The Tokyo Olympic Games

[DireWolfSpirit]

3 hours ago, Ranivaka said:

That is why the rule is as it is. If you have a proposal for a means to include all women while also being fair to them, I'd like to hear it. Is there some other standard, or mix of standards, that can be applied?

It's not up to us on a fantasy series book forum to solve those issues with just a few hours spare time to address them.

The IOC leadership is a fulltime, elected, compensated position that presumably should be competent to make its policy. That policy being one that disqualifies these 2 absolutely innocent African runners from competing in their own sex is not an acceptable solution from a fulltime, compensated International Committee. In sports analogy, this is "dropping the ball."

How is the IOC President elected and what is his role? The IOC President is elected by secret ballot by the IOC members at the Session. The President's term of office is eight years, and can be renewed once, for four years.

https://olympics.com › ioc › roles-a...

Roles and responsibilities of the IOC and its partners - FAQ

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

o involuntarily undergo a regiment of pills to alter their naturally produced levels.

To be clear, no one is forced to take anything. At the same time, it is not some sort of inalienable human right that you must be able to compete in a competitive athletic event. It is a privilege.

I think the whole thing is extremely complicated and that any straightforward, hard rule based on a single metric will find edge cases that will leave some people out to preserve fairness for the majority. That's why I find it hard to feel any outrage. It's a sad and difficult situation, especially when it's the consequence of attempting to be as inclusive as possible while maintaining fairness. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Ranivaka said:

To be clear, no one is forced to take anything. At the same time, it is not some sort of inalienable human right that you must be able to compete in a competitive athletic event. It is a privilege.

I think the whole thing is extremely complicated and that any straightforward, hard rule based on a single metric will find edge cases that will leave some people out to preserve fairness for the majority. That's why I find it hard to feel any outrage. It's a sad and difficult situation, especially when it's the consequence of attempting to be as inclusive as possible while maintaining fairness. 

I'm not the ready to give these authorities the benefit of the doubt.  The regulations on natural testosterone levels, Semenya's treatment, all pretty patriarchal and rooted in transphobia and being worried about corrupting Women.

I am curious to what extent noncis and intersex people were involved in the process. 

If it didn't involve some extensive input like that I could easily see this as a way to rile up TERFs and try to gatekeep the Olympics.   

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I am curious to what extent noncis and intersex people were involved in the process. 

Joanna Harper, a trans woman who has advised the IOC and is a medical physicist as well as an amateur distance runner who has published some papers on the subject of trans athletes, was one of the experts who testified before the panel that researched the topic before a ruling was made. Her stance is summarized in Epstein's article as:

Quote

• Testosterone is the primary source of the male advantage in elite sports (the CAS decision upholding the testosterone rule was 2–1, but all three judges agreed that “testosterone is the primary driver of the sex difference in sports performance”).

• The lower limit of the typical male testosterone range is about four times higher than the high end of the typical female range.

• Testosterone levels are the best (that is, the least imperfect) marker for separating the men’s and women’s competitive classifications.

Both Harper and [Ross] Tucker [a South African researcher] believe that the female classification in sport is important to maintain and that there should be some criteria for entry into it that protects the integrity of women’s competition.

 

[lessthanluke]

Testosterone levels being the only thing that they monitor as the primary difference between the sexes is just nonsensical to start with. Based just on that I can conclude the IOC don't have a fucking clue what they're doing.

Before anyone jumps on me I come from a background of knowledge on this. I coach women at the highest level in strength sports (powerlifting/strongwoman) my other half is a former Worlds Strongest Woman winner. These sports are for the most part untested meaning any and all PEDs are allowed (and even encouraged to a certain extent)

If testosterone/hormones were the primary driver then you'd see women matching the men in untested sports. Spoiler alert. You don't.

The women at the top of the sport who are taking large amounts of steroids aren't close to their male counterparts. They aren't even close to their male counterparts who don't take drugs.

 

 

[john]

I don’t really understand how an arbitrary cut off point is going to help with this idea of supposed fairness. If competitors were to medicate to 4.99 testosterone and win those events, where’s the fairness there?

[ithanos]

Taking a break and looking at competitors doing competitive things.

