collapse

* Recent Posts

Dallas bars tonite by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 03:40:45 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by NickelDimer
[Today at 03:31:19 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by avid1010
[Today at 03:29:22 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Pakuni
[Today at 03:28:48 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Uncle Rico
[Today at 03:05:12 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by tower912
[Today at 02:40:05 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Gender and competition.  (Read 7813 times)

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2016, 10:09:31 AM »
Forgetful,

I'm not sure at this point what you want from me. I've answered your questions several times. I don't believe - like the Court of Arbitration for Sport - that an arbitrarily set testosterone level is what determines a person's sex, nor has anyone shown me any evidence that Semenya's condition gives her an unfair advantage anymore than any other athlete born with a rare condition that allows him/her to excel in a given sport.

I choose not to join you in a chicken little scenario portending the end of sports as we know it, especially given that people like Semenya have existed .... well, forever .... and somehow sports as we know it have survived and thrived.

That's all your getting from me.

But I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe some rare innate conditions spell doom for sports if not controlled/eradicated and others are okee-dokee.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2016, 10:11:30 AM »
You are seriously implying that Renee Richards is at least  responsible for the decline of tennis?

It would be less disingenuous to blame racism, because, you know, Venus and Serena.

Not to mention, even if Renee Richards was indeed the cause, we live in a much different era today where trans-gendered athletes can be celebrated, given awards, their own TV show, etc.

To be clear, this isn't snarky at all against Caitlin Jenner at all... it's strictly in demonstration that - even if not universal - there is wide acceptance of gender issues today or, at the very least, we're certainly eons ahead of where we were in the 70s.

Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2016, 10:15:28 AM »
That's utter nonsense.
Tennis was at its peak in popularity when Renee Richards was playing and in the decade immediately after. The sports' popularity began to decline in the early 90s, when charismatic, exciting men's players like Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, etc. vanished and dull automatons like Sampras and Federer began to dominate. Also hasn't helped, at least in this country, that the best male players of the past decade haven't been Americans.

Tennis' popularity via Google Ngram:



Wait a second... so bowling has never been popular?!?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5128
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2016, 10:17:07 AM »
That's utter nonsense.
Tennis was at its peak in popularity when Renee Richards was playing and in the decade immediately after. The sports' popularity began to decline in the early 90s, when charismatic, exciting men's players like Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, etc. vanished and dull automatons like Sampras and Federer began to dominate. Also hasn't helped, at least in this country, that the best male players of the past decade haven't been Americans.

Tennis' popularity via Google Ngram:



Totally agree. I think the sport is still very popular, just not so much here in the states.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2016, 10:41:38 AM »
Totally agree. I think the sport is still very popular, just not so much here in the states.

I also blame the racquet technology that outpaced player's skill.  The best part about tennis in the 70's and early 80's was the epic rallies that would occur.  Now you are lucky to see more than one or two returns before someone has the equivalent of a volleyball kill.  What is the fun in that?  I might as well watch fencing.
Have some patience, FFS.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2016, 11:04:45 AM »
I used to love watching Borg's baseline rallies on the clay.  Jimmy and Mac would work hard to get to the net to try to put away a volley but the quality of Borg's baseline work was so good more often than not it wasn't possible.

In 1985 or so Borg and McEnroe did a multi-city tour with a stop in Milwaukee.  I attended with a close friend who had been the #2 ranked HS player in Arizona.  He walked in thinking that he could take a game here or there from either or both players.  Watching live for a couple hours, he walked out saying taking multiple points (excluding unforced errors) would be a more realistic objective.  That friend and I played regularly for exercise down at grad school.  I had been a borderline Varsity player in HS and my buddy could beat me 6-0, 6-1 if he tried.  Shows how great the gap is for us mortals.  Well, except for Ners.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2016, 11:26:45 AM »


It would be less disingenuous to blame racism, because, you know, Venus and Serena.

Right. Just like Tiger Wood's ascension to #1 destroyed golf's popularity.


MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2016, 12:21:50 PM »
That's utter nonsense.
Tennis was at its peak in popularity when Renee Richards was playing and in the decade immediately after. The sports' popularity began to decline in the early 90s, when charismatic, exciting men's players like Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, etc. vanished and dull automatons like Sampras and Federer began to dominate. Also hasn't helped, at least in this country, that the best male players of the past decade haven't been Americans.

Tennis' popularity via Google Ngram:



Perfect.

Smuggles McHeisy comes on here to make an outrageous statement, pretending it is a fact.

Then you present actual facts, not pretend facts, and Smuggles is gone. Crickets.

Suggesting that Richards' brief career led to tennis' downfall would be like saying the Supreme Court ruling that let Casey Martin use a cart led to golf's downfall.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2016, 12:26:54 PM »
It is an important issue. 

Anyone remember Dr. Renee Richards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

Renée Richards (born August 19, 1934) is an American ophthalmologist and former tennis player who had some success on the professional circuit in the 1970s. In 1975 Richards underwent male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. She was then denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, which began that year requiring genetic screening for female players. She disputed this policy, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977 in a decision in favor of transsexual rights.[2] As one of the first professional athletes to identify as such, she became a spokesperson for the transgender community.

----

To put it bluntly to get the point across.  Richards was a man and could not make a living as a professional tennis player.  So in 1976 Richards had a sex change operation with the intention of becoming a processional women's tennis player.

Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall.   This is how bad it got



Is Richards at fault?  This is a politically charged question.  Fact is her arrived on this scene began the decline leading to the cover above.

So, if you Richards was part of the problem, then these gender questions matter.

???

So you think that the SI cover from 1994 was a result of Richards having a sex change operation 18 years earlier???

How on earth does that make any sense?

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2016, 01:39:11 PM »
You are seriously implying that Renee Richards is at least  responsible for the decline of tennis?

It would be less disingenuous to blame racism, because, you know, Venus and Serena.

No ... she was very unpopular at the time and it did coincide with a tennis in the decline popularity of Women's tennis that bottomed out in the early 1990s (SI cover)

Pakuni - a master of using unrelated graphs to make a point.  Book popularity is not a measure of spectator popularity.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2016, 01:47:46 PM »
No ... she was very unpopular at the time and it did coincide with a tennis in the decline popularity of Women's tennis that bottomed out in the early 1990s (SI cover)

Pakuni - a master of using unrelated graphs to make a point.  Book popularity is not a measure of spectator popularity.

n-grams don't measure the popularity of books.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2016, 02:41:04 PM »
No ... she was very unpopular at the time and it did coincide with a tennis in the decline popularity of Women's tennis that bottomed out in the early 1990s (SI cover)

Gotcha.
So a player who retired having never won a single title, never ranking above #20 in the world, never appearing in Wimbledon, the French Open or the Australian Open, and never advancing past the third round of the U.S. Open, is to blame for a Sports Illustrated cover article that ran 13 years after she retired.
Makes total sense.

Quote
Pakuni - a master of using unrelated graphs to make a point.  Book popularity is not a measure of spectator popularity.

Where's your evidence that Richards' "arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall."
Do you even know what the word "coincided" means?
Because Richards "arrived on the scene" in 1977. The U.S. Open had its second-highest ever TV ratings in 1977, just behind 1980 and 1981. Let that sink in ...  the premiere U.S. tennis event had its best ratings ever while Richards was playing in it.
Clearly she killed the sport.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2016, 02:59:55 PM »
Gotcha.
So a player who retired having never won a single title, never ranking above #20 in the world, never appearing in Wimbledon, the French Open or the Australian Open, and never advancing past the third round of the U.S. Open, is to blame for a Sports Illustrated cover article that ran 13 years after she retired.
Makes total sense.

Where's your evidence that Richards' "arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall."
Do you even know what the word "coincided" means?
Because Richards "arrived on the scene" in 1977. The U.S. Open had its second-highest ever TV ratings in 1977, just behind 1980 and 1981. Let that sink in ...  the premiere U.S. tennis event had its best ratings ever while Richards was playing in it.
Clearly she killed the sport.

Oooh, Smuggles isn't gonna like having to deal with still more facts.

