Khelif and another boxer, featherweight Lin Yu-Ting of Chinese Taipei, have been fighting under a cloud in France after the Algerian’s opening victory over Angela Carini, who quit after 46 seconds.
All Olympians are genetic outliers. Do you really want to be the DNA police? Then every Michael Phelps medal should be returned because that man is naturally different from the rest of us. But he’s a man so we’re not talking about him.
Was it him or Lance Armstrong that ended up getting caught doping? Pretty sure it was the latter, but also recall Phelps getting accused of something. If could’ve even been something irrelevant like marijuana.
Seriously. Phelps is pretty much genetically ideal for a swimmer, but nobody claimed it was “UnfAiR!!” when he swept the board multiple olympics in a row, garnering more gold medals than anyone in history, before or since.
One female boxer looks a bit “too” muscular and the bigots are up in arms. Fucking assholes.
I actually encountered someone a couple of days ago herr on Lemmy that said it was unfair of Phelps to compete because he was too genetically superior. It was bizarre. Course it was on a thread about Phelps criticizing Chinese athletes who were doping so I imagine it was just a tankie trying his best.
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
She doesn’t. Phelps when he was 15 made a time 9 seconds slower than the record established during these Olympic games (although in 25m pool) by Ledecky in the 1500m. He, still at 15, swam 5 seconds faster than the 800m time Katie Ledecky just did in this Olympics (although in 25m pool), only 2 seconds slower than the record she established in 2016. See this.
Despite Phelps being a completely different athlete, not training for it, it’s quite reasonable to assume that once he was not a teenager anymore he could easily beat Katie (especially since long distance swimming requires maturity and experience to dose energy etc.). I think this reinforces the obvious fact that men do have advantages, and I really don’t see the point of trying to deny it.
If you want even more info, look at juniors (under 18) records:
for 1500m a 16 years old swam more than 30seconds faster than Ledecky’s record.
for 800m another 16 years old swam more than 20seconds faster than Ledecky’s record.
What do you mean source? I have literally posted you a page with the times and compared to the world records she established.
The only example your article shows where she swims faster is the table at the bottom. If you look closer, you will see that for the 800 and 1500 freestyle, the times are exactly the ones in the link I shared. These times compare the world records she did, with a time Phelps did when he was 15 in 2001! The only difference with what I shared is that they took the short course time for the 800, while I used as a reference the long course.
The other which is lower is the 400m freestyle. I didn’t quote this, but this is from the same competition in 2001, still when Phelps was 15!
None of these competitions are what Phelps actually swam in his professional career, and how does it make sense to compare times in your peak athletic age (usually mid-20s) vs one-time races from when Phelps was in Junior category?
If you open the link I shared, you will see that he literally has 1 entry for 1500m, 800m and 400m, all from FINA Swimming World Cup 2000-2001, which is probably before he even specialized. Everything above 400m in swimming is considered long distance, and he is a sprinter instead.
The article you cite is making a point, which is the relative superiority of Katie Ledecky compared to peers, which is fair. When it then talks about swimming speed it turns into complete garbage, because it takes garbage data.
I have genuinely no idea what are you trying to prove, I have showed you with numbers that Katie Ledecky’s records are tens of seconds behind even what Juniors do in men’s category, once you take athletes that practice the same discipline (long distance swimmers).
Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn’t even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?
Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.
She’s obviously the greatest American gymnast of all time. I don’t know if you can go much further than that. Larisa Latynina makes it rather hard to win the argument for greatest gymnast of all time let alone greatest Olympic athlete.
I mean, there’s about 15 different news articles all explaining why Biles is the greatest athlete. There’s absolutely none for the person you listed, who has more Olympic metals but not a harder routine or more worldwide medals.
This is honestly an argument that I find very weak. I mean absolutely there are plenty of genetic advantages in general in sport. The problem is that not all sports have categories to isolate competitions for certain parameters. Swimming does not, so you could argue that is unfair by default, but that’s what it is right now. Fighting sports generally do have categories, both gender and weight.
If we leave alone gender, if someone had some condition (let’s imagine something that doesn’t exist) that would result in having muscle mass common for a 80Kg, but in a 70Kg body, that person would probably have an unfair advantage in the 70Kg category because weight is a proxy for muscle mass as well.
The only reasonable argument here is that the boxer, even if she has some genetic condition, still tested within the limits for female boxers. That is pretty much it, which means that whatever condition she has (if any), it’s not considered an advantage in the female category according to current standards.
