To clarify, the pictured poster Caroline Kwan is an ally, not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’

  • halvar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    I personally like to descirbe myself as tolerant. Not exactly progressive, but I very much see the struggle some people live with and so I decided that not being hostile to anyone is the least that I can do in case I don’t just straight-up support some causes. I had to get this clear, because my opinion doesn’t exactly match with the one detailed in the post or at the very least I find fault in it’s reasoning.

    The problem is that all the “genetic advantages” that make someone a good swimmer for example, are all unrelated traits, that are not really rare in people, it’s just that it’s quite rare for them to all be present in one person who then also goes off to be a swimmer. Testosterone on the other hand is a single hormone, exceptionally important in becoming an outstanding athlete and for that precise reason it’s considered a performance-enhancing drug. If you look at it this way it’s not that hard to see the problem.

    Being more muscular certainly is an advantage. Being taller also is. Longer arms also are. Lower body-fat percentage also is. Better stamina also is. Better agility also is.

    Any boxer you pick randomly should be expected to have one or more of these “genetic advantages”, but all of them, resulting from a single condition is quite a different situation. Elevated testosterone levels are a single cause for developing some of the most important traits of a dominating boxer and so someone with such an advantage can’t be considered a freak of nature in the same sense that someone like Phelps can be. There isn’t a “swimmer hormone” that magically gives you all the advantages in swimming, but there is a “fighter hormone”, that does in boxing. I personally don’t think that Khelif could be anything other than a women. I just think that her body happens to overproduce a literal PED and that’s a problem for anyone who wants to go up against her or those that want to see fights that are more or less determined by technique.

    Now for solutions and as far as I see there’s only one that doesn’t involve excluding her from boxing. Simply put her and anyone with similar conditions in a weight class based on their muscle mass and not their actual body mass. Moving her one weight class up for example would at least mean that her opponents have trained with punches of similar force to her’s, something that the lack of seemed to have been a problem for her foes in Paris. She would still have an advantage in terms of speed, but she would pay the price of having less fat for impact absorption. I think that would be a win-win scenario.

    Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

    • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I appreciate that you are at least kind about it.

      In general I don’t think she’s considered a dominating boxer. Other opponents certainly haven’t said so. Even in her last fight, her opponent had a longer reach. I think it’s kind of crazy that people are taking comments from one opponent so seriously, instead of just seeing that opponent as someone who had not properly trained.

      We also have no proof of anything to do with her hormone levels or anything else for that matter. In fact, even the disgraced governing body that excluded her has stated it was not a testosterone test that they used.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Phelp’s unfair genetic advantage is no different! His mutation gives him advantages at pretty much all endurance sports, not just swimming, and that’s unfair. That’s a problem for anyone that wanted to go up against him. You can’t handwave this.

      The Olympics is actually just a competition for which country has the most athletic mutants.

      • Pandantic@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Olympics is actually just a competition for which country has the most athletic mutants.

        I’m going to hold onto that one to use later!

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Simply put her and anyone with similar conditions in a weight class based on their muscle mass and not their actual body mass.

      Once you do that you will meed separate groups by height/arm length/anything else that is an advantage. Weight class already groups them in a way that avoids completely inbalanced fights based on muscle mass.

      • HonkyTonkWoman
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not to mention the lack of volume of people who would fit the bill. Caster Semenya is the only other athlete I can think of, in recent memory, that might fall into this class & she was runner.

        Fully acknowledging there could be other athletes, I haven’t necessarily looked, but I’d still wager the number is pretty low when it comes to this specific issue.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      i mean, yeah as far as test goes, it’s a PED, but at the end of the day, does it really matter significantly? I’m not sure.

      Sometimes people have test so high it’s literally impossible to measure, there’s no real reason women can’t also experience high test either, though high test is also arguably bad.

      Sure they might be physically bigger, but the hard to answer question here is if it’s any more significant than your average olympic athlete. With how prevalent trans people are (not very) and how common it would be for those trans people to be athletes (even less likely) i’m not sure it’s a huge concern or even a significant consideration.

      At the end of the day, you’re already sampling for the most unusual, and weirdly built people, that’s why it’s the olympics. Excluding trans people from that seems like it might be a bit more redundant than necessary.

      If it’s a real concern, proper class weighting would help, that’s a valid strategy, but another strategy is to simply have multiple medal winning categories.

    • Binette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The issue with that take is incoherence, not rarity. Yeah, it’s rare for it to happen, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. In fact, the Olympics is pretty much a heaven for genetic selectivity, so you’ll find more people that have higher levels of testosterone, for example.

      Even if Michael Phelp’s traits are rare, they still gave him a significant advantage over his peers. That means that if you’re gonna ban someone from a sport because they have a significant genetical advantage, then people like Michael Phelps, or any future Michael Phelps-like athletes (cause remember: genetics is pretty important in the Olympics) should be banned.

      Doesn’t matter if it’s one specific genetical advantageous traits or several. I’d even argue it should be worse for someone that has several.

      As for the solution, I don’t necessarily disagree, but I feel like somehow, it’s gonna be more complicated than it actually is. Biology is really wack, so yeah…