Unfair competitive advantage?

[Marlat]

So this story got me thinking:

South African officials have stepped up their defence of Caster Semenya, warning of a "third world war" if the row over her sex stops her competing.

The 18-year-old 800m world champion has been been tested following doubts about whether she is actually female.

South Africa's sports minister, the Reverend Makhenkesi Stofile, said: "Caster is a woman, she remains our heroine. We must protect her."

BBC Sport understands tests are likely to show Semenya has an intersex status.

That means that although she has been brought up as a girl and lives as a woman, she may prove to have both male and female sex characteristics.

Athletics world governing body the IAAF is still analysing the results of Semenya's tests and wants to discuss them with the athlete.

It has indicated that she is unlikely to be asked to return the gold medal she won in Berlin, but questions remain over her future in women's sport.

Source: Invalid Link Removed

So in summary, we have someone who has allegedly got 3 times the normal female testosterone and may well be a hermaphrodite competiting in womens sport. If the tests turn out to be true, she may well be banned from womens sport unless something is done to remove this competitive advantage.

However, it seems to me that the line for a competitive advantage is fairly artificial. We assume that (based on quantatative results) that men have a competitive advantage over women. Therefore, it is not permissible for men to compete against women in top levels of sport. The reasoning seems to be that history has shown that men perform better than women. No one has a choice as to whether they are born a man or a woman (or, seemingly, a hermaphrodite).

But, hasn't history also shown that, for example, black atheltes have consistently performed better than white atheles over short distance and long distance running. On the other hand, white athletes have performed better in the pool. Short people have consistently been better at football (soccer) and motorsport, tall people at long jump.

My point being that genetic charactestics do tend to give certain groups of people a competitive advantage and yet we don't discriminate on the grounds of say, race because of a perceived competitive advantage, but its seen as acceptable to discriminate on the grounds of gender. for that reason

So what do you think? Should top level sports try and remove competitive advantages such as in the case of this person from South Africa, or should it just accept that biology is what it is. If it latter, is it time we removed the male / female distinction in sports?

 

[CrispyDelicious]

In other words, if we consider it racist to separate competitors based on race, should we consider it sexist to separate competitors based on sex?

FWIW, Mark, you're referring to sex - the genetic aspect, not gender - the social aspect. If we're going to be technical.

 

[CrispyDelicious]

That said, however, it depends on the sport. In individual competitions such as high jump, 100m dash and whatnot, separating males from females is somewhat pointless, as the records can be compared afterward anyways.

Team sports is a different matter. Since men do preform better than women athletically (on average), by eliminating the male/female classes, women would lose the opportunity to compete, as they simply wouldn't be chosen as often for the team, over their male counterparts. In that sense, we need the male/female distinction to allow women the opportunity to compete.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

In Equestrian Events - both team and individual - men and women compete on equal terms in the same events!

Even female members of the Royal Family, like Princess Anne and Zara Phillips have competed against men and won world titles!!

 

[electracoyote]

"It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, except for Lola" --Ray Davies

 

[CrispyDelicious]

In Equestrian Events - both team and individual - men and women compete on equal terms in the same events!

Even female members of the Royal Family, like Princess Anne and Zara Phillips have competed against men and won world titles!!

The USA compiles its olympic basketball team. How many men vs. women do you really think would be chosen?

Anyhow, Equestrian has a factor that tends to level the playing field. Everybody is riding a freaking horse.

 

[Marlat]

That said, however, it depends on the sport. In individual competitions such as high jump, 100m dash and whatnot, separating males from females is somewhat pointless, as the records can be compared afterward anyways.

Is it really pointless though? I mean, can you think of a single track / field event where if the top female athlete competed against the top male athelete, the female would consistently beat the male? Should that matter. Maybe its just "bad luck" in much the same way as that I am not the right build for long distance running (okay, any sport for that matter! )

Accepting that, when evidence suggests that there are other genetic traits that produce the same result, why don't we consider those to be a distinction worthy or other categories of competition?

 

[Toasted]

Good to see the South African's are caught up in the big issues affecting Africans every day. Dealing with the important stuff first. It makes me *so cross*.

 

[Din Of Win]

This is a very good topic. Thanks Mark.

First, my heart honestly goes out to Caster. That sucks. I can imagine her(i will use 'her' as that is the sex that she currently decides to embrace) growing up being praised for her athletic prowas only to be knocked down and (possibly) humilliated by this whole scenerio.