What’s interesting is Katie Ledecky can beat him on long distance swims, if we go by their times. So how much of an advantage is gender in many sports at this level? And let’s look at disability - Usain Bolt had/has scoliosis, Ledecky has POTS, and many other athletes have “disabiling” conditions. So why would intersex get a special category that isn’t allowed? It’s just transphobia.
Looking at the other comments, you are clearly not here to discuss, but I will make a good faith attempt and play devil’s advocate.
The difference between intersex and other conditions you mentioned is that it blurs the lines of a specific set of parameters that are specifically used to create categories between sports. Men and women are not fighting each other for more than anagraphic reasons (I hope we can all agree on this), and if a condition invalidates that distinction (I.e. gives some advantages that men have over a women), then it breaks the boundary of such categories in a similar way as it would be having someone from a heavier category fight in a lighter one (BTW, this is routinely done by having athletes go in terrible dehydration regimes).
Now this has nothing to do with this specific case, as there is no any objective proof for any of this, nor that she is intersex nor that she does have any advantage, but it’s purely a way to frame the answer to the question “what’s the difference between having scoliosis and being intersex”.
The thing is, other hormones can give advantages too. That people put so much stock into testosterone alone is bad science. That intersex conditions that involve testosterone are so hated is transphobia. Women should be in their neat little boxes and men in theirs and any anatomy that changes that is taboo and should be banned. Like where should an intersex fighter compete? If this woman was intersex and had LOCAH or PCOS or other conditions, should she not be allowed in any division of Olympics?
Why don’t we have testosterone classes instead of (or in addition to) weight classes, if it matters so much? All athletes with the same level of testosterone can compete, just like athletes that weigh the same compete against each other. Why dont we organize it that way instead? Isn’t that more exact and fair?
I didn’t mention testosterone at all. I am not a specialist and I mostly don’t care about the details. I specifically talked in functional terms: if whatever condition gives you some advantages that men have, then it breaks the categories that are established. In this way, that condition would be different from -say- having huge feet like Phelps, even if they give you an advantage, because there are no categories based on foot size in swimming.
Everything else is an interesting hypothetical discussion, and maybe one day categories will be based on more parameters. Fact is, today they are like this, rough and using proxies such as gender and weight to make fights that are more-or-less fair.
Well, everyone else here is specifically talking about testosterone. That’s the “problematic” chemical. It’s relevant because it’s a normal endogenous chemical we make and some women naturally make more. It can help with more muscle mass and bone density. That it’s testosterone is entirely relevant.
That’s like speaking on Gaza and saying “it doesn’t matter where it is.” Like yes it absolutely matters. The context and specifics matter when discussing complicated topics.
All athletes that beat other athletes have a presumed physical advantage. A physical advantage isn’t an issue. It’s testosterone that’s the issue according to the people bitching about it.
A physical advantage isn’t an issue. It’s testosterone that’s the issue according to the people bitching about it.
No, it’s a physical advantages that derive from a condition that renders certain parameters (whatever they are) similar to stronger categories (in this case, men).
If it’s just testosterone or a combination of hormones and other things it doesn’t matter in the perspective of the discussion I was trying to have (which answered your question, by the way)…
So why would intersex get a special category that isn’t allowed?
I’ve already provided multiple examples where the physical advantages, resulting from a neurochemical anomaly, exist and no one had an issue. Why is testosterone special? And if testosterone ISN’T special, then why aren’t they testing for other enodgenous neurochemicals like lactic acid and banning based on that? Why doesn’t this group of lactic acid anomalies get kicked out and refused placement?
But that’s literally every condition. Thats everything a top physical athlete has - their entire physique is a physical advantage over others. How is it different than say, Michael Phelps producing less lactic acid which allows him to have greater endurance? Why is lactic acid okay to be different with, but not testosterone? Both are genetic abnormalities that confer an advantage.
The reason is that they can’t be transphobic about lactic acid.
So why men and women should compete separately?
If you think they don’t, then fine.
If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is “because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women”. What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.
Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don’t think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it’s a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.
I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production.
Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.
You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it’s what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn’t make the rules and frankly I don’t care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it’s a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.
All Olympians are genetic outliers. Do you really want to be the DNA police? Then every Michael Phelps medal should be returned because that man is naturally different from the rest of us. But he’s a man so we’re not talking about him.
https://www.biography.com/athletes/michael-phelp-perfect-body-swimming
Was it him or Lance Armstrong that ended up getting caught doping? Pretty sure it was the latter, but also recall Phelps getting accused of something. If could’ve even been something irrelevant like marijuana.
