Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Rackless?Follow

QuoteReply
#27 Aug 25 2009 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Xsarus
View User Forum
ZAM Administrator
*****
10,601 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
A sports writer from the Nation puts this controversy in context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUIoO8eArA

"There is a twisted sexist, racist, heteronormative history that involves the way that track and field and Olympic officials understand gender"

Watch more--he has some great points.
He also has some really bad ones though. The point he makes at the end, that being a man doesn't make you "better" at track and field is wrong. His silly little anecdote about his inability to run notwithstanding, Men simply have a huge advantage when they push themselves to their limit.

I don't know what a solution to this is, but merging the genders into one competition isn't the answer because the men will always win.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#28 Aug 25 2009 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Annabella
View User Forum
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
A sports writer from the Nation puts this controversy in context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUIoO8eArA

"There is a twisted sexist, racist, heteronormative history that involves the way that track and field and Olympic officials understand gender"

Watch more--he has some great points.
He also has some really bad ones though. The point he makes at the end, that being a man doesn't make you "better" at track and field is wrong. His silly little anecdote about his inability to run notwithstanding, Men simply have a huge advantage when they push themselves to their limit.

I don't know what a solution to this is, but merging the genders into one competition isn't the answer because the men will always win.


But you passed over his overarching point--there is gender variance in the world and the Track and Field committee needs to learn to deal with it.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#29 Aug 25 2009 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
A sports writer from the Nation puts this controversy in context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUIoO8eArA

"There is a twisted sexist, racist, heteronormative history that involves the way that track and field and Olympic officials understand gender"

Watch more--he has some great points.
He also has some really bad ones though. The point he makes at the end, that being a man doesn't make you "better" at track and field is wrong. His silly little anecdote about his inability to run notwithstanding, Men simply have a huge advantage when they push themselves to their limit.

I don't know what a solution to this is, but merging the genders into one competition isn't the answer because the men will always win.


But you passed over his overarching point--there is gender variance in the world and the Track and Field committee needs to learn to deal with it.


Not to sound insensitive, but wouldn't testing to see if a competitor is genetically a man competing a woman's competition be "deal(ing) with it"? It sounds like the only thing they've done wrong is releasing information on it; they seem to have measures in place to deal with these situations.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#30 Aug 25 2009 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Annabella
View User Forum
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

Not to sound insensitive, but wouldn't testing to see if a competitor is genetically a man competing a woman's competition be "deal(ing) with it"? It sounds like the only thing they've done wrong is releasing information on it; they seem to have measures in place to deal with these situations.


This controversy doesn't exist in a vacuum--this is part of a long history of sexism in the sport. Not just sexism but discrimination against intersex people.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#31 Aug 25 2009 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Xsarus
View User Forum
ZAM Administrator
*****
10,601 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Quote:

Not to sound insensitive, but wouldn't testing to see if a competitor is genetically a man competing a woman's competition be "deal(ing) with it"? It sounds like the only thing they've done wrong is releasing information on it; they seem to have measures in place to deal with these situations.


This controversy doesn't exist in a vacuum--this is part of a long history of sexism in the sport. Not just sexism but discrimination against intersex people.
I guess my question would be, are intersex people men with womens genitals and vice versa, or a manwomen for lack of a better term. If it's the first, then it seems like testing would deal with it, and the lesson here is not to publicize these things out of sensitivity towards the athlete. If it's the second, and I suspect it is, then I have no idea. Where should they compete?

In some ways you could just say she has a natural advantage and leave it at that. Micheal Phelps has really strange porportions that let him be better then someone who does not. People have genetic advantages, but we do draw a line between men and women, because of the size of the advantage. In this case, it's seems to be a really hard line to draw.

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 12:56pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#32 Aug 25 2009 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1625444900994
Scholar
*****
12,846 posts
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
BrownDuck the Prophet wrote:
But in a contest of phsyical prowess, "gender" as the OOT would like to refer to it is irrelevant.


Yeah, but there's more to it than that. I don't remember the details, but sexual organs alone are not always enough to determine gender. And not "gender" as in what people feel, but like "chromosome" gender. I'm sure Anna will be here any minute to explain it better.


"Gender" as you are referring to it, is called "sex" in any modern day biology, physiology, or sexuality course Smiley: schooled

At least, it was three years ago when I had a course on it!

Edit: I base this on a class called "The Biology of Human Sexuality," and another called "Women's Studies."

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 10:48am by LockeColeMA

Gender isn't sex. Sex is an ascribed status while gender is achieved.

"According to Merriam-Webster, gender is “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” – while sex is defined as “either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male.” In other words, gender is subjective. Sex is biological." -Viewpoint: Sex Versus Gender
by Loretta A. Kane, former Vice President-Action

"The term “gender” refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, as in this example from the Publication Manual: “sexual orientation rather than gender accounted for most of the variance in the results; most gay men and lesbians were for it, most heterosexual men and women were against it” (APA, 2001, p. 63)."

Either you weren't paying attention during those parts or they weren't taught in a competent manner (it can be confusing to some.)

