Olympics

[Mollymews]

14 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Yes, internets,

 

you said that it was a long running prediction and yes agree the internets allow anyone to make up predictions as if they were actually made

a interview with Laurel Hubbard is here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/300373611/tokyo-olympics-laurel-hubbard-set-to-retire-after-making-history-as-a-transgender-olympian

Quote

“All I’ve ever wanted to be is myself, I’m just so grateful that I’ve had the opportunity to come here and be me. What drives me in sport, I think, is the sport itself, and this is the pinnacle event for weightlifting, as it is for so many sports. And I suppose that’s what’s drawn me here, because anyone I think can train in their own time, but to actually be called to account on the platform. We’ve got one minute to make it all happen. That’s the real test for, I suppose, anyone and weightlifting.”

basically: I turned up, I crumbled, I went home

[Amina Sopwith]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

you said that it was a long running prediction

I've been seeing people predicting it online since Hubbard made the cut to compete. If you've been following the story and people's thoughts on it since then, I'm surprised that you haven't.

Still, even if the possibility never crossed anyone's mind until the day itself, does that make it any more or less likely to be true? Is it even actually the point?

6 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

basically: I turned up

Indeed.

[Mollymews]

1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Still, even if the possibility never crossed anyone's mind until the day itself, does that make it any more or less likely to be true? Is it even actually the point?

when did more or less likely to be true, ever become a valid basis on which to ascribe intent to another person

[Amina Sopwith]

Just now, Mollymews said:

when did more or less likely to be true, ever become a valid basis on which to ascribe intent to another person

Er....being more or less likely to be true is a very valid basis on which to make any statement at all. The suggestion is long running, that's a fact. You don't have to believe it.

This conversation is giving me a headache and reads like an attempt to deflect the actual issue at hand.

[Mollymews]

5 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

This conversation is giving me a headache and reads like an attempt to deflect the actual issue at hand.

the actual issue is: Should a society limit a person to their physical body parts that they were born with?

if yes then that's the end of any debate

if No except for this, and except for that and maybe this and maybe that then there is a debate

for me, i start with No society shouldn't and want to hear arguments for why Yes might be the case for the exceptions

[Louise Fyrewik]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Would a 43 year old, recently injured female athlete have qualified to compete?

Could have been a wildcard entry for inclusivity. 

Ever heard of Eric the Eel? He competed in the 100 meters freestyle swimming in the Sydney 2000 Olympics and nearly drowned during his race. A race he won by the way, because of the other two competitors in his heat being disqualified for false starts.

[ananoelle]

  

17 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

the actual issue is: Should a society limit a person to their physical body parts that they were born with?

if yes then that's the end of any debate

When competing in sport then YES! If they are going to allow such crap to happen then make a mixed grade up. NZ being NZ, racing to be world trend setters again 🙄 doh!

[Mollymews]

16 minutes ago, ananoelle said:

  

NZ being NZ, racing to be world trend setters again 🙄 doh!

the trend setter in this case is the International Weightlifting Federation, who determine the qualifying requirements for weight-lifters to compete in the Olympics

when google for "olympic weightlifting qualification" then it links to a PDF on the International Olympics Committee website where this is all explained. Each sport aligned with the IOC gets to define the qualifying criteria for their sport

 

[ananoelle]

3 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

the trend setter in this case is the International Weightlifting Federation, who determine the qualifying requirements for weight-lifters to compete in the Olympics

when google for "olympic weightlifting qualification" then it links to a PDF on the International Olympics Committee website where this is all explained. Each sport aligned with the IOC gets to define the qualifying criteria for their sport

 

Was and did represent, NEW ZEALAND!!! I can read wiki ... doesn't make the whole saga right. Don't get me wrong I'm all for someone competing but on a fair stage...like I suggested... mix grades .   