Agree with your point, though.
Lance Was the one that got accu of doping. He never got caught. Just didn’t contest charges by the anti doping agency after he retired anyway.
But also, everyone seems to do it in cycling.
I’m pretty sure he was caught. Like proven. It’s just they caught like virtually every other cyclist in that same race.
It was so bad that there are 6 Tours De France without winners because he and so many people behind him were all disqualified.
It was pot for Phelps
And poor Sha’Carri
Seriously. Phelps is pretty much genetically ideal for a swimmer, but nobody claimed it was “UnfAiR!!” when he swept the board multiple olympics in a row, garnering more gold medals than anyone in history, before or since.
One female boxer looks a bit “too” muscular and the bigots are up in arms. Fucking assholes.
I actually encountered someone a couple of days ago herr on Lemmy that said it was unfair of Phelps to compete because he was too genetically superior. It was bizarre. Course it was on a thread about Phelps criticizing Chinese athletes who were doping so I imagine it was just a tankie trying his best.
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
She doesn’t. Phelps when he was 15 made a time 9 seconds slower than the record established during these Olympic games (although in 25m pool) by Ledecky in the 1500m. He, still at 15, swam 5 seconds faster than the 800m time Katie Ledecky just did in this Olympics (although in 25m pool), only 2 seconds slower than the record she established in 2016. See this.
Despite Phelps being a completely different athlete, not training for it, it’s quite reasonable to assume that once he was not a teenager anymore he could easily beat Katie (especially since long distance swimming requires maturity and experience to dose energy etc.). I think this reinforces the obvious fact that men do have advantages, and I really don’t see the point of trying to deny it.
If you want even more info, look at juniors (under 18) records:
Source? According to this article, you’re wrong:
https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
What do you mean source? I have literally posted you a page with the times and compared to the world records she established.
The only example your article shows where she swims faster is the table at the bottom. If you look closer, you will see that for the 800 and 1500 freestyle, the times are exactly the ones in the link I shared. These times compare the world records she did, with a time Phelps did when he was 15 in 2001! The only difference with what I shared is that they took the short course time for the 800, while I used as a reference the long course. The other which is lower is the 400m freestyle. I didn’t quote this, but this is from the same competition in 2001, still when Phelps was 15! None of these competitions are what Phelps actually swam in his professional career, and how does it make sense to compare times in your peak athletic age (usually mid-20s) vs one-time races from when Phelps was in Junior category?
If you open the link I shared, you will see that he literally has 1 entry for 1500m, 800m and 400m, all from FINA Swimming World Cup 2000-2001, which is probably before he even specialized. Everything above 400m in swimming is considered long distance, and he is a sprinter instead.
The article you cite is making a point, which is the relative superiority of Katie Ledecky compared to peers, which is fair. When it then talks about swimming speed it turns into complete garbage, because it takes garbage data. I have genuinely no idea what are you trying to prove, I have showed you with numbers that Katie Ledecky’s records are tens of seconds behind even what Juniors do in men’s category, once you take athletes that practice the same discipline (long distance swimmers).
I hope this is enough source for you…
So your source and my source both agree that Katie Ledecky beats him on 800m and 1500m?
Are you in bad faith?
Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn’t even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?
Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.
She’s obviously the greatest American gymnast of all time. I don’t know if you can go much further than that. Larisa Latynina makes it rather hard to win the argument for greatest gymnast of all time let alone greatest Olympic athlete.
Agree to disagree
So not all that arguable after all I guess.
I mean, there’s about 15 different news articles all explaining why Biles is the greatest athlete. There’s absolutely none for the person you listed, who has more Olympic metals but not a harder routine or more worldwide medals.
And Khelif lost plenty of bouts in her career, but somehow, those aren’t relevant because, “I know a man when I see one.”
This is honestly an argument that I find very weak. I mean absolutely there are plenty of genetic advantages in general in sport. The problem is that not all sports have categories to isolate competitions for certain parameters. Swimming does not, so you could argue that is unfair by default, but that’s what it is right now. Fighting sports generally do have categories, both gender and weight.
If we leave alone gender, if someone had some condition (let’s imagine something that doesn’t exist) that would result in having muscle mass common for a 80Kg, but in a 70Kg body, that person would probably have an unfair advantage in the 70Kg category because weight is a proxy for muscle mass as well.
