has anyone seen this yet?? He makes some pretty good points..
has anyone seen this yet?? He makes some pretty good points..
Please summarize. Don't want to watch his video.
He supports people being who they are. He says sport must be fair. Do away with Men and Women classifications. Just have XX and XY classifications.
Sorry, but we've been there before, and chromosome tests were thrown out years ago.
A better solution than Nick's would be to have only one category, "open." Totally fair to all. Sorry about women's sports, though, no one seems to be advocating for you. Even women's HS & college coaches seem to be blissfully unaware of what's going on here, and do not realize that their category of track may be facing extinction.
If the sex rules are left loosey goosey as they are now, and the women's category is not eliminated, then HS boys will be breaking all of the women's WRs.
I hope that CAS will allow a return of the IAAF rules to something approaching sanity.
Nix n nick wrote:
Please summarize. Don't want to watch his video.
We loved Nick's video. It takes guts to go out in public on this matter but what he says is common sense. If you are looking for a cliff notes version, go to the front page as we've made it the QOD. It's cued to play at the 3:03 mark. He does a nice summary in 60 seconds.
But basically he says in this day and age, people identify all sorts of different ways so let's get rid of the antiquated terms like men and women and have sport for xx and xy.
https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/885672033400573953Absurd. The world get stranger by the day.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Absurd. The world get stranger by the day.
how is this strange to you? its like every generation tackles sociological problems that seem odd to older generations. what else should we do about this issue? caster just wants to compete, she's a competitor. unfortunately theres a dilemma in that she has a biological advantage over other women, so it's a tricky situation. what do you suggest we do? just ignore it?
What about XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XO individuals, among others?
You will find that most XY individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome look phenotypically female. They will not want to compete as men. I would apply the Ted Haydon rule to this situation; does Nick Symmonds' proposal cause MORE people to compete or FEWER people to compete? I think it would cut competition opportunities a lot a marginalize people more. I think that this whole controversy is driven by fearful antipathy toward Caster Semenya.
Fair to Caster? What about the dozens it is unfair to? That is the reality of the world you envision.
how ?? wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Absurd. The world get stranger by the day.
how is this strange to you? its like every generation tackles sociological problems that seem odd to older generations. what else should we do about this issue? caster just wants to compete, she's a competitor. unfortunately theres a dilemma in that she has a biological advantage over other women, so it's a tricky situation. what do you suggest we do? just ignore it?
Nick Symmonds, thank you! I take back everything I ever said about you.
The problem is that you can have XX chromosomes but still have testosterone levels of a man due to other endrocrine abnormalities that are of no fault to the person who has them, but still confer an unfair advantage. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia
how ?? wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Absurd. The world get stranger by the day.
how is this strange to you? its like every generation tackles sociological problems that seem odd to older generations. what else should we do about this issue? caster just wants to compete, she's a competitor. unfortunately theres a dilemma in that she has a biological advantage over other women, so it's a tricky situation. what do you suggest we do? just ignore it?
baseline testosterone production in men is a bell curve....should we test everyone's T levels at the beginning of the season and have LO-MID-HI divisions to make everything fair? men with higher levels of natural T have an advantage over their counterparts, right?
same could apply for women.
Dozens? Try MILLIONS.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Fair to Caster? What about the dozens it is unfair to?
That is the reality of the world you envision.
how ?? wrote:how is this strange to you? its like every generation tackles sociological problems that seem odd to older generations. what else should we do about this issue? caster just wants to compete, she's a competitor. unfortunately theres a dilemma in that she has a biological advantage over other women, so it's a tricky situation. what do you suggest we do? just ignore it?
It's probably too complex to take just one characteristic, even one as basic as chromosomes. Not only are there the variations on xx/xy but the hormonal abnormalities within each. So, you probably have to fit a few categories to compete in the women's events, and the remainder can compete in the open.
Testosterone levels are the most obvious, but then men with lower testosterone may well be able to go very fast anyway and it may or may not be the case that androgen insensitivity leaves xxy or the like, with high testosterone, better than most other women anyway.
I like testosterone rules because I speculate they may help lead to some fairly objective rules about who gets tested. That is, I think there may be the best correlation to observable physical characteristics.
Deciding who gets tested may, I fear, be a very sensitive subject, so if we can come up with some set of rules that seem to be objective, it might help.
Joseph Kenny wrote:
What about XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XO individuals, among others?
You will find that most XY individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome look phenotypically female. They will not want to compete as men. I would apply the Ted Haydon rule to this situation; does Nick Symmonds' proposal cause MORE people to compete or FEWER people to compete? I think it would cut competition opportunities a lot a marginalize people more. I think that this whole controversy is driven by fearful antipathy toward Caster Semenya.
Oh brother, the XX vs XY takes care of 99.99% of all issues, and should be the main basis for the rule. But you could add the below to make things even simpler and remove all outliers:
XX = must be strictly XX AND have no testes
XY = everybody else (XY, XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XO)
"I don't have all the answers"
Except he pretty much does have all the answers but apologizes for it.
It is so simply it's is unbelievable.
I warned people stuff like this would happen when the gay marriage was passed. Anything goes now.
The only reason this is a issue is because people are trying to be too politically correct. Some people are ignoring the facts in order to turn this into a feel good story and as a result are ruining the sport.
Historically, the chromosome-based test was dropped for a combination of being "unreliable", scientifically inexact vis-a-vis performance (cf. whether the XY advantage could be used), and probably some social forces for not giving the "correct" results that various (early) gender advocates desired.
However, one notable argument (or strand beneath many arguments) that was made to dislodge chromosome-based testing was that it wasn't a perfect test, whereas in 2010 CAS rejected a similar argument contra the ABP when it was introduced, saying that it only needed to be "reliable", not perfect.
OTOH, the Chand case seems to have brought CAS to more looking at performance in the context of sex divisions (again from social pressures IMO), with the logical conclusion being that anyone can identify as "female" as long as they don't have the full 10-15% advantage a male would ahve.