However, she is catalyzing in bringing up the important issue of sex and gender roles within professional sports. I believe wholeheartedly, and with significant research done on my part, that much of the problem is mental. When a young woman, or man, is brought up their whole life to believe something, THAT is what comes to be. Same with race. If a young black man sees other black men playing football or running the 100m dash, he will gravitate twards that. But why then, does he gravitate twards it? Some people say that it is in our nature to gravitate twards what we percieve as 'sameness'. But others (myself included) believe that racial biases are so deep rooted UN-naturally in our culture, that we more or less force these stereotypes. Imagine that same young black man. He goes to the local pool and wants to join the swimm team. The current team is made up of all white males. Do you think, HONESTLY, that he will be treated with open arms? Well, maybe in the context of the local establishment he will. But, we're talking PROFESSIONAL sports here. How many teams must he go through to get to that level? How long before someone with their own racial agenda (or ignoracnce) knocks him off of his pedestal?

It sucks. It's wrong. It NEEDS to stop. But it's there.

Now, take a young woman. Short, stocky, maybe has a large family of older siblings. She's incredibly tough and athletic. Imagine her, enrolling in high school and wanting to join the football team. However, the rules state that ANYONE can try out. Even so... do you think she will be greeted with open arms? Not only in regards to the team and coaches. What about her peers? What about the parents? The community? Again, considering she lives in the most incredibly positive town in America, how far will she go? College? Pro? How long before the degrading comments and actions get to her?

Is this right? Is this moral? Is this scientific?

I honestly do not think it is so in ANY of these cases.

I DO believe that equality MEANS equality. There are NO extenuating circumstances when it comes to equal treatment. Period.

Back to the case in point with Caster, this would not even BE an issue if events were gender segregated.


I'm going to stop ranting now though, and again say that i truly feel empathy for Caster and i hope that she doesn't let any of the inevitable hate and teasing get her down, and realize that she is an amazing athlete, and THAT should be focused on.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[CrispyDelicious]

Is it really pointless though? I mean, can you think of a single track / field event where if the top female athlete competed against the top male athelete, the female would consistently beat the male? Should that matter. Maybe its just "bad luck" in much the same way as that I am not the right build for long distance running (okay, any sport for that matter! )

Accepting that, when evidence suggests that there are other genetic traits that produce the same result, why don't we consider those to be a distinction worthy or other categories of competition?

Pointless is a strong word. What I meant to say was that when it comes down to it, a woman's gold-medal proformance is not up to par with a man's. So even though she got first in the women's event, it's not first worldwide. It's a distinction made to accommodate sex differences.

I think if a woman desires to compete against men, she should be allowed to. Of course, most wouldn't make it past the prelims. So yes, it's pointless to separate individuals based on sex to discover "the best" because "the best" is almost always going to be a man. Though I still agree with men's vs. women's events because otherwise women wouldn't be able to put themselves on the global athletic stage as often.

The difference between separateing athletes based on sex or race lies here, though (IMO):

Across races, you still find that all people - European, Asian, African, South Asian, etc., have a fairly equal showing in the global athletic field. Yes, some preform better in certain sports than others, but generally speaking, we see all different colours standing on the podiums.

We we to allow both (or all?) sexes compete together, you would see half of the population of competitive athletes consistently shut out of nearly EVERY competition. Women simply would not be competing at the same level, across the board. To deny half of the global population of athletes the opportunity to test themselves againt equals on the world's stage would be immoral.

 

[Marlat]

Pointless is a strong word. What I meant to say was that when it comes down to it, a woman's gold-medal proformance is not up to par with a man's. So even though she got first in the women's event, it's not first worldwide. It's a distinction made to accommodate sex differences.

I think if a woman desires to compete against men, she should be allowed to. Of course, most wouldn't make it past the prelims. So yes, it's pointless to separate individuals based on sex to discover "the best" because "the best" is almost always going to be a man. Though I still agree with men's vs. women's events because otherwise women wouldn't be able to put themselves on the global athletic stage as often.

The difference between separateing athletes based on sex or race lies here, though (IMO):

Across races, you still find that all people - European, Asian, African, South Asian, etc., have a fairly equal showing in the global athletic field. Yes, some preform better in certain sports than others, but generally speaking, we see all different colours standing on the podiums.

We we to allow both (or all?) sexes compete together, you would see half of the population of competitive athletes consistently shut out of nearly EVERY competition. Women simply would not be competing at the same level, across the board. To deny half of the global population of athletes the opportunity to test themselves againt equals on the world's stage would be immoral.