Here is Christine Mboma, one of the two women ineligible for this years women's 400m. This was a 200m race from June this year. Technique still rough but her finish at the end is incredible!  I hope she has been selected by her country to compete in the women's 200m event, (and also her compatriot, Masilingi, in the women's 100m event) - although the stigma around both athletes' ineligibility for the 400m/800m will undoubtedly carry through. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20dggOCXO0k&t=139s

Mboma's finish in that 200m race was very reminiscent of Joseph Fahnbulleh's in the NCAA men's 200m final this year.
Absolutely stunning finish. If he could sort out that start! I was wondering why Fahnbulleh wasn't at the US Olympic trials as he is a US citizen by birth, but it turns out his parents are from Liberia and, according to his World Athletics profile, Fahnbulleh has let his US eligibility lapse and is now eligible to represent Liberia.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzdZXazBFCQ&t=146s

 

[Ran]

9 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Testosterone levels being the only thing that they monitor as the primary difference between the sexes is just nonsensical to start with. Based just on that I can conclude the IOC don't have a fucking clue what they're doing.

 

 

7 hours ago, john MCG said:

I don’t really understand how an arbitrary cut off point is going to help with this idea of supposed fairness. If competitors were to medicate to 4.99 testosterone and win those events, where’s the fairness there?

Yes, critics of it have raised various points about standard. Particularly, see this paper from this year, published in Sports Medicine by British and Swedish researchers. I'll quote one bit near the end:

Quote

From the longitudinal muscle mass/strength studies summarised here, however, it is apparent that most therapeutic interventions result in almost complete suppression of testosterone levels, certainly well below 5 nmol/L (Table 4). Thus, with regard to transgender women athletes, we question whether current circulating testosterone level cut-off can be a meaningful decisive factor, when in fact not even suppression down to around 1 nmol/L removes the anthropometric and muscle mass/strength advantage in any significant way.

In terms of duration of testosterone suppression, it may be argued that although 12 months of treatment is not sufficient to remove the male advantage, perhaps extending the time frame of suppression would generate greater parity with female metrics. However, based on the studies reviewed here, evidence is lacking that this would diminish the male advantage to a tolerable degree. On the contrary, it appears that the net loss of lean mass and grip strength is not substantially decreased at year 2 or 3 of cross-hormone treatment (Table 4), nor evident in cohorts after an average 8 years after transition. This indicates that a plateau or a new steady state is reached within the first or second year of treatment, a phenomenon also noted in transgender men, where the increase in muscle mass seems to stabilise between the first and the second year of testosterone treatment [111].

The start is particularly interesting, because they look at differences in strength in pre-pubescent children and even there boys and girls as young as six already have differences that aren't really negligible... but just pale to the differences once puberty happens.

Finally, just to be clear, here's what they list as all the sports-relevant differences in males compared to females as a result of androgenisation:

Quote

Males have: larger and denser muscle mass, and stiffer connective tissue, with associated capacity to exert greater muscular force more rapidly and efficiently; reduced fat mass, and different distribution of body fat and lean muscle mass, which increases power to weight ratios and upper to lower limb strength in sports where this may be a crucial determinant of success; longer and larger skeletal structure, which creates advantages in sports where levers influence force application, where longer limb/digit length is favorable, and where height, mass and proportions are directly responsible for performance capacity; superior cardiovascular and respiratory function, with larger blood and heart volumes, higher hemoglobin concentration, greater cross-sectional area of the trachea and lower oxygen cost of respiration

 

 

[baxus]

8 hours ago, john MCG said:

I don’t really understand how an arbitrary cut off point is going to help with this idea of supposed fairness. If competitors were to medicate to 4.99 testosterone and win those events, where’s the fairness there?

Well, that's how cut off points work, right? I mean, sure there's very little between 5.01 and 4.99 and one is banned and the other is fine. It's not exactly fair, I assume we all agree on that but how do you propose this be fixed? Should grading be done on a curve so if all athletes levels are in a certain range then everyone is fine and if someone sticks out then ban them?

[john]

10 hours ago, baxus said:

Well, that's how cut off points work, right? I mean, sure there's very little between 5.01 and 4.99 and one is banned and the other is fine. It's not exactly fair, I assume we all agree on that but how do you propose this be fixed? Should grading be done on a curve so if all athletes levels are in a certain range then everyone is fine and if someone sticks out then ban them?

