question, and then what those subdivisions should be is another. Is gender/sex the correct subdivision, or should it be something else? There are many women who can kick my ass despite being a 6’ tall man. Gender/sex is not a definitive proxy for capability.