Speaking of Women's Sport....

On Aug 22, 2:51*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:46*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
" wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:

6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

Yeah, I have a friend whose father is well-known
in the field of pediatric urology. *Apparently when he
puts together a book on special cases (or as someone
put it "plugged plumbing"), the illustrations are ...
interesting. *Even apart from the subtle internal questions
of *what's on your chromosomes, people get born in
all sorts of, um, configurations.

Ben

Repeat after me: WOMEN'S category, and OPEN category. Contemplate all
the ramifications of that.

No sex tests in the "men's" races,

Fool,

Read the article. *How are you going to define "Women's"?


Let women as a whole protect their own special
little sporting world and otherwise ignore it. Every-
one else who wants to participate in real sport
competes against all comers, like it should be.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Norman
wrote:

Let women as a whole protect their own special
little sporting world and otherwise ignore it. Every-
one else who wants to participate in real sport
competes against all comers, like it should be.

I hate people like you.

"Paul G." wrote:

On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:

6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

It's not complicated. The only reason it's complicated is because the
IAAF wants to allow hermaphrodites to race as women even though they
have a genetic advantage from being part male.

The test for gender should be much simpler (at least for sports). If
you don't have that tight pussy that smells like a mackeral boat, then
you're a hermy and you can't compete.

Thanks,

Magilla

" wrote:

On Aug 21, 11:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:



6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

Yeah, I have a friend whose father is well-known
in the field of pediatric urology. Apparently when he
puts together a book on special cases (or as someone
put it "plugged plumbing"), the illustrations are ...
interesting. Even apart from the subtle internal questions
of what's on your chromosomes, people get born in
all sorts of, um, configurations.

Ben

Does he devote a chapter to Ladyboys?

http://www.ladyboysplace.com

Thanks,

Magilla

On 8/22/09 6:49 PM, in article ,
"MagillaGorilla" wrote:

" wrote:

On Aug 21, 11:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:



6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

Yeah, I have a friend whose father is well-known
in the field of pediatric urology. Apparently when he
puts together a book on special cases (or as someone
put it "plugged plumbing"), the illustrations are ...
interesting. Even apart from the subtle internal questions
of what's on your chromosomes, people get born in
all sorts of, um, configurations.

Ben

Does he devote a chapter to Ladyboys?

http://www.ladyboysplace.com

Thanks,

Magilla


http://www.huntvalley.com/dickssportinggoods400.gif

In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 21, 8:46*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

" wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:

6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

Yeah, I have a friend whose father is well-known
in the field of pediatric urology. *Apparently when he
puts together a book on special cases (or as someone
put it "plugged plumbing"), the illustrations are ...
interesting. *Even apart from the subtle internal questions
of *what's on your chromosomes, people get born in
all sorts of, um, configurations.

Ben

Repeat after me: WOMEN'S category, and OPEN category. Contemplate all
the ramifications of that.

No sex tests in the "men's" races,

Fool,

Read the article. How are you going to define "Women's"?

Domoor, I did.

To answer you in short: I don't care. It's more complicated than that,
but I'll fall back on the aphorism "hard cases make bad law."

In long: the point I'm pointing out is that the women's category is the
one where you're trying to restrict entry by gender. Gender used to be
much more straightforward, both because we didn't have fancy genetic
tests we could use that detected some subtle and interesting intersex
cases. We also couldn't change gender using reassignment surgery.

But never mind that. The original purpose of having a women's category
was because the best women are not as citius, altius, or fortius as the
best men. (No need to point out that a great many women, including some
in my club, could kick my ass while nose-breathing. I'm painfully aware,
thanks.)

Basically, it's the same as age-grouping, only we treat women with more
respect than master's fatties.

If you just want to make two categories,
"People Bruce thinks are hot" and
"People Bruce is grossed out by the suggestion"
then it's easy. If you try to make your "sex test"
based on anything that you think is more scientific
or objective, then it's not easy anymore.

This gives us a pretty straightforward test for the hard cases, which I
will dub the Pistorius Line*: take as the baseline a highly-trained XX
female with all the most standard female features (eg no rogue XY
chromosomes, no androgen insensitivity, no XXY, whatever).

Then compare your hard cases to that baseline using this question: "do
the sexual peculiarities of this person's physiology grant them an
obvious advantage over a similarly talented and trained baseline woman?"

If the answer is no, then race with the girls. If the answer is yes,
then race in the open class.

There's a very good reason for this, as I suggested in the other hard
case we've talked about here, Michelle Dumaresq: if the hard cases are
allowed to persist within women's competition, and they have enough of a
physical advantage to be, as it were, operating on a different bell
curve from baseline women, then they are very likely to dominate the
sport, or at least appear in disproportionate numbers on the podiums.

It would be a little strange if a category designed for women was no
longer dominated by people with XX chromosomes.

Turning to Caster Semenya's case, I don't know what the outcome will be,
and I make no judgements. Alice Dreger (the NYT article author),
however, gets us nowhere when she says that we don't consider it unfair
that some men have higher than average androgen levels than others.
That's because androgen is pretty much one of those things that not only
defines masculine characteristics, but also is one of the major reasons
the men's bell curve is shifted right a bit. As a counterexample, I
don't think Alice, me, or even Ben would want her "Matthew" example (XX
chromosones, looked and felt like a dude due to producing a ton of
androgens regardless) racing in the women's category. And yet there he
is, an all-natural woman.

The ugly resolution of the hardest cases (whether you use my test, Alice
Dreger's test, Ben's test, or whatever test the IAAF is busily working
on) is to invite them to compete on the men's side. Of course, a great
many of these hard cases would of course be rather slow compared to the
elite men. This is known as being genetically disadvantaged, and nobody
likes a whiny undertalented athlete (said the whiny undertalented
athlete...). So it sucks for them, but it sucks for most people.