Simply put you can be born with a **** but be a "non-genetic female".


▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#33 Aug 25 2009 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1622420402685
Scholar
*****
19,369 posts
They should setup different classes based on various things like weight, testosterone levels, etc. Then let men, women, eunuchs, whatever compete against each other if they're in the same class.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#34 Aug 25 2009 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1622420402685
Scholar
*****
19,369 posts
niobia wrote:
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
BrownDuck the Prophet wrote:
But in a contest of phsyical prowess, "gender" as the OOT would like to refer to it is irrelevant.


Yeah, but there's more to it than that. I don't remember the details, but sexual organs alone are not always enough to determine gender. And not "gender" as in what people feel, but like "chromosome" gender. I'm sure Anna will be here any minute to explain it better.


"Gender" as you are referring to it, is called "sex" in any modern day biology, physiology, or sexuality course Smiley: schooled

At least, it was three years ago when I had a course on it!

Edit: I base this on a class called "The Biology of Human Sexuality," and another called "Women's Studies."

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 10:48am by LockeColeMA

Gender isn't sex. Sex is an ascribed status while gender is achieved.

"According to Merriam-Webster, gender is “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” – while sex is defined as “either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male.” In other words, gender is subjective. Sex is biological." -Viewpoint: Sex Versus Gender
by Loretta A. Kane, former Vice President-Action

"The term “gender” refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, as in this example from the Publication Manual: “sexual orientation rather than gender accounted for most of the variance in the results; most gay men and lesbians were for it, most heterosexual men and women were against it” (APA, 2001, p. 63)."

Either you weren't paying attention during those parts or they weren't taught in a competent manner (it can be confusing to some.)

Simply put you can be born with a **** but be a "non-genetic female".



LockeColeMA isn't talking about gender and he states that he's talking about sex.

Quote:
"Gender" as you are referring to it, is called "sex"


People are just using the word gender when they really mean sex. Locke isn't one of them.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#35 Aug 25 2009 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Quote:

Not to sound insensitive, but wouldn't testing to see if a competitor is genetically a man competing a woman's competition be "deal(ing) with it"? It sounds like the only thing they've done wrong is releasing information on it; they seem to have measures in place to deal with these situations.


This controversy doesn't exist in a vacuum--this is part of a long history of sexism in the sport. Not just sexism but discrimination against intersex people.


I find this point very hard to stomach. Competitions of this nature are divided into male and female groups for very specific reasons none of which have anything to do with sexism. Are you suggesting that we add a third group for intersex people? Wouldn't that group be kind of small? Otherwise, how do you decide where an intersex person belongs? On the surface, this appears to be a case of a woman who identifies as a woman who just happens to have a hormone imbalance of some kind. Should she be kept out of the competition because this of physical oddity? Should she be forced to compete with men who might wipe the floor with her, in terms of raw physical ability?

I don't know.

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 1:17pm by BrownDuck
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#36 Aug 25 2009 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
niobia wrote:
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
BrownDuck the Prophet wrote:
But in a contest of phsyical prowess, "gender" as the OOT would like to refer to it is irrelevant.


Yeah, but there's more to it than that. I don't remember the details, but sexual organs alone are not always enough to determine gender. And not "gender" as in what people feel, but like "chromosome" gender. I'm sure Anna will be here any minute to explain it better.


"Gender" as you are referring to it, is called "sex" in any modern day biology, physiology, or sexuality course Smiley: schooled

At least, it was three years ago when I had a course on it!

Edit: I base this on a class called "The Biology of Human Sexuality," and another called "Women's Studies."

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 10:48am by LockeColeMA

Gender isn't sex. Sex is an ascribed status while gender is achieved.

"According to Merriam-Webster, gender is “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” – while sex is defined as “either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male.” In other words, gender is subjective. Sex is biological." -Viewpoint: Sex Versus Gender
by Loretta A. Kane, former Vice President-Action

"The term “gender” refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, as in this example from the Publication Manual: “sexual orientation rather than gender accounted for most of the variance in the results; most gay men and lesbians were for it, most heterosexual men and women were against it” (APA, 2001, p. 63)."

Either you weren't paying attention during those parts or they weren't taught in a competent manner (it can be confusing to some.)

Simply put you can be born with a **** but be a "non-genetic female".


Oh, I know what gender and sex mean; the definition you quoted is exactly what we learned. The point being here that "sex" is trying to be determined, not gender. What a person refers to themselves as does not make them a faster runner or eligible/ineligible to participate. What they are biologically does. Even if she lacks a ***** and thinks of herself as a woman, if she is determined by their doctors to be a man (through, say, male chromosomes, or heightened testosterone), then her victory will be taken from her.

A ***** obviously isn't proof enough, hence why they are doing chemical and presumably genetic tests.

I see each of the things you quoted as an expansion:

BD. Gender is irrelevant
Red. Yeah it is, but that's not all!
Me. Exactly! They care about sex, not gender.
Niobia: Here's the reason for the controversy!