The only reasonable argument here is that the boxer, even if she has some genetic condition, still tested within the limits for female boxers. That is pretty much it, which means that whatever condition she has (if any), it’s not considered an advantage in the female category according to current standards.
What’s interesting is Katie Ledecky can beat him on long distance swims, if we go by their times. So how much of an advantage is gender in many sports at this level? And let’s look at disability - Usain Bolt had/has scoliosis, Ledecky has POTS, and many other athletes have “disabiling” conditions. So why would intersex get a special category that isn’t allowed? It’s just transphobia.
Looking at the other comments, you are clearly not here to discuss, but I will make a good faith attempt and play devil’s advocate.
The difference between intersex and other conditions you mentioned is that it blurs the lines of a specific set of parameters that are specifically used to create categories between sports. Men and women are not fighting each other for more than anagraphic reasons (I hope we can all agree on this), and if a condition invalidates that distinction (I.e. gives some advantages that men have over a women), then it breaks the boundary of such categories in a similar way as it would be having someone from a heavier category fight in a lighter one (BTW, this is routinely done by having athletes go in terrible dehydration regimes).
Now this has nothing to do with this specific case, as there is no any objective proof for any of this, nor that she is intersex nor that she does have any advantage, but it’s purely a way to frame the answer to the question “what’s the difference between having scoliosis and being intersex”.
The thing is, other hormones can give advantages too. That people put so much stock into testosterone alone is bad science. That intersex conditions that involve testosterone are so hated is transphobia. Women should be in their neat little boxes and men in theirs and any anatomy that changes that is taboo and should be banned. Like where should an intersex fighter compete? If this woman was intersex and had LOCAH or PCOS or other conditions, should she not be allowed in any division of Olympics?
Why don’t we have testosterone classes instead of (or in addition to) weight classes, if it matters so much? All athletes with the same level of testosterone can compete, just like athletes that weigh the same compete against each other. Why dont we organize it that way instead? Isn’t that more exact and fair?
I didn’t mention testosterone at all. I am not a specialist and I mostly don’t care about the details. I specifically talked in functional terms: if whatever condition gives you some advantages that men have, then it breaks the categories that are established. In this way, that condition would be different from -say- having huge feet like Phelps, even if they give you an advantage, because there are no categories based on foot size in swimming.
Everything else is an interesting hypothetical discussion, and maybe one day categories will be based on more parameters. Fact is, today they are like this, rough and using proxies such as gender and weight to make fights that are more-or-less fair.
Well, everyone else here is specifically talking about testosterone. That’s the “problematic” chemical. It’s relevant because it’s a normal endogenous chemical we make and some women naturally make more. It can help with more muscle mass and bone density. That it’s testosterone is entirely relevant.
That’s like speaking on Gaza and saying “it doesn’t matter where it is.” Like yes it absolutely matters. The context and specifics matter when discussing complicated topics.
All athletes that beat other athletes have a presumed physical advantage. A physical advantage isn’t an issue. It’s testosterone that’s the issue according to the people bitching about it.
No, it’s a physical advantages that derive from a condition that renders certain parameters (whatever they are) similar to stronger categories (in this case, men).
If it’s just testosterone or a combination of hormones and other things it doesn’t matter in the perspective of the discussion I was trying to have (which answered your question, by the way)…
I’ve already provided multiple examples where the physical advantages, resulting from a neurochemical anomaly, exist and no one had an issue. Why is testosterone special? And if testosterone ISN’T special, then why aren’t they testing for other enodgenous neurochemicals like lactic acid and banning based on that? Why doesn’t this group of lactic acid anomalies get kicked out and refused placement?
Again, it’s transphobia.
You are arguing a point I specifically didn’t make. So I don’t know what to answer you, since none of it has to do with my actual opinion.
But that’s literally every condition. Thats everything a top physical athlete has - their entire physique is a physical advantage over others. How is it different than say, Michael Phelps producing less lactic acid which allows him to have greater endurance? Why is lactic acid okay to be different with, but not testosterone? Both are genetic abnormalities that confer an advantage.
The reason is that they can’t be transphobic about lactic acid.
So why men and women should compete separately? If you think they don’t, then fine. If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is “because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women”. What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.
Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don’t think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it’s a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.
I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production. Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.
You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it’s what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn’t make the rules and frankly I don’t care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it’s a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.