[Mollymews]

2 minutes ago, ananoelle said:

Was and did represent, NEW ZEALAND!!! I can read wiki ... doesn't make the whole saga right. Don't get me wrong I'm all for someone competing but on a fair stage...like I suggested... mix grades .   

yes but it wasn't a NEW ZEALAND!!! call to select Laurel Hubbard. It was the NZ Weightlifting Federation who decided made the selection

Laurel Hubbard had been competing in international weightlifting competitions for a number of years previously, and the International Weightlifting Federation had no problem with this. They still don't

is interesting tho how a mixed-gender weightlifting competition might be run, as I think body weight only is a pretty crude measure. Dunno what the other criteria is tho not being a weightlifter myself. I suppose tho that in most sports people think about this at times, what might work, what might not, if such a competition was to be held

[hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

the actual issue is: Should a society limit a person to their physical body parts that they were born with?

if yes then that's the end of any debate

if No except for this, and except for that and maybe this and maybe that then there is a debate

for me, i start with No society shouldn't and want to hear arguments for why Yes might be the case for the exceptions

Who's limiting? Laurel Hubbard could have competed in the men's category (except that he probably wouldn't have qualified).
There's a reason most sports are sex-segregated.  
We probably need a third category, but I doubt that's workable.

[Mollymews]

5 minutes ago, hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian said:

Who's limiting? Laurel Hubbard could have competed in the men's category (except that he probably wouldn't have qualified).
 

this is a limiting statement. "Except that he ...". "Except that they ..." is non-limiting

you are right tho about the men's competition qualifying criteria. Laurel Hubbard would not have qualified for the men's 87+ kg competition

[ananoelle]

22 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

yes but it wasn't a NEW ZEALAND!!! call to select Laurel Hubbard. It was the NZ Weightlifting Federation who decided made the selection

If it wasn't a New Zealand call then what does the 'NZ' in NZ Weightlifting Federation stand for? Just wondering. I stand by what I said. Was and did represent New Zealand. He may have as cindy said it "followed the rules' but does that make it fair?(competition wise). 

[hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian]

5 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

this is a limiting statement. "Except that he ...". "Except that they ..." is non-limiting

I just wanted to say I don't understand the above line. I could have used a "confused" emoji face on your post, but that felt a bit too dismisssive.

Also wanted to add - maybe instead of having 2 categories based on sex, there could be a range of categories based on more specific criteria specific to the given sport. In weightlifting, weight and muscle density for example.

[Mollymews]

15 minutes ago, ananoelle said:

If it wasn't a New Zealand call then what does the 'NZ' in NZ Weightlifting Federation stand for? Just wondering

the NZ Weightlifting Federation made the selection in accordance with the International Weightlifting qualifying criteria. The NZWF couldn't not select Laurel Hubbard because 'dude'

18 minutes ago, hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian said:

Also wanted to add - maybe instead of having 2 categories based on sex, there could be a range of categories based on more specific criteria specific to the given sport. In weightlifting, weight and muscle density for example.

muscle density be a better criteria than testosterone levels for sure

the athletes that got excluded from the Olympics because testosterone even when  they had the 'correct' body bits was really puzzling for me. Same with Simone Bile's had the difficulty rating for some of her moves downgraded (more than for same moves in the men's competition) because the gymnastics federation didn't think it was fair on the other women competitors who couldn't do them

[hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian]

7 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

the athletes that got excluded from the Olympics because testosterone even when  they had the 'correct' body bits was really puzzling for me. Same with Simone Bile's had the difficulty rating for some of her moves downgraded (more than for same moves in the men's competition) because the gymnastics federation didn't think it was fair on the other women competitors who couldn't do them

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

As far as I'm concerned, we as a society need far more conversations around the issues.

[Sid Nagy]

Male bodies are stronger and faster in every sport. Not that every male wins from every female, but among top athletes: Yes for sure. That is the reason why they created male and female events in the athletic world and most other sports.
And in mixed events they make sure that each team has an equal number of males and females in each team like the mixed double in tennis and korfball.
That is no form of discrimination, that is following the physical facts of life.

