Brojos calling Melissa Bishop the "Top XX Runner in the World in 2016" is true, but childish

Not An Expert wrote:

No offense but wrote:

No offense but have you been living under a rock? The rules have been adequately explained in recent news if you do a minimal amount of research.

“These doubts” proposed their own set of “common-sense” criteria as if they were the solution whether the science is solid or not, and without any consideration for implementation. I’m supposed to intuit their full intent?

Also, yeah, I’ve been paying attention. And quite a few people with far more sports science chops than I have don’t think this case was correctly resolved. Ross Tucker, for one, has been pretty vocal in his opposition to this decision.

No rules are perfect and they will never satisfy everyone. Almost everyone believes the new rules are a step in the right direction and Ross Tucker (who has a pro-SA bias) is in the great minority.

GD wrote:

I also know enough about gender studies and queer theory to recognize that a vocal contingency of trans activists believe that sex differences are socially constructed--i.e. they believe that male and female are not binary categories rooted in nature, rather, these categories are an effect of historical power relations rooted in patriarchy. Such activists believe that we need to deconstruct and overthrow these power relations.

Ummm... human sex is NOT binary. What do you think "intersex" is? As long as we pretend that human sex is binary, we will never get to a solution to this problem.

If sex is binary and you decide that Semenya is a woman, then there is no reason to exclude her from the women's competition. If sex is binary, the only way to exclude Semenya from the women's competition is to declare her a "man." That's what the bigots on this board are doing. And the only thing it does is to give more ammunition to SJWs who insist that Semenya should be allowed to compete as a woman.

The only way Semenya could be restricted from the women's competition without calling her a "man" is to accept the uncomfortable TRUTH that human sex is NOT binary, and there are people who are not strictly male or female. And what division those people compete in should be determined by science and not by their self identity.

Jesus. The story that you are quoting is NOT ABOUT CASTER SEMENYA. It doesn't even mention that issue once. But you just couldn't let the story be the story. You felt that the author should have made the story about how much Melissa Bishop has lost at the hands of intersex athletes. So you quoted the article to give yourself an opening, and then you added a caption about how she was the fastest XX runner.

Question: Do you think the author of the original article was negligent in not calling Melissa Bishop the fastest XX runner? Why do you think the author did not include that?

OP here. I just want to reiterate that I'm not arguing about the science or whether this ruling was right or wrong. While I have issues with the way they justified their ruling, I think it was a legitimate effort to protect the legitimacy and fairness of female races. I don't agree with Rojo's rhetoric, but I generally agree with his opinion on this issue.

That said, my concern is with basic journalistic standards and decency. I know this site has never been a bastion of either of those things, but sometimes it feels like the Breitbart of running news.

Not An Expert wrote:

No offense but wrote:

No offense but have you been living under a rock? The rules have been adequately explained in recent news if you do a minimal amount of research.

“These doubts” proposed their own set of “common-sense” criteria as if they were the solution whether the science is solid or not, and without any consideration for implementation. I’m supposed to intuit their full intent?

Also, yeah, I’ve been paying attention. And quite a few people with far more sports science chops than I have don’t think this case was correctly resolved. Ross Tucker, for one, has been pretty vocal in his opposition to this decision.

_______________________

Actually, you have overlooked a lot of discussion about implementation. To answer your questions:

Who determines whether someone is suspected to be non-XX and requires chromosome testing?

Standard anti-doping testing easily detects the very high levels of testosterone levels found in people who have XY

chromocomes and intersex conditions. These levels of T are sufficiently high that they do not overlap with biological

females. People with exceptionally high levels of T can be selected for further testing.

What events?

The IAAF currently applies the rules to specific events, as you probably know. The rules seem to stem from the Bermon

study, which is statistically flawed because it does not include the data required to detect a difference between XY, high

T runners and normal T, XX runners even if the difference does exist. Interestingly, the IAAF does not seem to have

employed a professional statistician to evaluate the current evidence. This is perplexing because most of their

arguments hinge on the correct interpretation of statistical tests.

How ironic.

I posted a message on this thread defending the Brojos yesterday, and my message was removed.

Honest suggestion for rojo: Ask your colleague Jonathan Gault (who actually has a journalism degree, I believe) if he would ever use that caption for that quote.

No, I haven’t missed those discussions, but those proposals don’t accomplish what “These Doubts” (or, I think, many of us) want them to. (Nor were they proposed by “These Doubts.” There were no corollaries in that very short post.)

Using high T as a filter for chromosome testing doesn’t work, as we saw in this unfortunate and high-profile case decades ago:

That’s basically just testing for high T, which, if that’s what you want to do, fine, have the science to back it up. But as you noted yourself, the IAAF didn’t use good science, or at least, good statistical analysis of the science, in its CAS case. That a ruling still came in its favor despite the IAAF not adequately statistically proving it’s case is the kind of shortcut in justice that we should all be worried about, as it opens up the door to future rulings (be they similarly exclusionary or bad in other ways) based on what we think *should* be true rather than facts and science.

I apologize to the OP for going down this rabbit hole. I agree that the callousness of the editorializing in the QOTD attribution is a different discussion than the process behind the outcome of the ruling, and is worth discussing in its own right.

Not An Expert wrote:

Using high T as a filter for chromosome testing doesn’t work, as we saw in this unfortunate and high-profile case decades ago:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_José_Mart%C3%ADnez-Patiño

.

