Gender testing for track star

[compared2what?]

[quote:"Joe Hillshoist"]Couldn't comment on Semenya's alleged masculinity (tho her names a bit of a trigger)

Not necessarily, a lot black South African parents give their kids a more or less random English name as a second name, which is often the name they end up getting called at school. I work daily with a man in Joburg called Precious. The quote by the manager seems a lot more dodgy: “We entered Caster as a woman and we want to keep it that way”. Why not just say "Caster is a woman"?

gender roles, as represented by behaviors traditionally associated with chomosomal gender, aren't entirely cultural constructs, either. There's a wide and potentially infinite range of variety. And it's greatly influenced by environmental factors. But on average, there are some pretty enduring and consistent biological components as well.

I absolutely agree, which is why I was asking Penguin about what he'd posted, about 'gender assigned at birth'. I think the biological foundations of gender roles allow a certain amount of variation, but that boys are born with certain impulses and girls with certain others. I think this 'blank slate' way of looking at things is not only silly but can be harmful, as in the case of the hundreds of children who've been 'gender-reassigned' and for whom it may not have worked out.

Of course some children are born with or acquire very different impulses, and it's good that in a lot of places they are now free to live their lives as they wish.[/quote]

I'm relieved to hear it. Research subsequent to the story to which I linked would convince just about anyone of that truth. Which, seriously, should be easily perceptible without research. I mean, come on.

But I think you may have misconstrued the use of the term "gender assignment" in the text Penguin quoted from. It almost certainly doesn't imply random gender assignment. "Intersex" implies that they're talking about infants born with some combination of genetically male and genetically female genital tissues that might look much more like a boy's junk than a girl's junk (or vice versa), but which isn't necessarily a good enough indicator of neurobiological gender to know which "assignment" should be made in any definitive -- ie, surgically irreversible -- way. It used to be up to the doctor (and probably still is, sometimes) to chop 'em up to approximate boy- or girlness at some point in the first 24 months or so, with instructions to the parents to raise the child accordingly, while adhering to a strict policy of secrecy wrt ambiguous birth status.

That resulted in a lot of intensely miserable and confused children who knew perfectly well whether they were boys or girls (or in-between/both) even in the face of 100 per cent contradictory physical and social evidence. Nowadays, advances in what's surgically possible enable them to postpone drastic surgeries until the child can get some say on the matter.

Obviously, for immediate and practical purposes, you know, you've got to name and provisionally assign a gender to your baby in babyhood. But the "gender assignment" in that document probably means "determination of one or the other traditional gender made somewhat later on for social purposes in conjunction with the preference/orientation expressed by the children, even though strictly speaking, they may be more truly hermaphroditic than they are either male or female."

Read the story! You'll like it!

Although it's very, very sad. And even sadder than when it was published, as the subject killed himself several years later. The villain of the piece is a guy called Dr. John Money. Whose work was for decades, and in some regards still is, considered definitive in the area of pediatric psychosexuality. Alarmingly.

[Stephen Morgan]

Are they not?

of all of the misogynist/retarded things i've seen you say here, that has to be in the top five...

the answer is that it depends on the sport numbnuts.

edit:

[note: not removing any insults this time]

by which i meant, look up "gymnastics" on wiki...

Gymnastics is the one where certain events, like the rings, aren't open to women as they are physiologically incapable of performing them, yes? Obviously in the vast majority of sports male performance is superior, that's why the suspicion of this woman being a man is suspicion that she's cheating. That's why they have different events for men and women. This is a simple factual matter, and not something I would expect anyone to contest. Or, for that matter, to find offensive even if it were untrue, it's not like sport is an important matter. Other than football, of course. Even in dressage, which I will for the moment accept as a sport, the almost 50/50 split in the elite classes between men and women must be weighed against the fact that 98% of the participants in the sport as a whole are female. Anyway, I'll accept that it depends on the sport if you can find a sport in which women predominate.

[stefano]

You're right, I had misread Penguin's text. I thought "gender assigned at birth" was PC-code for "gender", implying a blank slate and all of that.

that truth. Which, seriously, should be easily perceptible without research. I mean, come on.