But ... but ... but ... if not for Renee Richards, Big East hoops would have better ratings on FS1.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • NA of course
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2016, 07:58:08 PM »
Makes one wonder if the ratings had anything to do with "the circus sideshow" as opposed to the competition on the court?  Just wondering. Come one, come all, step right up and see the....back in 1977, this was quite the cultural shock, heyn'al?
don't...don't don't don't don't

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2016, 11:30:56 PM »
Forgetful,

I'm not sure at this point what you want from me. I've answered your questions several times. I don't believe - like the Court of Arbitration for Sport - that an arbitrarily set testosterone level is what determines a person's sex, nor has anyone shown me any evidence that Semenya's condition gives her an unfair advantage anymore than any other athlete born with a rare condition that allows him/her to excel in a given sport.

I choose not to join you in a chicken little scenario portending the end of sports as we know it, especially given that people like Semenya have existed .... well, forever .... and somehow sports as we know it have survived and thrived.

That's all your getting from me.

But I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe some rare innate conditions spell doom for sports if not controlled/eradicated and others are okee-dokee.

Pakuni,

First I want to apologize.  My writings come across as argumentative, but they are not meant that way.  I am not attacking your position or trying to say you are wrong; I'm merely trying to convey a lot of the background.  My career (as a scientist) sadly requires that when presenting data we have to essentially take an argumentative approach even though it is merely a presentation of information.  Unfortunately that carries over to a message board.

Now, I'm going to respond your last comment first.  I most definitely do not think that this topic will spell doom for sports and have zero concern that it will end sports as we know it.  I do think that in sports like the 400, 800 and 1500 it will progressively damage the competitive spirit of women's athletics.

As I posted previously, I don't view this as an issue of doom or gloom for sports, rather, I feel sports are a gateway to discussing issues of gender and thinking seriously about the complications associated with our inherent nature to assign a dichotomy to something that is a fluid continuum. 

I do separate it from other genetic differences, because as I made clear, gender is the only genetic difference that we naturally separate in sports; this is done less because of us having different private parts, but rather differences in innate athletic ability due to the nature of our hormonal development.

Before I move on to the rest, I want to emphasize that what I write below is not intended to be argumentative or trying to tell you that you are wrong.  I really have zero intentions of that; in fact I to a large extent agree with a lot of your stances. 

Now, back to the beginning.  The reason I asked you to define gender is because it is central to the problem. 

The CAS controversy stems from two very flawed studies.  The key difference in the studies is how gender was defined. 

In one study, gender was defined as XX being female, XY being male or intersex.  If it was determined they were XY and intersex they were excluded from the testosterone study.  This study clearly showed that based on the IOC/IAAF guidelines no women (XX) would ever be restricted from competition and that there was a distinct and significant separation in testosterone levels between male and females. 

The second study defined male and female solely based on the division they competed in (males in the mens competition; females in the women's competition) they deliberately included XY (intersex) individuals competing as women.  This study claimed that the other study would exclude women from competition as the previous study's testosterone limits were too narrow and some women test higher than men.  This is to be expected as XY individuals produce male levels of androgens whether they are male or intersex. 

Both studies have a logical flaw in first defining male/female as they desire and nullifying any logical conclusions.  Comparisons of the study would suggest the individuals causing a broadening of the androgen range in women was due to inclusion of intersex individuals that have naturally high testosterone.

The issue of whether these higher testosterone levels affect performance is separate, but athletic performance studies have similar flaws.  The ones that show no effect of androgens on female performance have two logical flaws. 

1.  They define women as XX only.  Intersex individuals (XY, but female external sex organs) are not included in the study.  That nullifies any conclusions for individuals like Semenya.

2.  They use comparatively very low levels of androgens as higher levels (that would approach those found in Semenya and others in question) are deemed unsafe.  Again, one cannot conclude the effects of androgens on performance if they are not using similar levels.

Other studies rely on the fact that completely androgen insensitive XY (intersex) individuals do not see enhanced performance.  Again, conclusions that are based on biologically different entities from those you are making conclusions on are logically invalid. 