I agree with the last part you are saying, I think that may well be the answer. But (and this is what the Caster issued raised in my mind), the issue with the male female divide seems to be on the assumption (and probably correct) that in a given sport, males on average have a competitive advantage over females which is genetic. Now its possible (as you note) that this competitive advantage could be found along racial lines for any given sport (and I think there is good evidence to support his in some sports). But, race is quite a hot topic issue. Once that is just as genetic as male vs female is height. There are clearly some sports where height places the athelete at an advantage (whether it be being short (ie football) or tall (track and field)). So why accept the male / female genetic divide without short / tall (again - for example)? I think yoru argument for why we should have a male / female dviide can be applied equally to why we should have a short / tall divide for certain sports (but for some reason, this seems absurd).

 

[Lesfunk]

As Austin Pwers once said, "That's a MAN, MAN!"

 

[Unrepresented]

I think that weight class divisions are silly too. I'm of the "run what'cha brung" belief, anything else is just there for the sake of inclusivity.

 

[Clark Dark]

Tests show that controversial runner Caster Semenya is a woman ...and a man!

The 18-year-old South African champ has no womb or ovaries and her testosterone levels are more than three times higher than those of a normal female, according to reports.

The tests, ordered by The International Association of Athletics Federations after Semenya's 800-meter victory in the World Championships, determined she's a hermaphrodite - having both male and female organs.

Semenya could be stripped of the gold medal she won in Berlin last month and her competitive future is in limbo, according to Australia's Daily Telegraph.

The athletics governing body is also expected to advise her to have surgery to fix the potentially deadly condition, the paper reported. The IAAF would not comment on the results that have yet to be released.

According to a source with knowledge of the IAAF tests, Semenya has internal testes - the male sexual organs that produce testosterone.

Testosterone is a hormone responsible for building muscles and for producing body hair and a deep voice.

Confirmation of the test results is sure to stoke the controversy that erupted after the university student's sensational track triumph.

She has been embraced in her home country - where she was declared "our girl" - and appeared on a magazine cover after a feminine makeover.

"God made me the way I am and I accept myself. I am who I am and I'm proud of myself," she told You Magazine, which ran a photo spread.

"I don't want to talk about the tests. I'm not even thinking about them."

[email protected]



Read more: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I can see how she passed for a woman for 19 yrs., no danglies
but is it fair to ban her from all sports ? Because she cannot compete as a man and they're trying to ban her as a woman, where would that leave her ?

 

[CrispyDelicious]

I agree with the last part you are saying, I think that may well be the answer. But (and this is what the Caster issued raised in my mind), the issue with the male female divide seems to be on the assumption (and probably correct) that in a given sport, males on average have a competitive advantage over females which is genetic. Now its possible (as you note) that this competitive advantage could be found along racial lines for any given sport (and I think there is good evidence to support his in some sports). But, race is quite a hot topic issue. Once that is just as genetic as male vs female is height. There are clearly some sports where height places the athelete at an advantage (whether it be being short (ie football) or tall (track and field)). So why accept the male / female genetic divide without short / tall (again - for example)? I think yoru argument for why we should have a male / female dviide can be applied equally to why we should have a short / tall divide for certain sports (but for some reason, this seems absurd).

I don't think it applies equally.

Like it has been stated previously, there are many, many aspects of physicality that make some people excel at certain sports. We don't separate tall from short people in one competition(basketball, for example), because the shorter people who can't succeed in basketball can excel in a different sport (like soccer.... I mean, football ), much in the same way we accept that whites make excellent swimmers and asians make excellent technical gymnasts. Everyone still has a chance to succeed somewhere, within their sex. In other words, we accept that regardless of your genetic makeup, you still have the opportunity to excel in some area.

This is very different from the male/female comparison, in which - due to genetics - across the board women do not preform at the same level as men, regardless of the sport. Hence the need for separate competitions.

So you see, the tall/short, black/white/asian differences only result in affinities to certain types of preformance, which balance out across the different sports, wheras the male/famale divide ends in a consistently one-sided result.

This is the same reason we have handicapped sports as well. These people, despite their natural affinities, will always be preforming at a level that is not equal to that of non-disabled people.

 

[DeluxeRed]

Isn't the determination a bit more cut-and-dried? I mean, doesn't the presence of a Y chromosome mean Male? Whether it actually works or not isn't important--if it is there, you are (potentially) a male; if it is not, you cannot be. Feeling "it" up isn't going to tell you anything--what if they're post-op, instead, or, as well?