I think we're all saying the same thing. To the ruling panel, her gender doesn't matter; her sex does. Even if she has no *****, she might still be a man. My issue was the term "chromosome gender." Your chromosomes determine your sex. What you believe yourself to be determines your gender. Hence the word "gender" didn't belong in there.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#37 Aug 25 2009 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck the Prophet wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Quote:

Not to sound insensitive, but wouldn't testing to see if a competitor is genetically a man competing a woman's competition be "deal(ing) with it"? It sounds like the only thing they've done wrong is releasing information on it; they seem to have measures in place to deal with these situations.


This controversy doesn't exist in a vacuum--this is part of a long history of sexism in the sport. Not just sexism but discrimination against intersex people.


I find this point very hard to stomach. Competitions of this nature are divided into male and female groups for very specific reasons none of which have anything to do with sexism. Are you suggesting that we add a third group for intersex people? Wouldn't that group be kind of small? Otherwise, how do you decide where an intersex person belongs? On the surface, this appears to be a case of a woman who identifies as a woman who just happens to have a hormone imbalance of some kind. Should she be kept out of the competition because this of physical oddity? Should she be forced to compete with men who might wipe the floor with her, in terms of raw physical ability?

I don't know.

There are plenty of cases of discrimination, based on sex or what have you, but sexism is purposeful in that the sexes are different.

It's too bad people can't just be judged based on their abilities. You know - Caster runs really fast, give her a medal and a courier job. But we compare and contrast and compete. So then the playing field needs to stay level. Sounds like in this case, someone simply needs to decide she is indeed a woman and she competes with women. Imagine the flip side - the womanly man. He still has to compete with the men.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#38 Aug 25 2009 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
paulsol
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,158 posts
Tests show she is full to the brim with testosterone.....

Something is definately up, And just for the record, I wouldn't hit it.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#39 Aug 25 2009 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
paulsol wrote:
And just for the record, I wouldn't hit it.


Well apparently, she can probably run faster than you and is likely stronger than you. If she wanted it, you may have no choice. Smiley: schooled
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#40 Aug 25 2009 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
BrownDuck the Prophet wrote:
paulsol wrote:
And just for the record, I wouldn't hit it.


Well apparently, she can probably run faster than you and is likely stronger than you. If she wanted it, you may have no choice. Smiley: schooled


Also note that erections are sometimes reactions to stress or fear; the fight-or-flight response; and have nothing to do with arousal. You might not be able to resist! Smiley: schooled
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#41 Aug 25 2009 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Annabella
View User Forum
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

I find this point very hard to stomach. Competitions of this nature are divided into male and female groups for very specific reasons none of which have anything to do with sexism. Are you suggesting that we add a third group for intersex people? Wouldn't that group be kind of small? Otherwise, how do you decide where an intersex person belongs? On the surface, this appears to be a case of a woman who identifies as a woman who just happens to have a hormone imbalance of some kind. Should she be kept out of the competition because this of physical oddity? Should she be forced to compete with men who might wipe the floor with her, in terms of raw physical ability?


What has been sexist in the past is that there have been other cases of elite African female runners being questioned about their gender b/c they were simply too good and did not fit into the committee's ideas of what a female should be. As it said in the link, at one point in the mid-20th century, there were considerations that African women shouldn't compete b/c they weren't perceived as being the same as white women--partly b/c they had a greater athletic ability than they thought women should have.

It also demonstrates the reality that sex isn't simple, if she is intersex or not.


Edited, Aug 25th 2009 3:43pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#42 Aug 25 2009 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
at one point in the mid-20th century, there were considerations that African women shouldn't compete b/c they weren't perceived as being the same as white women--partly b/c they had a greater athletic ability than they thought women should have.


Well yeah, obviously that's just downright stupid and ignorant.

Quote:
In her case, if she is intersex, it demonstrates an issue--gender isn't simple


Sure it's not. I'm just not sure there's a better alternative to just letting her compete with the women.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#43 Aug 25 2009 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Annabella
View User Forum
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

Sure it's not. I'm just not sure there's a better alternative to just letting her compete with the women.


I think it's fine for her to compete with the women. That is what I would expect. I don't think the link was questioning that either--what i had an issue is their narrow definition of what a woman is.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#44 Aug 25 2009 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Nobby
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
How sex the athlete?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#45 Aug 25 2009 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Gender isn't sex. Sex is an ascribed meaningless status while gender is achieved also a meaningless status.


Smiley: nod
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#46 Aug 25 2009 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
paulsol
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,158 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Gender isn't sex. Sex is an ascribed meaningless status while gender is achieved also a meaningless status.


Smiley: nod


You not getting much then Pensive? Smiley: wink
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#47 Aug 25 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
It's probably better that way.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#48 Aug 25 2009 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
She could have stopped the questioning before it happened if she had gotten her eyebrows done.

My god, they're caterpillars.

On the flipside, it turns out her coach has a history of doping his athletes.

Quote:
According to the Britain’s Daily News, Arbiet was, “disgraced years ago for playing a lead role in the systematic doping programs of East German sports in the seventies and eighties.”


So she may not be intersexed after all - she could just have a really dumb coach.
▲ Page top
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 549 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (549)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC