AIBU to be surprised that Laurel Hubbard didn't register a lift in the Olympics?

[Gladiolixoxo]

I wonder if all the controversy around Laurel's participation led to her losing her nerve?

'You asked me to justify it. You made the leap.'

Noooo

I asked you to consider what your ideas would/ could mean in practice. Not just for women in sport, but generally. Given the massive societal shift in thinking around the world that successfully implementing the new suggested categories would mean.

@swimlyn

Had problems with her snatch apparently.

@swimlyn you win the internet!

I'm struggling to understand the logic between allowing biological men (with strength advantages due to being biological men eg different muscle development) being allowed to compete when biological women are not allowed to compete if their naturally occurring testosterone is deemed too high - because it gives them an advantage over other women????

For clarity, in both examples above I mean compete against other women

Link to the full article
wwos.nine.com.au/olympics/tokyo-olympics-2021-namibia-runners-testosterone-controversy/b3a9d9c2-c67e-4291-a68e-79342d80dc73

Hubbard messed up because he was unfit for competition. He wasn't beaten by women, it wasn't a race. His arm was broken recently and he went into a wobble.

But Gavin Hubbard never competed at an Olympics at all.

but how the split into categories where males and females compete as you posed first up.

To clarify, I mean the people you say you are reading or discussing this with. If they have expertise in sports science fields, what are their solutions to allowing males and females to compete fairly and safely in these suggested categories.

And yes, I have seen these discussions between experts and not once has one adequately mitigated the physical advantages. But maybe you have seen many more since you have told us about them, so may have some examples to relate.

Well, if they ever introduce derailing as an Olympic sport, I think we have a sure fire contender for first gold medallist on this thread.

It’s almost like someone doesn’t want too much of a reality-based conversation about the ethics of male competitors in women’s sport.

[quote k1233]For clarity, in both examples above I mean compete against other women

Link to the full article
wwos.nine.com.au/olympics/tokyo-olympics-2021-namibia-runners-testosterone-controversy/b3a9d9c2-c67e-4291-a68e-79342d80dc73[/quote]
I think you will find each of these athletes have testes that have meant those athletes are male.

They are athletes with DIfferences in Sex Development. They were found to have XY chromosomes and then needed to submit to a testosterone test. Females are not subject to this testing.

If a female had such high Testosterone, they should be immediately referred to medical treatment as it is likely to be a serious medical issue that could be life threatening.

Did anybody see the mixed relay the other night? The males absolutely thrashed the females, which was no surprise. But at least it was fair in the context of that event (2 males and 2 females in each team).

It didn't half demonstrate the differences between our capabilities though.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Well, if they ever introduce derailing as an Olympic sport, I think we have a sure fire contender for first gold medallist on this thread.

It’s almost like someone doesn’t want too much of a reality-based conversation about the ethics of male competitors in women’s sport.

I do not think male athletes (biologically male) athletes should compete in women’s sport.

I do think there’s a conversation to be had on the future of the Olympics.

Again, are the snide comments so necessary?

[quote k1233]For clarity, in both examples above I mean compete against other women

Link to the full article
wwos.nine.com.au/olympics/tokyo-olympics-2021-namibia-runners-testosterone-controversy/b3a9d9c2-c67e-4291-a68e-79342d80dc73[/quote]
You might find this thread interesting.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4312328-Female-Namibian-runners-change-events-due-to-too-high-testosterone

There is no physical parity between men and women even when they’re the same height and weight, btw. Suggesting there is is disingenuous in the extreme.

Because we all actually know this, seeing as we’re all human beings living on this planet. Unless some of us are moving through the world with buckets on our heads. And all our other senses blocked too. And our brains turned to soup by the ingestion of too much male-supremacist-masquerading-as-woke propaganda.

I do not think male athletes (biologically male) athletes should compete in women’s sport.

So for the avoidance of doubt, you don’t think Hubbard should have been at the Olympics? We’re on the same page there?

Why then do you seem to be arguing in favour of breaking down the existing sex categories to replace them with ludicrous, unfeasible, unworkable permutations of a million and one differences in physique and capacity which actually all boil down to the staggeringly obvious, immutable and insuperable differences between the sexes?

Why are you so keen to see women having to compete on a completely not-level playing field with men?

K1233

No none of it makes sense.

At all.

I mean if you think it was ever about fairness. Which the IOC have essentially confirmed it wasn't.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/30/ioc-admits-guidelines-for-transgender-athletes-are-not-fit-for-purpose

It's a depressing read. Quotes from IOC medical and science director so from the horses mouth.

Eg (my thoughts have )

'However, Budgett accepted that the 2015 guidelines were no longer backed by science. “I absolutely accept that, things move on,” he said. “At the time the 10 nanomoles per litre was set because we thought that was the lower level for men. '

Note- not set to try and make sure males had no physical advantage. Not loads of scientific study to ensure fairness. But mind bogglingly. They just picked the level that was at the bottom end of normal for men. Yes- in the normal range. 4- 5 times higher than normal for women. I mean seriously what the fuck.

'We know now that they go down to seven and women can be higher as well.'

So. I'm very confident that trans competitors have no obligation to go public. The IOC need to know of course. But as a v personal matter. I doubt we know how many transwomen competed or got medals. The IOC say 10 is too high. So anyone who was there with a T level what. Between 7 and 10. They seem to imply had an unfair advantage. And that's that. Any woman who lost out on s place. Any medals awarded... Oops? That's it? Oh yeah we put it at 10 cos why not. Could be too high. Might change it....???!!!

That shows how much they care about women's sport.

'Agreeing on another number is almost impossible and possibly irrelevant. You can debate that endlessly.”'

So that means... ? It's not important? It's the only current measure to compete against women. Possibly irrelevant??!!

I do not expect whatever they come up with to be better. Probably worse.

Meanwhile the easy long term well understood male female split is no good because inclusion.

It's a misogynist shitshow is what it is.

'I do not think male athletes (biologically male) athletes should compete in women’s sport.

I do think there’s a conversation to be had on the future of the Olympics.'

So you agree with pretty much everyone.

You wanted to talk about something else though.

This thread is about male/ female and the Olympics.

It's a pretty big current topic and a lot of women really care about it.

Another thread for the future might get better engagement with your thoughts.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

I do not think male athletes (biologically male) athletes should compete in women’s sport.

So for the avoidance of doubt, you don’t think Hubbard should have been at the Olympics? We’re on the same page there?

Why then do you seem to be arguing in favour of breaking down the existing sex categories to replace them with ludicrous, unfeasible, unworkable permutations of a million and one differences in physique and capacity which actually all boil down to the staggeringly obvious, immutable and insuperable differences between the sexes?

Why are you so keen to see women having to compete on a completely not-level playing field with men?

I don’t think Hubbard should have been at the Olympics, no. I said so upthread. Maybe you missed in it your rush to be snide.

I’m floating the idea of changing the categories of the Olympics so that we see a greater range of skill. Including Paralympic athletes.

Just in case, I have no skin in this game, I don’t work for the Olympics. It’s a theory. I’ve also just about had my fill of insults tonight so if we can do it without those, I’d be greatful.

Again, are the snide comments so necessary?

I’d say yes, in the face of such overarching disingenuousness as you display.

Is the disingenuousness so necessary? Is the irrationality so necessary? Is the refusal to engage with the serious points that other posters raise so necessary? Is the constant attempt to steer the conversation away from the matter being discussed to the topic you want to see discussed really so necessary?

@NiceGerbil

'I do not think male athletes (biologically male) athletes should compete in women’s sport.

I do think there’s a conversation to be had on the future of the Olympics.'

So you agree with pretty much everyone.

You wanted to talk about something else though.

This thread is about male/ female and the Olympics.

It's a pretty big current topic and a lot of women really care about it.

Another thread for the future might get better engagement with your thoughts.

You wanted to talk about crime. Maybe you should start another thread about that.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Again, are the snide comments so necessary?

I’d say yes, in the face of such overarching disingenuousness as you display.

Is the disingenuousness so necessary? Is the irrationality so necessary? Is the refusal to engage with the serious points that other posters raise so necessary? Is the constant attempt to steer the conversation away from the matter being discussed to the topic you want to see discussed really so necessary?

What disingenuousness? Is that a joke? I’ve said the same thing about five times. It’s not my fault that you jumped to conclusions without reading my posts properly.

