Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

[Belz...]

The 'real world' terminology, which I left in quotes you may notice, was used merely to indicate a distinction between sports and those other endeavors which are not sports. If you can come up with a less laborious term I'd be glad to use it.

As for your assumption about my own athletic pursuits, you don't know me or what I may or may not do in 'real life' (as opposed to the internet; I would have thought that usage obvious from context but apparently it is not).

That I would see a principle and apply it differently than others doesn't make me anti-sports. Indeed, I would encourage greater participation as opposed to viewing. Isn't it more fun to play a sport yourself than watch others play it? Except the combat sports, perhaps.

TM, in an effort to bring things back to the topic, do you understand why women and men don't usually compete against one another in sports?

 

[citizenzen]

The really stupid part of this entire debate is that the problem is so easily and trivially solved it's really pointless to continue arguing about it. Simply eliminate gender-based classes, and replace them with weight/height/skill-based classes. Some sports already do this, most notably Boxing. Simply apply that model across the board, modifying as appropriate to a particular sport.

But that's too obvious, and doesn't allow people to push their personal agendas, so it'll likely never happen.

Well, it's also quite a task. It's so much simpler to separate by sex.

I'm not against your idea, but I don't think you should underestimate the enormity of your proposal.

 

[Belz...]

The really stupid part of this entire debate is that the problem is so easily and trivially solved it's really pointless to continue arguing about it. Simply eliminate gender-based classes, and replace them with weight/height/skill-based classes. Some sports already do this, most notably Boxing. Simply apply that model across the board, modifying as appropriate to a particular sport.

I'm intrigued but, how do you work that for women? For the same weight they're still considerably weaker than men. How do you factor in skill? Some sort of ELO-like classification?

Also, that would exclude women from almost all top-tier tournaments.

 

[Cain]

In most cases conservatives take a "winning is all that matters" approach to sport, which isn't to far from their approach elsewhere. It's only this specific situation that seems to bring out "fairness" as something important, which suggests other motivation.

However a stopped clock is still right twice a day, IOW it's entirely possible to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Women's sport is segregated because that allows women to compete against peers of similar capability. Having biological males (or even biologically XXY individuals) violates that principle. On a very small scale it probably doesn't matter much outside the specific competition, but if it becomes common enough it potentially limits the opportunity for half the human population to experience the enjoyment of competitive sports.

Women's sports, which conservatives have historically mocked, should be rigorously fair. When it comes to things health-care and education -- well, it's survival of the fittest. The real injustice to children -- and, please, think of the children -- is not that they lack health-care but that some adult entered a writing contest. Priorities.

ETA: And by the way, I agree with you. Biological males competing in female sports is unfair, and fairness matters.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm intrigued but, how do you work that for women? For the same weight they're still considerably weaker than men.

I'm not sure how to measure skill other than comparing results. But strength can certainly be measured: a person who can bench three hundred pounds is definitely stronger than one who can only manage one hundred, regardless of their sexes or weights.

 

[Cain]

I'm intrigued but, how do you work that for women? For the same weight they're still considerably weaker than men. How do you factor in skill? Some sort of ELO-like classification?

Also, that would exclude women from almost all top-tier tournaments.

Exactly. Instead of an event being touted as the greatest female fighters in the world, it would be Division R, where weekend warrior men compete against the best women. What are humans trying to get out of athletics? Glory. Status. Will women achieve comparable status with such integration? No. Does anyone want to see Serena Williams battle a 700th ranked man? Yes, male chauvinists who want to see her get beaten. It would make a mockery of female athletics. And what would happen to their prize money? Female professional sports would cease to exist as women would be competing against amateur males.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure how to measure skill other than comparing results. But strength can certainly be measured: a person who can bench three hundred pounds is definitely stronger than one who can only manage one hundred, regardless of their sexes or weights.

Sure. For boxing, however, or Hockey, you have to pit them against someone.

 

[luchog]

I'm intrigued but, how do you work that for women? For the same weight they're still considerably weaker than men. How do you factor in skill? Some sort of ELO-like classification?

Look at how the sports that already separate based on non-gender-classes do it and adapt as needed. Look at Boxing, as noted, and at something like Baseball, which has major and minor leagues separated by skill level.

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance, so would have an advantage in contests that focus more on endurance than brute force.

Also, that would exclude women from almost all top-tier tournaments.

Just like boxing classes exclude smaller, weaker men from the more popular heavyweight tournaments.

Women are already effectively excluded from top-tier tournaments, since the most popular are those on the most extreme end of the performance scale, and are almost entirely dominated by men. There are tournaments specifically for women, but aside from a very few sports such as gymnastics, which focus more on precision than brute strength and endurance, none are as popular as their male counterparts.

 

[Belz...]

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Everything I've read seems to indicate the opposite.

Women are already effectively excluded from top-tier tournaments, since the most popular are those on the most extreme end of the performance scale, and are almost entirely dominated by men. There are tournaments specifically for women, but aside from a very few sports such as gymnastics, which focus more on precision than brute strength and endurance, none are as popular as their male counterparts.

That's true but I think that something called "women's X" is more visible than a tier 8 competition.

Thanks for your answers, by the way.

 

[3point14]

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Everything I've read seems to indicate the opposite.

My understanding is that women can actually output at 100% (or close to) for longer than men can. However, a man outputting at 90% is doing more work and can do it longer.

 

[citizenzen]

Look at how the sports that already separate based on non-gender-classes do it and adapt as needed. Look at Boxing, as noted, and at something like Baseball, which has major and minor leagues separated by skill level.

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance, so would have an advantage in contests that focus more on endurance than brute force.




Just like boxing classes exclude smaller, weaker men from the more popular heavyweight tournaments.

Women are already effectively excluded from top-tier tournaments, since the most popular are those on the most extreme end of the performance scale, and are almost entirely dominated by men. There are tournaments specifically for women, but aside from a very few sports such as gymnastics, which focus more on precision than brute strength and endurance, none are as popular as their male counterparts.

Popularity varies greatly between top-tier male sports as well. So that issue doesn't seem like a make-or-break to me.

Sports is entertainment. And competitiveness (as a general rule) results in a more entertaining product. Not knowing who will prevail and riding the roller coaster of emotions as contestants struggle for victory is what makes sports compelling regardless of whether we watching men or women. If some can't appreciate it when women compete, I welcome them to spend their time in some other way.

 

[Cavemonster]

Look at how the sports that already separate based on non-gender-classes do it and adapt as needed. Look at Boxing, as noted, and at something like Baseball, which has major and minor leagues separated by skill level.

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance, so would have an advantage in contests that focus more on endurance than brute force.




Just like boxing classes exclude smaller, weaker men from the more popular heavyweight tournaments.

Women are already effectively excluded from top-tier tournaments, since the most popular are those on the most extreme end of the performance scale, and are almost entirely dominated by men. There are tournaments specifically for women, but aside from a very few sports such as gymnastics, which focus more on precision than brute strength and endurance, none are as popular as their male counterparts.

I can see a few issues that may be dealbreakers.

For one thing, it doesn't scale. Differences between boys and girls are going to manifest easily as early as middle school. And I think it's unlikely that schools and independent town organizations will have the resources to manage however many tiers and subdivisions it would take to include girls in things like basketball at anywhere near the level that current sex segregated teams currently do.

I can really imagine it going more or less only two ways in school athletics. Either girls are largely classed out of the available tiers of play, or whatever lower tier there is gains an unspoken reputation as the girls tier and boys would not apply to play in it for the most part.

I can't see that as much of an improvement.

That's at least true for team sports that require resources. Perhaps in some sports it might work out, but certainly not in the major most popular sports.

And then we get to the psychological effects. While people can indeed be very excited to be the best in tier 12, it's certain to dim enthusiasm if that's the best fully half the population can hope for. We're all aware that sex segregated sports exist because men and women aren't competing at the same level, but quantifying exactly how much lower the women's level is, and identifying the levels they can reasonably compete in by labels that specify how much lower they are then the top is going to seriously kill the excitement.

This all brings us back to the problem we're trying to address, trans athletes. Trans people are a very small population. That's not to say we should ignore their interests or feelings, just that effect size should be taken into consideration.

Out of the already tiny trans population, the roughly half who are trans men don't pose any competitive issue. Their female sex does not confer any advantage in men's sporting competitions, so if they're at a level they can compete, good for them! The easy solution is to let trans men compete with men.

As for trans women, we're down to a very small number of people. Then an even smaller part of that group would like to compete in women's athletics.

We're looking at a rounding error. To say that we upend the entire organizational structure of sports in a way that negatively impacts a far larger number of women for a miniscule number of people- whether or not you or I think it's a good idea, it will not actually happen.

 

[Ziggurat]

How can the important things merit less care than the unimportant ones? The very essense of importance is that it requires greater attention, concern, and handling.

You say that like the distinction is between important and unimportant. But it isn't, and that's obvious to everyone except you for some reason.

Again, the fundamental question is whether or not we can use objective categories. And in government, we have decided that we cannot use the objective categories of men or women in terms of who gets to vote or who can be elected.

In sports, most people want to use these categories. The importance of doing so isn't really the question. The question is whether they should be allowed to do so. The push to allow transgendered athletes to compete against women isn't based on the preferences of fans or athletes, it's based on the idea that the use of objective categories of men and women is unjust.

There are some very important differences between sports and politics which can justify the use of categories in one but not the other, and they have nothing to do with politics being less important than sports.

 

[Ziggurat]

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance, so would have an advantage in contests that focus more on endurance than brute force.

That is not true. Women do not have superior endurance to men. That's why men still dominate in athletic events like marathons.

The idea that women have superior endurance comes from a misunderstanding of biology. Women have inferior neuromuscular efficiency. This means that they can contract a lower percentage of muscle fibers at any one moment (it's never actually 100%, even for top male athletes). That in turn means that they cannot tire themselves out as easily as men can, leading to the impression of higher endurance. But it's a mistake to measure endurance in terms of output time at a specified fraction of peak strength, since neuromuscular efficiency affects peak strength. The proper way to measure endurance is output time at a specified absolute output level. And men dominate, even in endurance events. The difference between men and women is less pronounced in the marathon than in, say, weightlifting, but it's still definitely there.

 

[Ziggurat]

My understanding is that women can actually output at 100% (or close to) for longer than men can. However, a man outputting at 90% is doing more work and can do it longer.

Yes, but there's a bit more to it.

 

[Lithrael]

I kind of agree with the ‘rounding error’ opinion here. A person who’s got a body that outclasses all the other women is a problem whether they’re a hyperandrogenic woman or a trans woman. But you just don’t get that many of them, and when they win by such crazy margins that it’s obvious the proverbial playing field isn’t level, I think people just sort of internally decide that to them, second place is the real first because the winner is overpowered. When cash prizes or whatever are involved, well, that sucks and all but I honestly feel like trying to ‘fix it’ is worse than just going ‘that’s gonna suck for that person’s competitors.’ Some kind of handicap based on some measurable thing or another seems like a compromise that might work.

Anyway I can’t see any way to remove trans women from competing that shouldn’t apply to hyperandrogenic women too, and they’re not ‘pretending to be women’ so can we get that language out of the debate?

 

[lomiller]

And although pound-for-pound women are physically weaker than men, they also have greater endurance, so would have an advantage in contests that focus more on endurance than brute force.

I find this suspect. A part of the physical advantage men have is their skeletal structure is more efficient for many activities. Since women’s muscles need to produce more force to achieve the same thing, they end up expensing more energy which should limit their competitiveness in endurance sports.

Just like boxing classes exclude smaller, weaker men from the more popular heavyweight tournaments.

Women are already effectively excluded from top-tier tournaments, since the most popular are those on the most extreme end of the performance scale, and are almost entirely dominated by men. There are tournaments specifically for women, but aside from a very few sports such as gymnastics, which focus more on precision than brute strength and endurance, none are as popular as their male counterparts.

Compare that to women’s hockey where you have both. A few women have played in lower tier men’s pro leagues but there are also opportunities to go to the Olympics, earn scholarships by playing NCAA hockey or even play a women’s pro league. Which benefits them more? Eg, if she had to choose one or the other, I find it hard to believe someone like Hayley Wickenheiser would choose her time in the Finnish 3rd league over her Olympic medals. I also find it unlikely that it was her time in low level men’s leagues that earned her an opportunity for a coaching/player development role in the NHL.

 

[River]

A biological solution could be applied. DNA test for all atheletes. Also, those on hormone therapies must meet the same standards as others competing. Otherwise it's not a fair playing field.

It's just flat out not fair for the women (biological women) out there in professional sports to be competing against men in the same physical contests. Mental contests are a different thing. Concerning physical contests -- this is a great example of PC culture virtue posing causing an unfair advantage in sporting events, especially for women.

 

[Darat]

Have you ever played amateur or recreational sports? The only worse then being placed in a league/division where you can’t compete is having a higher level team/athlete competing in a lower division so they can “enjoy” decimating lower level competition. Competing against peers who are more or less on the same level as yourself is fundamental, and sport doesn’t work without it.

Not following what point you are trying to make in regards to what I posted (and the context in which I made it)?

 

[Darat]

TM, in an effort to bring things back to the topic, do you understand why women and men don't usually compete against one another in sports?

Because historically women weren't allowed to participate in the newly organised sports because of the cultural and societal values of the time, women who wanted to participate in sport were forced to participate only with one another.

We still see the result of this discrimination today with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.