I’d have to agree with a lot of the others and say it doesn’t sound like it needs fixed. The natural unfairness doesn’t seem worse or better than an artificial unfairness.

If they really want to concentrate on the idea of competition they’d need some kind of range of classifications for all competitors, like a weight class but based on natural ability somehow, then everybody can compete with people with the same advantages as them.

[kairparavel]

On 7/5/2021 at 4:03 AM, Ranivaka said:

They aren't prevented from competing for having testosterone levels above 5 nmol/L. They are prevented from competing for refusing to take measures to drop to the proscribed levels (both have refused to take birth control which would easily solve the problem). Why does this matter? Because higher levels of testosterone create physiological changes that are advantageous in sports dependent on muscle power (specifically for runners, it gives greater lean muscle mass).

Read the introduction to the IAAF document on this here (PDF). Relevant part:

The end notes for this section links on to the research on the topic of endogenous testosterone providing significant sporting performance improvement if you want to read the details.

The IAAF document seems to suggest that 95% of the world's women have 1.79 nmol/L or less, and 99.99% have 4.8 nmol/L or less. 5 nmol/L seems a reasonable cut off to me in the name of fairness.

 

Um, taking birth control is not a nothing thing. There are health risks. I don't really appreciate the repeated suggestion that it's NBD, particularly from people who have not and will not ever have it in their system.

[lessthanluke]

26 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

Um, taking birth control is not a nothing thing. There are health risks. I don't really appreciate the repeated suggestion that it's NBD, particularly from people who have not and will not ever have it in their system.

Yeah anything that messes with your hormones is not to be taken lightly. 

 

[Week]

34 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

Um, taking birth control is not a nothing thing. There are health risks. I don't really appreciate the repeated suggestion that it's NBD, particularly from people who have not and will not ever have it in their system.

Also, you can't have it both ways -- if it is 'no big deal' then why is it required in the first place? It either has an impact required for fair play (allegedly) or is no big deal and should be taken as demanded by the gatekeepers protecting women's sport.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

Um, taking birth control is not a nothing thing.

No one said it's a "nothing" thing.  But they are generally very safe (especially for women who are otherwise healthy) and are widely used by tens of millions of women every single day.

On top of this, we're talking about elite athletes who put themselves through crazy training and diet regimens to achieve their dream of becoming an Olympic medalist. If you are a person pursuing a medal at an international, elite event you are already doing extreme things to your body to make it capable of achieving that, and are doubtless making all sorts of sacrifices. Because that's your dream. We get the exact flipside of this all the time:  athletes who try to dope despite the known risks of some of the methods available, because they want it that badly. And, yes, there are athletes who don't dope, just as I imagine there are athletes in international competition taking birth control pills right now to deal with the issue for themselves. We only ever hear about the people who are restricted from a competition, not those who aren't.

No one can or will make anyone take anything to participate in an athletic event, but at the same time no one has a right to compete.

On a separate note,

This whole "gatekeeping" thing that keeps coming up in some serious stupidity. Again, I reiterate, it is precisely because the Olympics have become more inclusive that you are hearing about this. 10 years ago, no one with a Y chromosome was competing in the women's events, end of story.  Semenya would have been barred, Laurel Hubbard would have been barred. Now they can compete, if they follow the rules.

Isn't that what people wanted? 

 

 

 

[Week]

Less gate-keeping yet still gate-keeping. 

"It used to be so much worse!" Is not a worthwhile defense of the current state.

[DireWolfSpirit]

The fact that we have to spend so much time talking about the "rulemakers" instead of the competitors is my redflag that they haven't gotten this right.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ranivaka said:

No one said it's a "nothing" thing.  But they are generally very safe (especially for women who are otherwise healthy) and are widely used by tens of millions of women every single day.

On top of this, we're talking about elite athletes who put themselves through crazy training and diet regimens to achieve their dream of becoming an Olympic medalist. If you are a person pursuing a medal at an international, elite event you are already doing extreme things to your body to make it capable of achieving that, and are doubtless making all sorts of sacrifices. Because that's your dream. We get the exact flipside of this all the time:  athletes who try to dope despite the known risks of some of the methods available, because they want it that badly. And, yes, there are athletes who don't dope, just as I imagine there are athletes in international competition taking birth control pills right now to deal with the issue for themselves. We only ever hear about the people who are restricted from a competition, not those who aren't.