If the sport organizations choose that transgenders can compete in the event of their choice, that could easily lead to the end of fair female events in the future IMHO.

A solution could be to start transgender events as well.
But given the fact that only a small percentage of the world population is transgender, will there ever be enough competitors on a high enough sports level to justify to organize them?

And what to do with athletes that will try to game the system?

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Sid Nagy
Added the last line.

[Amina Sopwith]

9 hours ago, Mollymews said:

the actual issue is: Should a society limit a person to their physical body parts that they were born with?

if yes then that's the end of any debate

Short answer: yes. 

Long answer:

It is a disingenuous, oversimplified, facile, leading and loaded question, and I think everyone knows that. (Have you stopped beating your wife?)

Nobody should be in any way persecuted or victimised for who they are. I will use any name or pronoun you desire, and support you in living authentically to yourself without oppression.

However, there are times when the physical body parts you were born with do matter, because it is not just about you. And it is not about "society", or "limiting". At a class level, with exceptions too rare to be in any way significant, a male born body that has gone through male puberty has such a comprehensive athletic advantage over an otherwise equivalent female one (muscle and fat ratio, fast twitch muscle, haemoglobin production, heart size, gait and standing due to hip structure, to name but a few) that it is simply unfair and unsporting - and sometimes downright dangerous - to pit them against each other in competitions. Even after taking androgen blockers...and I'll remind you that the IOC's testosterone limit for transwomen athletes is still several times the amount found in any natal female. In fact, it is a level that would get a natal woman disqualified for doping. Menstruation alone is an issue that only natally female athletes have to handle. 

If we do not segregate sports by natal sex, there will be no women champions. And if that's not limiting people to the physical body parts they were born with, I don't know what is.

Hubbard can compete. Hubbard competed for many years, fairly. Hubbard, a middling national level athlete as a fit young man, is apparently world class at 43, after injury, after androgen blockers, when placed against natal women at their physical peak. How can anyone think that is fair?

Hubbard has not been limited by body parts any more than any other athlete who has reached the natural end of their competitive years. Is the ageing process also limiting people to their body parts? 

Segregating sports by sex does not stop anyone competing. (Yes, even those rare people with differences of sexual development, who actually are over-represented in, you guessed it, women's sports. DSDs are still classifiable to a certain natal sex, and it would not be hard to write the rules to set out where an athlete with a particular DSD should stand.) It is inclusive of women and enables them to compete fairly. 

A female athlete who wants a child has to choose whether to risk compromising her athletic prowess, because of the toll it could take on her body. (I have permanent injuries from traumatic labour. Lucky I'm not an athlete.) Yet nobody would complain that she is being "limited to her body parts" or that she shouldn't have to choose. They accept, as she would, that she will just have to make a choice due to the nature - the natal sex - of her body. 

I could go on, and to be honest I'm tempted. But I won't. I haven't said everything I could or would like to say, but I hope I've said enough.

And I won't say it on Twitter, because frankly I'm too scared. Not of a debate, but of an extremely hostile and abusive response that will most certainly limit me to the physical body parts I was born with. 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Amina Sopwith

[Mollymews]

14 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

Male bodies are stronger and faster in every sport. Not that every male wins from every female, but among top athletes: Yes for sure. That is the reason why they created male and female events in the athletic world and most other sports.
And in mixed events they make sure that each team has an equal number of males and females in each team like the mixed double in tennis and korfball.
That is no form of discrimination, that is following the physical facts of life.

If the sport organizations choose that transgenders can compete in the event of their choice, that could easily lead to the end of fair female events in the future IMHO.

A solution could be to start transgender events as well.
But given the fact that only a small percentage of the world population is transgender, will there ever be enough competitors on a high enough sports level to justify to organize them?

And what to do with athletes that will try to game the system?

