4 ms·
It isn't propaganda to acknowledge that elite male athletes are better than elite female athletes, for any reasonable definition of better. Therefore, if we wa
by Jabbles 7y ago
It isn't propaganda to acknowledge that elite male athletes are better than elite female athletes, for any reasonable definition of better.
Therefore, if we want any women participation in the Olympics, we have to have more than one category.
- viach 7y agoWhere this boundary where we can acknowledge that one category of people is _better_ in something and needs to participate only in _protected_ type of some events?
- garmaine 7y agoOr we can apply weighting factors to calibrate everyone onto a single scale. You could even weight age, tested T levels, height, weight, etc...
- pdkl95 7y agoThe solution is to define the categories by the specific physical traits that are beneficial to the competition (sort of like the weight classes used in boxing). Gender is an indirect indicator. Instead of dividing in to [men, women, ...(other?)...], divide by e.g, size, weight, allele, etc.
- rwmj 7y agoIt's an interesting idea, but what criteria would you use to group people for running?
- berbec 7y agoPersonal best time at competing distance.
- rwmj 7y agoThat would be extremely easy to game. It has to be something that's near-impossible to cheat, such as height, length of leg, or a particular genetic marker.
- ordinaryperson 7y agoHow would this work? Some Olympic distances are: -Sprints (100m, 200m, 400m), -Middle distance (800m, 1500m) -Long distance (3000m Steeplechase, 5000m, 10,000m) -Hurdles (110/100m, 400m) -Relays (4x100m, 4x400m) Men would dominate every distance, you'd have no women competing. More cynically I'd point out that all high-level athletics are really television shows and the audience (deservedly) wants women's sports. To me the solution is a new intersex category.