What's interesting, is that the IOC/IAAF's studies do not do what any of the published reports do.  They took a very logical approach to avoid exclusion of any women that did not gain a competitive advantage due to their nature. 

1.  The IOC/IAAF does not define gender based on XX or XY, nor do they base gender on having a penis, vagina, testicles, ovaries or all of the above.  Rather, they allow the individual to define gender as they believe it applies to them.  I applaud this and think it is revolutionary in understanding the complexity of gender. 

2.  They merely focus on maintaing a competitive balance in the male/female divisions. 

3.  To maintain balance they have designed tests that specify levels of functional androgens.  These are androgens drawn into cells in a manner consistent with male biology, to elicit a male biological response.  Individuals that are XY and androgen insensitive would never test above their limits; neither would XX individuals intentionally doping with moderate levels of androgens.

Rather, it would isolate transgender (XY androgen sensitive) individuals that have not begun hormone treatment; and it would isolate partially androgen sensitive (XY) individuals.  The latter group from all we know about science would achieve a competitive advantage from androgens because of the partial sensitivity that is also indicated by the fact that this is an elevated level of functional androgens. 

Only in this extreme latter case would individuals have to take hormones.  Note that all that have had to take hormone suppressant drugs have shown a decline in performance.  That confirms the competitive advantage of the elevated androgen levels.

The detailed and careful nature of the IOC/IAAF rulings are why I am OK with their rules and decisions.  It is still far from ideal, for the very reasons that the scientists contesting the rules make clear.

Those contesting the rules are largely sociologists and psychologists who indicate the personal and emotional trauma associated with telling an individual who has been raised female to be told they cannot compete as a women.  This bothers me greatly on an emotional level; but the interesting thing is:  Why is it emotionally damaging?

When I reflect on this question, I realize it is because of our preconceived notions of gender and gender roles.  This idea of being man or woman and this supposed gigantic separation of these two divisions in humanity.  It is this gender dichotomy that we should be trying to expel; instead we use it as a reason to silence discussion of a very important social issue.

I hope you find the above at least interesting and maybe informative. 

tl;dr.  I'm sorry I didn't intend on attacking you.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2016, 10:51:59 AM »
Forgetful ... I don't feel you've attacked me and there's no need for an apology.
And while I appreciate the sincere effort and thought you've put into making your case, I think the discussion - at least on my end - has run its course. We seem to fundamentally disagree on how the sports world should identify a woman/determine womanhood, and on the severity of the implications that doing things they way they're being done now will have on sports.
And I'm fine with that disagreement. 

Now, let's get back to debating how a transgender tennis player killed the sport more than a decade after she retired.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 10:54:58 AM by Pakuni »

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2016, 11:34:33 AM »
Now, let's get back to debating how a transgender tennis player killed the sport more than a decade after she retired.

Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2016, 01:18:53 PM »
Forgetful ... I don't feel you've attacked me and there's no need for an apology.
And while I appreciate the sincere effort and thought you've put into making your case, I think the discussion - at least on my end - has run its course. We seem to fundamentally disagree on how the sports world should identify a woman/determine womanhood, and on the severity of the implications that doing things they way they're being done now will have on sports.
And I'm fine with that disagreement. 

Now, let's get back to debating how a transgender tennis player killed the sport more than a decade after she retired.

Something's need at least 5 years to fully evaluate.  Others two decades.  Clearly, she was an evil genius that devised a long term strategy to sink the entire sport.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2016, 10:12:36 PM »
Gotcha.
So a player who retired having never won a single title, never ranking above #20 in the world, never appearing in Wimbledon, the French Open or the Australian Open, and never advancing past the third round of the U.S. Open, is to blame for a Sports Illustrated cover article that ran 13 years after she retired.
Makes total sense.

Where's your evidence that Richards' "arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall."
Do you even know what the word "coincided" means?
Because Richards "arrived on the scene" in 1977. The U.S. Open had its second-highest ever TV ratings in 1977, just behind 1980 and 1981. Let that sink in ...  the premiere U.S. tennis event had its best ratings ever while Richards was playing in it.
Clearly she killed the sport.