 

yes, these are all valid points particularly at the elite level

for myself I think that is up to the sports organisations to make their own rules, and I am ok with them doing this, even when some of them make we wonder whats that about

i have no idea why the weightlifting rules are as they are, but while they are what they are, then for me is pretty much ok

just on mixed-team sports. I play 3-3 touch rugby social competitions and 2-2 basketball as well. Is lots of fun. And sometimes get to play against some pretty big physical and fast male players who think the game is all about them. And we scump them with teamwork

like in 3-3 touch and their male players drift in to the center of their line, because the center is where they think they can dominate the play. And when our team sees hem do this, we go to  2 females and 1 male in the centers with our 3rd fastest player in the sweeper role, get the turn over and go wide where our 1st and 2nd fastest players are. Run the other team to pieces. Can be some big fast guy but when they have to constantly turn and run from the middle of the field and try to catch some pretty fast runner out wide then they run out of puff

[Ceka Cianci]

I like the Lympics now!! \o/

hehehe

I think I really enjoyed the women's track most.. It was pretty exciting..

I loved seeing Allyson Felix break Carl Lewis's medal record.. Then Sydney McLaughlin and Dalilah Muhammad battling.Then  Athing Mu, omg She's just amazing!

Then to top it all off, them all running as a team in the womens 400m relay..

Omg they just looked like a team of gazels..

I just really enjoyed how they all were on the same team at the end of it all.. It just felt fitting.. And they were so amazing together.

They won't let me show the video, So if anyone wants to see it, here is the link..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcFulpeI-to

[Theresa Tennyson]

22 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

If we do not segregate sports by natal sex, there will be no women champions. And if that's not limiting people to the physical body parts they were born with, I don't know what is.

Could you define the term "natal sex" for us, and tell us how it should be determined?

[Phil Deakins]

On 8/10/2021 at 9:27 AM, Louise Fyrewik said:

Could have been a wildcard entry for inclusivity. 

Ever heard of Eric the Eel? He competed in the 100 meters freestyle swimming in the Sydney 2000 Olympics and nearly drowned during his race. A race he won by the way, because of the other two competitors in his heat being disqualified for false starts.

I laughed at your post because of the part I bolded here. It was funny. Not as a means of laughing at you.

Yes, I remember Eric the eel. I assumed that he was the best that his country could offer for the event, just as Eddie the eagle was the best ski-jumper that GB could offer. They were both men in men's events, so it isn't relevant to this conversation.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Could you define the term "natal sex" for us, and tell us how it should be determined?

Basically, a person needs to be XX to compete in women-only competitions. I don't know a great deal about it but I do know that, if an XX (normal) woman has to compete against XY people, or any of the rare varieties that include a Y, then it would totally unfair on the woman.

I have no idea what the NZ guy is. He might just be an YX guy who fancies being a girl, which, in anyone's opinion, makes him ineligible for women-only competitions. Cutting a bit off here, and growing a bit there doesn't change a person's actual gender.

ETA: It doesn't matter what a sport's governing body says. If their rules allow anyone other than XX women to compete in women-only competitions, then the rule-makers have got it absolutely wrong.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Amina Sopwith]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Could you define the term "natal sex" for us, and tell us how it should be determined?

The reproductive sex class of your body at birth. Male: the class capable of producing sperm. Female: the class capable of producing ova.

There are some rare people with differences of sexual development but they are still classifiable as male or female; it might require a deeper look than simply glancing at their genitals, but it is still determinable. 

And there are conditions that can interfere with a body's ability to produce sperm or ova, but that doesn't stop the body being of the reproductive class capable of producing those gametes. Not ovulating, for example, is a medical condition only if it occurs within a female body.

None of this means that a man or woman has to follow any particular gender stereotypes, which is quite liberating. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

The reproductive sex class of your body at birth. Male: the class capable of producing sperm. Female: the class capable of producing ova

What do sperm and ova have to do with athletic competition?