No one can or will make anyone take anything to participate in an athletic event, but at the same time no one has a right to compete.

On a separate note,

This whole "gatekeeping" thing that keeps coming up in some serious stupidity. Again, I reiterate, it is precisely because the Olympics have become more inclusive that you are hearing about this. 10 years ago, no one with a Y chromosome was competing in the women's events, end of story.  Semenya would have been barred, Laurel Hubbard would have been barred. Now they can compete, if they take drugs to change their hormone levels.

Isn't that what people wanted? 

 

 

 

Bolded: fixed that for you

 

The current rules are less inclusive than they were in 2016, when the testosterone cutoff was set at 10 nmol/L.  

I was the one who said 'gate keeping' first.  It's fine if you think it's serious stupidity, but I'm not sure what else to call a bunch of people obsessively regulating who can and cannot compete as a woman.

As far as not being able to compete 10 years ago, I believe you are wrong on that account.  Semenya was subjected to sex testing several times as early as 2009 (at least once under false pretenses).  She was allowed to compete in the 2012 and 2016 Olympics without taking any hormone suppressants.  The rule change was in 2018.  

I'm not sure why everyone is supposed to accept the that this is being done in good faith simply because intersex women were completely banned in the past.  Additionally when you look at the racist comments from other athletes toward Semenya after the 2016 games it's difficult to look at the new regulations and wonder if there's anything beyond "trying to be inclusive" going on.

But yes, saying the phrase "gate-keeping" is some serious fucking stupidity, sorry to subject you to such base idiocy.

[Ran]

24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The current rules are less inclusive than they were in 2016, when the testosterone cutoff was set at 10 nmol/L

Which is explained in the Sports Medicine paper that I linked. 

Quote

I was the one who said 'gate keeping' first.  It's fine if you think it's serious stupidity, but I'm not sure what else to call a bunch of people obsessively regulating who can and cannot compete as a woman.

It's their job, as I think you were the one to note, but "gate-keeping" is obviously being used pejoratively when it's pretty clear that someone like Joanna Harper is someone obviously very sympathetic to transgender athletes, being one herself, and yet she feels as she does.

To reset, do you believe that the female classification in sport is important to maintain? If so, do you believe there should be some criteria for entry into it that protects the integrity of women's competition?

For my part. the answer is an obvious yes to both of these.

[ithanos]

I see two cutoff metrics mentioned. To avoid any confusion, can' t recheck the regulations atm -but to my understanding there are two rules?

One for transgender women to compete fairly in the women's classification - this is the 10nmol/L cutoff.

And one for cis & intersex women with hyperandrogenism to compete fairly in the women's classification - this is the 5nmol/L cutoff.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Ranivaka said:

Which is explained in the Sports Medicine paper that I linked. 

It's their job, as I think you were the one to note, but "gate-keeping" is obviously being used pejoratively when it's pretty clear that someone like Joanna Harper is someone obviously very sympathetic to transgender athletes, being one herself, and yet she feels as she does.

To reset, do you believe that the female classification in sport is important to maintain? If so, do you believe there should be some criteria for entry into it that protects the integrity of women's competition?

For my part. the answer is an obvious yes to both of these.

To both of those questions, yes.

That doesn't mean these regulatory bodies have been doing a very good job of it.  I get there are going to be some growing pains in figuring out rules that work well, but the entire history of 'sex testing' comes from a pretty transphobic place*, and the 2018 rule changes make things less inclusive than they were a couple years earlier.

Just because you keep saying the goal of this is to be as inclusive as possible doesn't mean that it's true, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's being executed well.  The 5 nmol/L thing in particular was, numbers wise, pretty clearly going to result in some ciswomen and intersex women not being allowed to compete, and therefore likely to increase animosity towards trans athletes.  

Regardless of the intentions are of the current regulations, they aren't doing a very good job of being as inclusive and fair as possible.  There is pretty clearly a decent amount of doubt that endogenous testosterone is the best marker to use.

I also never called Joanna Harper a gatekeeper.  She's advised the IOC and other sports regulatory bodies but she isn't the one actually making the rules. 

 

 

*one of your links on the previous page has a pretty good summation of the transphobic history of sex / gender gatekeeping in the Olympics