Discrimination has been around in sports since the beginning. We don't let superheavyweight wrestlers pound the little guys, or black belts beat up the yellows. The athletes are interested in Head To Head competion, not lopsided exhibitions. But we also don't discriminate against the superheavyweights because they have a gene that changed how much HGH they have, or against the little guys because they don't have as much. You play with the hand that's dealt ya, no exceptions.

And get over the "moral" thing. ALL athletic competions are arbritary concoctions put on by one group or another and you can play or you can walk. There is no moral issue here. The organizers can put together whatever rules they want, and you can take it or leave it. Even sanction or recognition is still arbritary and artificial. If the "world's fastest man" is using track spikes, does that make it more legit than the barefoot record? How about a record using spring blades? They're just fancier shoes, with more spring than a rubber sole. It's ALL straw.

(Thanks for coming up with something to discuss today; it's pretty slow here...)

 

[Chebass88]

Here is the data from the Berlin meet that is being discussed (obtained from [Invalid or Expired Link Removed])

For comparison, here are the 800m results.

MEN's 800m (finals)
1 Mbulaeni Mulaudzi (Rsa) 1min 45.29sec
2 Alfred Kirwa Yego (Ken) 1:45.35
3 Yusuf Saad Kamel (Brn) 1:45.35
4 Yuriy Borzakovskiy (Rus) 1:45.57
5 Amine Laalou (Mor) 1:45.66
6 Nick Symmonds (USA) 1:45.71
7 Bram Som (Hol) 1:45.86
8 Marcin Lewandowski (Pol) 1:46.17
9 Jackson Mumbwa Kivuva (Ken) 1:46.39
10 Yeimer Lopez (Cub) 1:47.80

WOMEN'S 800m (finals)
1 Caster Semenya (Rsa) 1min 55.45secs (WL)
2 Janeth Jepkosgei Busienei (Ken) 1:57.90 (SB)
3 Jennifer Meadows (Gbr) 1:57.93 (PB)
4 Yuliya Krevsun (Ukr) 1:58.00 (SB)
5 Mariya Savinova (Rus) 1:58.68
6 Elisa Cusma Piccione (Ita) 1:58.81 (SB)
7 Mayte Martinez (Spa) 1:58.81 (SB)
8 Marilyn Okoro (Gbr) 2:00.32

So, looking at these results, where is this competitive advantage? If she were to compete in the Men's division, with the removal of the categories, Semenya would not have even placed in the finals. Nor in the semi-finals (not included here for sake of brevity). She runs faster than other women, but no where near as fast as the men.

For true equality, open the competition. As mentioned previously, the times will demonstrate the fastest runners. If the fields were combined (male + female), there would be no women in the top, abnormal testosterone levels or not. No, it is not time to remove this distinction, as there would be no representation of half the species.

Put in other terms, does Michael Phelps have an unfair competitive advantage because of his arm length / palm width (the newscasters / olympic talking heads made a huge deal out of this during the Olympics)? Would it be more 'fair' to the other competitors to remove MP from the heat, as they do not have that same biomechanical build? Where does the classification stop?

ian

P.S. Reading this story & looking up the times has inspired me. My best 400m time is 1:13. There is always room for improvement!

 

[illidian]

If you want to allow men to compete in women's track and field, then sign me up! You may see me win a medal in London!

As for Caster, I respect her 100% as a human being and feel empathy for her in this difficult situation. But in fairness to not just all the women competing now and against her in Berlin, but to all female track and field athletes before her and yet to come, if indeed she failed these gender tests she cannot be allowed to compete with the women in an IAAF sanctioned event.

 

[illidian]

So, looking at these results, where is this competitive advantage? If she were to compete in the Men's division, with the removal of the categories, Semenya would not have even placed in the finals. Nor in the semi-finals (not included here for sake of brevity). She runs faster than other women, but no where near as fast as the men.

To be more clear about this, I'll remind everyone that there are qualification standards (times) for the World Championships. Caster would not just have missed the finals or semi-finals, but would not have qualified for the event at all.

She has displayed marked improvement over the last year, very similar to what many male high schoolers go through in their junior or senior years. The way she runs, her form if you will, is significantly more similar to that of men's than women's (typically). If she is allowed to compete, it would not be unheard of for her to run significantly faster than she already has and potentially put a black mark on the world records in several events.