Well you'd think so but I got a whole new perspective on wilful stupidity studying philosophy. We did one course on gender studies, and there was a lot of "gender is just, like, a social construct" bullshit floating about.

[Penguin]

Ha, I was thinking of Maria Mutola yesterday reading this thread, she was also freakishly mannish. I suppose from time to time a woman with a more masculine metabolism is going to show up and do well in athletics, like Mutola and now Semenya.

Penguin, do you really think gender roles are wholly traditional constructs? "Assigned at birth"? They aren't, and the belief that they are ultimately springs from a conviction that humans are completely and utterly different from all other animals, which I know you don't share.

No, I don't think that (did I say so?)
I meant simply that people are usually treated as girls or boys from birth, except in the rare cases of them exhibiting signs of both sexes.
(overheard on metro train - small boy and grandma with grandmas friend "Its so wonderful that God has created boys and girls so boys know to play with cars and girls know to play home and with dolls even when theyre just 3!" - mmhm.)

I do think that there is more variation than just simple male/female as seen in our societies today. And that simply categorizing people as either or, we are doing injustice to many.

I may be misreading you. But gender roles, as represented by behaviors traditionally associated with chomosomal gender, aren't entirely cultural constructs, either. There's a wide and potentially infinite range of variety. And it's greatly influenced by environmental factors. But on average, there are some pretty enduring and consistent biological components as well.

I meant that our social constructs of gender are a bit arbitrary.

[barracuda]

Regarding Stephen's contentions above:
In as much as the sheer muscular power, size and strength of the participant is the overwhelming determining factor in the outcome of the successful performance, yes, that would be a valid argument. However, it's easy to class such activities as falling under the provenance of "battle simulations" or military troop training exercises which they were originally designed as in the context of the history of organized sporting "competition". They are male designed events created to exemplify and spotlight the penultimate abilities of men, and towards which women have worked to have a place in for the last eighty years or so (e.g., female gymnastics and track-and-field events were first held at the 1928 Games. As an indicator of just how socially biased the Olympic model is, due to the women's 800 metre run ending with several of the competitors being completely exhausted, running events for women longer than 200 metres were not included in the Olympics until the 1960s. Apparently exhaustion at the end of a footrace was seen as unbecoming the gentler sex until about forty years ago).


Halina Konopacka, first women's gold-medalist in the discus.




Gabriele Reinsch, current woman's record holder.

When the determinate factor for performance ability is athleticism then regarding male performance as superior becomes less viable. It makes no more sense to say that women are less athletic then men than it does to suppose that men are less graceful than women. It's much like the obsevation that in the western world men are historically considered better painters, which can probably only be explained by examining the gender roles permitted by western society. There is certainly nothing about the physical athleticism of hand-eye coordiation required for oil-painting which precludes one gender or another from becoming physically superior in its execution.

There are, though, a variety of athletically challenging and supremely difficult activities, such as the ballet, in which the distinctions of mere strength are negated by the requirements of the grace of the participant, and in these types of activities, women are on par or superior to men in their abilities. Singing, for another example, is an activity in which the finest voices have usually been considered to be the female ones, to the extent that men used to cut off their testicles to preserve the range considered to be the most beautiful, a procedure which some might consider "cheating". But such distinctions of superior and inferior are, in these examples, more obviously imposed by taste than is clear within the structures of organized battle simulations. And grace as an essential quality of athleticism is no more prized within such simulations than it is, apparently, within these discussions.


Svetlana Zakharova, the current world's champion ballerina.

[Stephen Morgan]

In as much as the sheer muscular power, size and strength of the participant is the overwhelming determining factor in the outcome of the successful performance, yes, that would be a valid argument. However, it's easy to class such activities as falling under the provenance of "battle simulations" or military troop training exercises which they were originally designed as in the context of the history of organized sporting "competition". They are male designed events created to exemplify and spotlight the penultimate abilities of men, and towards which women have worked to have a place in for the last eighty years or so (e.g., female gymnastics and track-and-field events were first held at the 1928 Games. As an indicator of just how socially biased the Olympic model is, due to the women's 800 metre run ending with several of the competitors being completely exhausted, running events for women longer than 200 metres were not included in the Olympics until the 1960s. Apparently exhaustion at the end of a footrace was seen as unbecoming the gentler sex until about forty years ago).