In conclusion, the women's category is an unfair and insensitive relic
of a past era. It should be abolished as such, but Cat 5 road racing
should be an Olympic event.

*Thus partly subverting my "open class" theory, since Oscar is no way no
how racing on the fastest possible artificial legs available, though I
have a rationalization to cover that, too.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Aug 22, 6:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:



6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

saw a very sad doco' some years ago about Dr's and surgeons deciding
what to do with babies born with unusual genetalia. Heart rending
stuff.
I hope Caster Semenya is vindicated and not a cheat. His/her life must
already be full of a lot of stress from the narrow minded.

Henry wrote:

I hope Caster Semenya is vindicated and not a cheat. His/her life must
already be full of a lot of stress from the narrow minded.

So what do you do it he/she has both genes? Riding with men is almost
impossible if he/she doesn't have fully functioning testes, and yet with
even partially developed testes he/she would have a significant advantage on
100% women.

It isn't that I don't feel for the person but there has to be some sort of
limits.

On Aug 23, 6:07*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:46*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

" wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:35*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:46*pm, Henry wrote:

6+ billion people; we aren't all going to be "male" and "female" -
sorry about that.
Good on her; hope she gets the all clear, both gender and doping.

Well said. I had no idea it was so complicated, it's WAY WAY beyond
binary:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

-Paul

Yeah, I have a friend whose father is well-known
in the field of pediatric urology. *Apparently when he
puts together a book on special cases (or as someone
put it "plugged plumbing"), the illustrations are ...
interesting. *Even apart from the subtle internal questions
of *what's on your chromosomes, people get born in
all sorts of, um, configurations.

Ben

Repeat after me: WOMEN'S category, and OPEN category. Contemplate all
the ramifications of that.

No sex tests in the "men's" races,

Fool,

Read the article. *How are you going to define "Women's"?

Domoor, I did.

To answer you in short: I don't care. It's more complicated than that,
but I'll fall back on the aphorism "hard cases make bad law."

In long: the point I'm pointing out is that the women's category is the
one where you're trying to restrict entry by gender. Gender used to be
much more straightforward, both because we didn't have fancy genetic
tests we could use that detected some subtle and interesting intersex
cases. We also couldn't change gender using reassignment surgery.

But never mind that. The original purpose of having a women's category
was because the best women are not as citius, altius, or fortius as the
best men. (No need to point out that a great many women, including some
in my club, could kick my ass while nose-breathing. I'm painfully aware,
thanks.)

Basically, it's the same as age-grouping, only we treat women with more
respect than master's fatties.

If you just want to make two categories,
"People Bruce thinks are hot" and
"People Bruce is grossed out by the suggestion"
then it's easy. *If you try to make your "sex test"
based on anything that you think is more scientific
or objective, then it's not easy anymore.

This gives us a pretty straightforward test for the hard cases, which I
will dub the Pistorius Line*: take as the baseline a highly-trained XX
female with all the most standard female features (eg no rogue XY
chromosomes, no androgen insensitivity, no XXY, whatever).

Then compare your hard cases to that baseline using this question: "do
the sexual peculiarities of this person's physiology grant them an
obvious advantage over a similarly talented and trained baseline woman?"

If the answer is no, then race with the girls. If the answer is yes,
then race in the open class.

There's a very good reason for this, as I suggested in the other hard
case we've talked about here, Michelle Dumaresq: if the hard cases are
allowed to persist within women's competition, and they have enough of a
physical advantage to be, as it were, operating on a different bell
curve from baseline women, then they are very likely to dominate the
sport, or at least appear in disproportionate numbers on the podiums.

It would be a little strange if a category designed for women was no
longer dominated by people with XX chromosomes.

Turning to Caster Semenya's case, I don't know what the outcome will be,
and I make no judgements. Alice Dreger (the NYT article author),
however, gets us nowhere when she says that we don't consider it unfair
that some men have higher than average androgen levels than others.
That's because androgen is pretty much one of those things that not only
defines masculine characteristics, but also is one of the major reasons
the men's bell curve is shifted right a bit. As a counterexample, I
don't think Alice, me, or even Ben would want her "Matthew" example (XX
chromosones, looked and felt like a dude due to producing a ton of
androgens regardless) racing in the women's category. And yet there he
is, an all-natural woman.

The ugly resolution of the hardest cases (whether you use my test, Alice
Dreger's test, Ben's test, or whatever test the IAAF is busily working
on) is to invite them to compete on the men's side. Of course, a great
many of these hard cases would of course be rather slow compared to the
elite men. This is known as being genetically disadvantaged, and nobody
likes a whiny undertalented athlete (said the whiny undertalented
athlete...). So it sucks for them, but it sucks for most people.

In conclusion, the women's category is an unfair and insensitive relic
of a past era. It should be abolished as such, but Cat 5 road racing
should be an Olympic event.

*Thus partly subverting my "open class" theory, since Oscar is no way no
how racing on the fastest possible artificial legs available, though I
have a rationalization to cover that, too.

--
Ryan Cousineau /
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

so to even things up a bit we let Caster Semenya take some drugs and
she can hopefully make the 10 second jump to winning the mens 800 ?

On Aug 24, 3:01*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Henry wrote:

I hope Caster Semenya is vindicated and not a cheat. His/her life must
already be full of a lot of stress from the narrow minded.

So what do you do it he/she has both genes? Riding with men is almost
impossible if he/she doesn't have fully functioning testes, and yet with
even partially developed testes he/she would have a significant advantage on
100% women.

It isn't that I don't feel for the person but there has to be some sort of
limits.

it's an issue of fairness. But also a test of our ability to accept
things outside the norm.