You will note that I said women's tennis, not tennis.  And you will not that she was so controversial that she tainted the entire sport (women's tennis).  The world was not ready for a transgender player in 1977, might not be now.

And I might add this is somewhat specific to women's sports.  Some have argued that the WNBA is struggling because it is too full of lesbians with tattoos all over their body.  It is not the image of women that many find attract.  On the flip side, others have argued that the hot Russian tennis players (starting with Anna Kourkova) saved women's tennis.  They are the image of women that they find attractive.  Yes, if the WNBA had players that looked like the WTA (processional women's tennis) it would be much more popular.  (and no this is not a comment on race, it is a comment on what society finds attractive.)

Yes it is unfair, but the perceptions of the women matter a lot more than the perceptions of men,  And it might matter as much, if not more than the athletic achievements. 

After all, this thread is about Caster Semyna.  Why don't have these same have a technical dissection of a extraordinary male athletes like Usian Bolt, Ashton Eaton or Mo Farah?

« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 10:17:30 PM by Jesse Livermore »

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2016, 11:48:14 PM »

After all, this thread is about Caster Semyna.  Why don't have these same have a technical dissection of a extraordinary male athletes like Usian Bolt, Ashton Eaton or Mo Farah?

Well, since I started this thread, I figured I'd take a stab at it.  Maybe, because the ones you mention are all XY, with male external genitalia, male hormones, etc. 

Now both Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have had people question whether they are doping before.  But that would be a different thread. 

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2016, 08:11:28 AM »
You will note that I said women's tennis, not tennis.  And you will not that she was so controversial that she tainted the entire sport (women's tennis).  The world was not ready for a transgender player in 1977, might not be now.

Here's exactly what you said:
"Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall."

You've provided no evidence to support this claim other than a Sports Illustrated cover that appeared 13 years after Richards retired. The story that went with that cover listed a host of reasons for tennis' decline in popularity. Not once is Renee Richards mentioned.

On the other hand, I've provided evidence through two separate metrics - television ratings and mentions of "tennis" in printed text - that shows Renee Richards' arrival actually coincided with tennis' peak popularity, and its decline didn't begin until about a decade after her retirement.

You're wrong and simply can't admit it.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2016, 08:29:28 AM »
You will note that I said women's tennis, not tennis.  And you will not that she was so controversial that she tainted the entire sport (women's tennis).  The world was not ready for a transgender player in 1977, might not be now.

http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

Highest rated Women's Finals in US Open History.

1. 1981, Tracy Austin d. Martina Navratilova, 7.7
2. 1985, Hana Mandlíková d. Martina Navratilova, 7.3
3. 1984, Martina Navratilova d. Chris Evert, 7.1


Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Gender and competition.
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2016, 02:14:08 AM »
Here's exactly what you said:
"Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall."

You've provided no evidence to support this claim other than a Sports Illustrated cover that appeared 13 years after Richards retired. The story that went with that cover listed a host of reasons for tennis' decline in popularity. Not once is Renee Richards mentioned.

On the other hand, I've provided evidence through two separate metrics - television ratings and mentions of "tennis" in printed text - that shows Renee Richards' arrival actually coincided with tennis' peak popularity, and its decline didn't begin until about a decade after her retirement.

You're wrong and simply can't admit it.

You metrics prove nothing ...

Book mentions is not a measure of popularity.

With the exception of the Super Bowl every television rating of anything peaked in the late 70s or 80s because that was the peak of television viewing (so called linear tv).  All your stats are showing is how people watch TV nothing about tennis.

http://www.espn.com/new-york/story/_/id/7057906/30-30-renee-richards-new-york-original

That didn't stop the WTA from trying to ban her from pro tournaments until she sued, or 25 of the 32 women in the field from withdrawing from the first tournament she played at age 41. Crowds rooted against her. If Richards turned on a TV at the time, she could've found Johnny Carson and Bob Hope snickering on "The Tonight Show" that Richards was her own "mixed doubles team" and had "lost everything" by -- ha ha -- jumping a little too low over the net. Get it?