None of that changes the fact that male performance is superior, whether that is because the events were designed for men or not.

When the determinate factor for performance ability is athleticism then regarding male performance as superior becomes less viable. It makes no more sense to say that women are less athletic then men than it does to suppose that men are less graceful than women. It's much like the obsevation that in the western world men are historically considered better painters, which can probably only be explained by examining the gender roles permitted by western society. There is certainly nothing about the physical athleticism of hand-eye coordiation required for oil-painting which precludes one gender or another from becoming physically superior in its execution.

Hmm. I would refer you to those rare occasions when women have competed with men in snooker and golf, sports for old men and men in waistcoats, not in that order. Darts, too. Women simply can't compete in these sports although strength is, in the case of darts and snooker, completely irrelevant. I also hear that in golf the difference is greater in the short game than the long game, apparently meaning the difference is not due to strength, but I know very little about golf so don't hold me to that.

There are, though, a variety of athletically challenging and supremely difficult activities, such as the ballet, in which the distinctions of mere strength are negated by the requirements of the grace of the participant, and in these types of activities, women are on par or superior to men in their abilities.

Dion Dublin, a footballer of dubious fame, claimed that he was impressed by the massive size and strength of the male ballet dancer's thighs. I can't claim to know anything about ballet dancing, but I do know it's not a competitive sport and that the greatest of all was that little russian fellah. Nijinsky, was it? It's a situation in which both men and women are required, a good model perhaps for the co-operation of the sexes (Shankley famously said that he believed in the socialism of the football pitch).

Singing, for another example, is an activity in which the finest voices have usually been considered to be the female ones, to the extent that men used to cut off their testicles to preserve the range considered to be the most beautiful, a procedure which some might consider "cheating".

No, young boys had their testicles crushed rather than cut off, by third parties rather than themselves, and these castrati were considered to have better voices than either men or women, or indeed children, although a large proportion didn't develop such voices at all and had been mutilated for no reason. Eunuchs castrated before puberty also have a tendency to grow to extreme heights, they aren't just women with penises, they are a very special group and, as I say, their voices weren't considered to be like female voices.

But such distinctions of superior and inferior are, in these examples, more obviously imposed by taste than is clear within the structures of organized battle simulations. And grace as an essential quality of athleticism is no more prized within such simulations than it is, apparently, within these discussions.

Grace is valued in football, it is after all the beautiful game. I've seen some women's football, but I've not been impressed. The short passing isn't consistent enough.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Grace is valued in football, it is after all the beautiful game.

Thats right.

You can't dive without grace.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Speaking of grace, and discus...



Well done Dani.

Are they not?

Marathon swimming comes to mind.

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Couldn't comment on Semenya's alleged masculinity (tho her names a bit of a trigger)

I was being a dickhead, and didn't actually expect a response.

The John/Joan story is pretty full on and does point to the problems western society has when someone doesn't fit into the most basic constructs we assume for ourselves. (IE gender might not be a construct per se, but if you don't fit into either gender then look out cos people will spendyour entire life trying to shove you into their boxes.)

The intersex person who gave the lecture I attended said he/she/it (see the problems fitting outside the gender construct causes for those of us that fit inside them) was the only intersex person in Australia to make it to whatever age they were. The rest had all killed themselves.

[Luther Blissett]

Anyway...'Boobs' are mostly fat...female Runners have very very little body fat...hence, fairly modest boob-wise...

That's not true for everyone. Most women's breasts are a mix of breast tissue and fat. When they have a higher concentration of breast tissue, no matter how much weight they lose, they'll never completely lose their breasts. Only when chemicals come into play is the tissue affected.

I've dated two women who were athletes, one a swimmer who was a 32dd and could only compete in backstroke, the other a runner who was a 32d and competed in relays but second tier, then just stopped eventually.

[barracuda]

...male performance is superior, whether that is because the events were designed for men or not.

That's a bit like saying that men look ridiculous in spike heels because they are somehow lacking in talent and ability. The statement is untrue (whether or not you happen to agree with it, which is frankly irrelevant. (May I call you Frankly? Thank you.))

