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.
sudneo
joined 8 months ago
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.
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.
I was not the person you were answering too. Just a random observer that has underlined the fallacy of that particular argument (it's hard or impossible to prove things are not or did not happen).
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?
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...
This has almost nothing to do with race (or at least with hers), it's just a dumb analogy to play with the title in a western movie fashion. "Hunting the white man" refers to the search for a white vice-president that would play well with "wasp" population.
Westerns are generally quite liked by the older generation. Leone's masterpieces are definitely cult movies that most people have watched.
No it's not that. Another comment explains it above, and it has to do with Western movies. Il tempo is usually just recommended to clean windows, but it's not what you (or OP) suggests.
Come on, this is a complete fallacious argument... Being a rapist is connected to actions, which can't be proven that didn't happen. This is completely different from measurable and observable properties like "being blonde" or "having certain chromosomes". You can 100% disagree on having to prove anything, but your example is completely wrong.
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.
OK, but there is a context that can be analyzed 10 seconds before jumping to conclusions. To be clear, this newspaper is still shit, but the reason people are getting upset are superficial and based on a wrong interpretation.
So the process for me is: oh this image looks racist/culturally insensitive -> let me understand how is it possible that such thing has been used -> the image is supposed to have something to do with westerns, which are a cultural feature of the people who used the image -> my cultural interpretation that made it racist or cultural insensitive does not specifically apply.
So questions are definitely welcome, and I think people are right to question, but people (for example in this thread) didn't look for questions, arrived already with conclusions, assuming that their cultural lens was the only appropriate one to look at this fact, without even understanding the context (not even the cultural one, just what is written on the page).