Many people on this board seem to believe that Martinez-Patino should have never been allowed to compete against women, and for that matter should have been declared a "man" in order to exclude her from the women's competition. They are proud to be decades behind the science.

Calling Bishop a "top XX runner" basically emboldens their ignorance.

Way to double down on the childishness.

"Wahhhhhhhh. The world is so unfair to me!!!!!!"

Thvcjihfhjfknf wrote:

Do the brojos even know if Bishop is XX or are they just assuming because she is more feminine?

Are you blind?

_________________

You have this wrong, in terms of what the "bad" science does and does not show. The Bermon study actually bolsters the IAAF case for testosterone rules because it found a significant effect for testosterone in some events, despite having a very low number of observations of women with very high testosterone in these events. This means that the effect size was so large that it could be detected with a very small sample size. Usually, when studies have too few of one group of people, the scientific error is one of failing to detect a difference even when it does exist.

The IAAF has an ethical obligation to develop fair policies. This means using the best scientific evidence available. The best evidence available suggests that XY, intersex athletes with very high levels of testosterone (and whose bodies respond to that testosterone by androgenizing) have a non-negligible competitive advantage over XX females with T levels in the normal female range. Martinez-Patino would not be impacted by the current rules because her body did not androgenize in response to high testosterone. Note that the policies have changed (improved) as we learn more about science.

I'm, frankly, tired of the hullabaloo around the invasiveness of "gender verification tests." Sure, intersex athletes are raked over the coals by an ignorant public (and medical professionals, especially in the past). This does not mean that all efforts to draw a line around the women's category are unjust. High level athletes are subject to invasive tests all the time. Even random urine screens involve having somebody watch you pee.

Tim tam wrote:

Thvcjihfhjfknf wrote:

Do the brojos even know if Bishop is XX or are they just assuming because she is more feminine?

Well she is white...so that's probably good enough for the Brojos

Yeah. That's it.

The fact that she GAVE BIRTH a few months ago doesn't mean anything, does it? The whole article was about how she's on the comeback trail from pregnancy.

Actually, the fact that my critics are asking me if she is XX proves how stupid the people arguing against me are. They are arguing on emotion, not fact. SHE GAVE BIRTH.

Can we stop with the racism crap? Ajee Wilson - a black woman - stands to gain the most.

The reality is some intersex XY athletes have FATHERED children. None have ever given birth.

rojo wrote:

The reality is some intersex XY athletes have FATHERED children. None have ever given birth.

Okay, this woman is not an athlete. But she did give birth.

GD wrote:

You have this wrong, in terms of what the "bad" science does and does not show. The Bermon study actually bolsters the IAAF case for testosterone rules because it found a significant effect for testosterone in some events, despite having a very low number of observations of women with very high testosterone in these events. This means that the effect size was so large that it could be detected with a very small sample size. Usually, when studies have too few of one group of people, the scientific error is one of failing to detect a difference even when it does exist.

There are significant criticisms that undermine the credibility of the entire study. Here are just two (there are plenty more if you look):

I 100% agree that “the IAAF has an ethical obligation to develop fair policies” and that “This means using the best scientific evidence available.” Which is why we need new science done correctly before issuing regulations—because the science that was used to justify these regulations was so flawed that it undermines the credibility of the regulations it props up.

Neither the OP, nor I, nor anyone else in this thread (or anywhere that I’ve seen, I think?) have said “all efforts to draw a line around the women’s category are unjust.” But, to quote Ross Tucker on the issue, “We cannot do ‘the right thing’ in the wrong way.” This has been the wrong way.

Also, and I’m not trying to say this to be a d*ck but I think it’s important to point out, that you’re “so tired of the hullabaloo” around any aspect of this discussion is irrelevant. Your privilege allows you to put this issue aside when you want to (mine does, too); I recommend that you avail yourself of that option if you ever again find yourself tired of facts germane to it (such as “the invasiveness of ‘gender verification tests’” or how “intersex athletes are raked over the coals”). There are people who have to live this and don’t have that option; do them the courtesy of leaving the discussion to those who care more about it when your contribution includes, in so many words, “I’m tired of talking of this and so I’ll be dismissive about things that have a major effect on the affected parties lives right now.”

GD wrote:

Martinez-Patino would not be impacted by the current rules because her body did not androgenize in response to high testosterone.

Which is part of my point. “XX is the metric” guy isn’t on your side (or any sensible one).

GD wrote:

This does not mean that all efforts to draw a line around the women's category are unjust.

This is a straw man. Neither the OP, nor I, nor (I think?) anyone has said that about this issue. Protecting a female division in athletics is important. Which makes it all the more important that we do it right.

Your thoughtful, rational position has no place here. For this is the internet in 2019, the age and domain of porn and cats and trolls and uncivility.

Be gone, thinker.

Agree. I cant understand how people are not thinking the same.

CAS should not be involved at all in this issue they are not experts.

The science is just that, science, in and of itself is meaningless to the question, CAS set up artificial hurdles they know nothing about, Ross Tucker fell right in line.

The IAAF are the subject matter experts in track and Field and should allowed to determine how to manage the intersection between scientific findings, administrative realities, competitive fairness, spectator interest and the implementation of policy and rules for the sport of track and field without interference from "judges" who lack any sport specific knowledge, CAS should only exist to determine if rules, as written are being procedurally followed, not creating their own rules or setting up the parameters for how the IAAF does there bussiness.