Hmm. I would refer you to those rare occasions when women have competed with men in snooker and golf, sports for old men and men in waistcoats, not in that order.

Hmm. I would refer you to those rare occasions when women have competed with men in ... sports for ... men ....

Fixed, and at no cost to you.

I can't claim to know anything about ballet dancing, but I do know it's not a competitive sport and that the greatest of all was that little russian fellah. Nijinsky, was it?

Nijinsky was a legendary male dancer, but it's hard to say how he might have held up against the modern greats, or en pointe. His lasting influence will likely be through his choreography and collaborations rather than his physical dance presence or technique, which, though so fabled, (like the good doctor's bedside manner) is largely undocumented.

It's a situation in which both men and women are required, a good model perhaps for the co-operation of the sexes (Shankley famously said that he believed in the socialism of the football pitch).

Perhaps an even better model than competitive sports might be?

No, young boys had their testicles crushed rather than cut off, by third parties rather than themselves, and these...

Thank you for the technical spec on this. Would you like some relish on that?

...castrati were considered to have better voices than either men or women, or indeed children, although a large proportion didn't develop such voices at all and had been mutilated for no reason. Eunuchs castrated before puberty also have a tendency to grow to extreme heights, they aren't just women with penises, they are a very special group and, as I say, their voices weren't considered to be like female voices.

I wasn't clear - I was trying to point out that the castrati had to physically feminize themselves to approach or surpass (debatable) the superior abilities of women, to be frank. (Maybe Francis is more appropriate here, though.)

Grace is valued in football, it is after all the beautiful game. I've seen some women's football, but I've not been impressed. The short passing isn't consistent enough.

I couldn't really comment on that. I usually prefer watching women dance around very nearly unclothed. I know less about strikers than I do about the foot of the cat, dude-issimo.

[OP ED]

Are they not?

of all of the misogynist/retarded things i've seen you say here, that has to be in the top five...

the answer is that it depends on the sport numbnuts.

edit:

[note: not removing any insults this time]

by which i meant, look up "gymnastics" on wiki...

Gymnastics is the one where certain events, like the rings, aren't open to women as they are physiologically incapable of performing them, yes? Obviously in the vast majority of sports male performance is superior, that's why the suspicion of this woman being a man is suspicion that she's cheating. That's why they have different events for men and women. This is a simple factual matter, and not something I would expect anyone to contest. Or, for that matter, to find offensive even if it were untrue, it's not like sport is an important matter. Other than football, of course. Even in dressage, which I will for the moment accept as a sport, the almost 50/50 split in the elite classes between men and women must be weighed against the fact that 98% of the participants in the sport as a whole are female. Anyway, I'll accept that it depends on the sport if you can find a sport in which women predominate.

no, i meant

look up "gymnastics" on wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnastics

where it will tell you in no uncertain terms that:

Artistic gymnastics is usually divided into Men's and Women's Gymnastics. Each group does different events; Men compete on Floor Exercise, Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Vault, Parallel Bars, and High Bar, while women compete on Vault, Uneven Bars, Beam, and Floor Exercise. In some countries, women at one time competed on the rings, high bar, and parallel bars (for example, in the 1950s in the USSR). Though routines performed on each event may be short, they are physically exhausting and push the gymnast's strength, flexibility, endurance and awareness to the limit.

[as can be seen on television]

sorry, i'm only here till my ipod synchs...

[Penguin]

(IE gender might not be a construct per se, but if you don't fit into either gender then look out cos people will spend your entire life trying to shove you into their boxes.)

The intersex person who gave the lecture I attended said he/she/it (see the problems fitting outside the gender construct causes for those of us that fit inside them) was the only intersex person in Australia to make it to whatever age they were. The rest had all killed themselves.

Yes. That's how I see it.

And I think Ill start calling Stephen Moron. There just is no way around it anymore. He exemplifies some of the worst aspects of what identifying as male means today.

[Joe Hillshoist]

You could call him Morgana.

[Penguin]

..

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Gymnastics is the one where certain events, like the rings, aren't open to women as they are physiologically incapable of performing them, yes?

No.