Again: I’ve said several times I didn’t think Hubbard should be competing in the woman’s category. I’ve said several times that I don’t think biological men should compete against biological women as it stands now. It’s your problem if you didn’t read my posts before having a not-so-disguised dig at me for floating an idea.

Ok, I missed the bit about you agreeing Hubbard shouldn’t have been there. I guess it got lost under the tsunami of verbiage about how we could split categories by stride length or oxygen intake or other farcical ideas.

The reason we have sex segregated sport is ONLY for the benefit of women (females).

Men don’t gain anything by it. Men don’t need separate sex categories. They would win pretty much everything in open competition because in virtually all sporting events men (males) have a huge natural advantage over women (females).

This remains true even when a man and a woman are matched for height, weight, fitness level, and commitment to training. Some individual women will outperform some individual men due to exceptional ability but on the whole, all other things being equal, the man has the advantage. And it’s a serious advantage.

Why do you want to downplay that, erase that fact? Why?

Can you tell us what categories you believe should be used?

You have stated that you have watched these discussions about future Olympics, so surely you have some suggestions other than the basic ones you proposed initially that do nothing to mitigate male advantage.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Ok, I missed the bit about you agreeing Hubbard shouldn’t have been there. I guess it got lost under the tsunami of verbiage about how we could split categories by stride length or oxygen intake or other farcical ideas.

The reason we have sex segregated sport is ONLY for the benefit of women (females).

Men don’t gain anything by it. Men don’t need separate sex categories. They would win pretty much everything in open competition because in virtually all sporting events men (males) have a huge natural advantage over women (females).

This remains true even when a man and a woman are matched for height, weight, fitness level, and commitment to training. Some individual women will outperform some individual men due to exceptional ability but on the whole, all other things being equal, the man has the advantage. And it’s a serious advantage.

Why do you want to downplay that, erase that fact? Why?

I don’t want to erase that - I was floating the idea of different categories! That’s it! But I’m done, it’s not worth this garbage and as I said, I’ve no skin in the game. Really don’t think I deserved this hostility though.

Isn’t the solution to this to get rid of male/female sports and organise it by height or weight? Or mass? Or speed?

These are your words.

It is preposterous and absurd and takes no account of the physiological reality of the differences between male and female bodies.

And the only people it would benefit are males. Men.

You have been around on threads on this topic for long enough to know the arguments. You must know that a man and a woman of roughly the same size are NOT roughly equal in physical capacity. All the ridiculous suggested categories you come up with are actually just the things that are fundamentally different between men and women: heart/lung capacity; muscle to fat ratio; limb length etc.

What on earth would be the point of having endless administrative categories which would all need to be tested for and applied and constantly checked and rechecked and measured, when you have the very obvious natural division of male and female?

And for what? To benefit men. Male people. No one else would benefit at all. No women. No female people.

If we get rid of male/female sports, we get rid of women’s ability to participate. Why would you want that?

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Isn’t the solution to this to get rid of male/female sports and organise it by height or weight? Or mass? Or speed?

These are your words.

It is preposterous and absurd and takes no account of the physiological reality of the differences between male and female bodies.

And the only people it would benefit are males. Men.

You have been around on threads on this topic for long enough to know the arguments. You must know that a man and a woman of roughly the same size are NOT roughly equal in physical capacity. All the ridiculous suggested categories you come up with are actually just the things that are fundamentally different between men and women: heart/lung capacity; muscle to fat ratio; limb length etc.

What on earth would be the point of having endless administrative categories which would all need to be tested for and applied and constantly checked and rechecked and measured, when you have the very obvious natural division of male and female?

And for what? To benefit men. Male people. No one else would benefit at all. No women. No female people.

If we get rid of male/female sports, we get rid of women’s ability to participate. Why would you want that?

Jesus. It was a theory - it was the floating of an idea, not even my idea but one that’s always discussed around the Olympics or any massive tournament, hopefully to generate a discussion. I didn’t realise I’d then be the target for pages and pages of insults until after midnight.

but one that’s always discussed around the Olympics or any massive tournament,

You keep saying this. Discussed by who?

What were the category suggestions by experts that were discussed that mitigated the male advantage?

Or are these discussions that include no expert opinions?