2024 Paris Olympics megathread

[Syt]

The thing is, though, that certain genetic make-ups will provide certain advantages in certain sports, and I would consider this one such case. Training etc. are important, but sometimes genetics play a role - think swimmers with advantageous proportions of body/limb, size of hands etc. Or that people who are 5 feet tall will be very unlikely to have a stellar career in the NBA.

Also, I find some of the knee-jerk reactions online ("You can see that she's a man!") incredibly short-sighted. There's women who look very (what's often regarded as) masculine and men who look very (what's often considered) feminine. Always been the case, and will always be the case. And it would be IMHO dumb to e.g. ban a woman form using a lady's restroom because someone thinks she looks "too male."

[Josquius]

The "just look! She's a man!" reactions are both stupid and funny.
I somehow doubt they apply the same logic for trans people who pass really well.
It's like they're applying "would you shag her?" as a rule for athletic qualification.

On the genetic advantages point... I suppose this only goes so far though. I recall hearing there's about a dozen African women banned from the Olympics for failing testosterone based gender tests despite being cis.
You obviously do need some scientifically based definition of who qualifies as a woman but when cisgender women are being disqualified just for being who they naturally are this sits very uneasy with me.

In actual Olympics... Quite some lovely symmetry watching this evening. First France vs Japan in the most Japanese sport of judo then france vs Japan in the most French sport of fencing.

Which is something I've been thinking about lately. It's interesting how very western biased (plus Japan and I thinkkkk one Korean martial art maybe? Or not anymore?) the setup is. We need more world sports. Like that polo with the sheep's head one. And kite fighting.

[DGuller]

The thing is, though, that certain genetic make-ups will provide certain advantages in certain sports, and I would consider this one such case. Training etc. are important, but sometimes genetics play a role - think swimmers with advantageous proportions of body/limb, size of hands etc. Or that people who are 5 feet tall will be very unlikely to have a stellar career in the NBA.

Also, I find some of the knee-jerk reactions online ("You can see that she's a man!") incredibly short-sighted. There's women who look very (what's often regarded as) masculine and men who look very (what's often considered) feminine. Always been the case, and will always be the case. And it would be IMHO dumb to e.g. ban a woman form using a lady's restroom because someone thinks she looks "too male."

The issue here is that all women's sports by the very design declare certain genetic make-ups to be unfair advantage.  That very design rules about half the population ineligible to compete in those sports because they're considered to have unfair genetic advantage.  On that basis, I don't see how the argument about "unfair genetical advantage is just tough luck for other competitors" is ever applicable to this discussion; in women's sports, it's often tough luck for the competitor for being genetically advantaged out of class eligibility.

[Syt]

So who decides what are acceptable parameters for being a woman? And is it a justifiable outcome that women are excluded because they do not conform to the definition of "woman" as per the sport they wish to compete in (keeping in mind that they will very likely be unable to compete with men in this sport, de facto excluding them from all competition).

[DGuller]

So who decides what are acceptable parameters for being a woman?

I don't know, but somebody has to.  If I want to go and compete in woman's soccer, somebody has to decide and declare that I'm not eligible for it.

And is it a justifiable outcome that women are excluded because they do not conform to the definition of "woman" as per the sport they wish to compete in (keeping in mind that they will very likely be unable to compete with men in this sport, de facto excluding them from all competition).

Lots of people can't de facto compete in either category.  I personally can't compete in woman's soccer because I assume that someone at some point will rule that I'm not eligible.  I can't compete in man's soccer because my genetic gifts for mathematics and data science do not transfer to soccer.

[Syt]

The difference between men's and women's soccer, though, is that from one you're excluded because you are not a "woman" under the stipulation of the sport's rules. You are free to join men's soccer if you so wish and try to compete. You're not excluded a priori.

In the case who are not woman enough for their sport's rules - where does it make sense to draw the line? I assume that in case of hormones and similar there might be reference to a certain "baseline" of what is considered "average" for women (or women competing in certain sports), but again: a line will be drawn that will exclude otherwise eligible people who would like to exclude. And drawing that line will always have edge cases that will be "unfair, " regardless if you draw the line to exclude 0.01%, 1% or 10% of all women, because they have an "unfair advantage."

[Jacob]

The thing is, though, that certain genetic make-ups will provide certain advantages in certain sports, and I would consider this one such case. Training etc. are important, but sometimes genetics play a role - think swimmers with advantageous proportions of body/limb, size of hands etc. Or that people who are 5 feet tall will be very unlikely to have a stellar career in the NBA.

Also, I find some of the knee-jerk reactions online ("You can see that she's a man!") incredibly short-sighted. There's women who look very (what's often regarded as) masculine and men who look very (what's often considered) feminine. Always been the case, and will always be the case. And it would be IMHO dumb to e.g. ban a woman form using a lady's restroom because someone thinks she looks "too male."

The issue here is that all women's sports by the very design declare certain genetic make-ups to be unfair advantage.  That very design rules about half the population ineligible to compete in those sports because they're considered to have unfair genetic advantage.  On that basis, I don't see how the argument about "unfair genetical advantage is just tough luck for other competitors" is ever applicable to this discussion; in women's sports, it's often tough luck for the competitor for being genetically advantaged out of class eligibility.

It's not only applicable to the conversation, it's the very core of it.

How do we define woman (and man), and who do is permitted to compete in what categories? In women sports, whoever has the best genetic and hormonal profile that still classified as "female" (and thus allowed to compete) has an advantage.

The controversy regarding Imane Khelif is whether her specific genetic and hormonal situation should exclude her from the women category or not. If she's included, the fact that she has higher levels of testosterone than most other competitors gives her an advantage; if she's excluded, the advantage goes to whatever other athlete has higher than average levels of testosterone but does not get excluded from the category of "woman".

This plays into a larger debate we are having these days about gender and identity, and it seems to me that some folks (not referring to Languish here) are making arguments regarding Khelif that are not consistent with their arguments in the larger gender and identity debate.

[Jacob]

I don't know, but somebody has to.  If I want to go and compete in woman's soccer, somebody has to decide and declare that I'm not eligible for it.

For sure, and when it comes to Imane Khelif someone did. And now others are complaining about that decision.

[DGuller]

The difference between men's and women's soccer, though, is that from one you're excluded because you are not a "woman" under the stipulation of the sport's rules. You are free to join men's soccer if you so wish and try to compete. You're not excluded a priori.

In the case who are not woman enough for their sport's rules - where does it make sense to draw the line? I assume that in case of hormones and similar there might be reference to a certain "baseline" of what is considered "average" for women (or women competing in certain sports), but again: a line will be drawn that will exclude otherwise eligible people who would like to exclude. And drawing that line will always have edge cases that will be "unfair, " regardless if you draw the line to exclude 0.01%, 1% or 10% of all women, because they have an "unfair advantage."

I don't think there any "men's" sports left, at least none that I'm aware of.  What we call men's sports are really open categories, where women are eligible if they can make it (but realistically only in very few sports is that ever a possibility at the highest levels).

Women who are judged ineligible to compete in women's sports are not a priori ineligible to compete in any category.  As you said previously, de facto they're unlikely to be competitive in open categories, because while they're too strong for women category they're probably too weak for open category.  However, the point I was trying to make is that de facto a lot of people are not eligible to compete in categories they're nominally eligible for, because they happen to not be gifted by the standards of their category.

[DGuller]

I don't know, but somebody has to.  If I want to go and compete in woman's soccer, somebody has to decide and declare that I'm not eligible for it.

For sure, and when it comes to Imane Khelif someone did. And now others are complaining about that decision.

Are you implying that they're not entitled to complain?

[Jacob]

Are you implying that they're not entitled to complain?

No. It's an observation. Entitled or not entitled does not enter into it.

[Josquius]

Let's not forget. The evidence she even is intersex is spurious.
She failed one test in her entire career.
A test held last year in famously sporting and non corrupt Russia, whose boxing union has since been expelled for various issues.

[Jacob]

Yeah, from what I'm reading Imane Khelif is in fact a cis woman by basically any standard (other than "I've looked at her and decided she's not a woman"), and she is being victimized by weaponized transphobia.

[The Brain]

If you exclude women because they have extremely rare genetic advantages, but only apply it to cases where sex is in some way the issue, then it's very hard to shake the suspicion that it in fact isn't about the advantage but about you not considering some women to be real women.

We allow 7 ft women to compete in women's basketball, even though they have a great and ultra rare genetic advantage. I'm not even aware of any discussions about this being a problem.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know, but somebody has to.  If I want to go and compete in woman's soccer, somebody has to decide and declare that I'm not eligible for it.

For sure, and when it comes to Imane Khelif someone did. And now others are complaining about that decision.

That

I don't know, but somebody has to.  If I want to go and compete in woman's soccer, somebody has to decide and declare that I'm not eligible for it.

For sure, and when it comes to Imane Khelif someone did. And now others are complaining about that decision.

Are you implying that they're not entitled to complain?

He is responding to your suggestion that somebody has to decide who fits within the parameters of the rules set by the sport.  That was done.

Now you're asking a separate question which is whether the rules of the sport are appropriate or whether the decision fell within the rules of the sport.

The only evidence for making a complaint are those later points is based on misinformation.