5 ms·

While it's hard to draw a precise line, there's a clear difference between having some genetic features that give you an advantage, and having most genetic feat

While it's hard to draw a precise line, there's a clear difference between having some genetic features that give you an advantage, and having most genetic features that give you an advantage. Growing up under the influence of male genetics and hormones gives an individual a massive advantage in such a sport, that simply cannot be compensated for or against with just training or medical solutions. There's nothing that will take that edge away from such an individual because human intervention later in life can't entirely undo the course nature took when building that body. The evidence is in the performance which falls squarely in line with male performance [0]. And to everyone thinking of a parallel with motorsports and whatnot, there is none. Those sports rely on technology developed by humans so anything is entirely reproducible and reversible. Nature on the other hand still does things that we don't understand, can't reproduce, or can't fully compensate for. We have no way to change the gender with all the associated factors so we focus on the critical and obvious ones like physical look and hormonal balance, which get a person 95% there. But when it comes to peak performance the 5% makes a difference and it's clearly an unfair one to every other participant. [0] https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg

ivanbakel 5y ago
> While it's hard to draw a precise line, there's a clear difference between having some genetic features that give you an advantage, and having most genetic features that give you an advantage. I don't see the clear difference. In what qualitative sense does Hubbard's genetic advantage differ from the genetic advantage of any athlete at the top of their sport? There are many competitions which are dominated by one individual, regardless of the training or medical help which every other competitor can afford. Should those people be excluded from competing for reasons of fairness?
dagw 5y ago
The evidence is in the performance which falls squarely in line with male performance The article seems to make clear that while she is in the top 10, she's not in the top 3 and is in no way a favorite to win. So I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to be showing. Two women in this weight class have scored a 300+ in competition while Hubbard's best is a 285 from 2019.
- prestigious 5y ago
  I think the point is they took the spot from somebody who deserves to represent their country in Olympic competition and they aren’t even likely to win.
- buran77 5y ago
  It's supposed to say that she's exhibiting typical male level performance, which happens to be substantially above typical female performance at that level. This means she's taking full advantage of a body which developed and trained as male for 35 years to get ahead of women who have to rely "only" on training. You wouldn't let an adult compete in a junior competition because they feel young at heart. You wouldn't let someone compete while on performance enhancing drugs just because they needed them. You would ban athletes who who are repeatedly caught using steroids because it's well known they provide an unfair advantage even years later. And that absolutely pales in comparison to having a trained male body in a women's weightlifting competition.
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    Equally, you wouldn't ban a child from a junior competition just because they were able to achieve an adult's performance out of "fairness" to the other children. Hubbard may have a physical advantage over cis women - but lots of athletes have physical advantages over each other. What is different about the kind of advantage you might obtain by being trans? Also, comparing a trans woman to someone who "feels young at heart" is a false equivalence, and an offensive one. One is an identity, the other is not.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Your last point is one that people don’t agree on though, which makes the topic challenging.
    - buran77 5y ago
      If you read the very first line of the first comment I made above [0] you'll see why the "but some are better than others" is a very unrealistic and uncharitable take on the topic. The whole reason we have separated men and women trials in almost every sport is that the difference between men and women goes far beyond "lots of athletes have an advantage over each other". Having a male body for 35 years is much more than your average advantage. You decided let your personal sensibilities get in the way of understanding my arguments that are much stronger than anything you presented. Sports aren't about gender identity but about sex. As entitled as any individual is to decide on a body that reflects their identity, their biological sex is still very much unchanged. And so are the advantages years of being a male provide. As you can see from actual athletes, this situation is offensive for those women who after a lifetime of training and hard work see themselves competing against effectively a biological male body with a massive advantage that dwarfs even years of performance enhancing drugs would give. And to your last point, saying gender identity is OK, age identity is not [1], and that it's OK to identify as a different gender or even no gender at all but anything else is not acceptable is grossly hypocritical and might be as ignorant as people were 50 years ago about gender related topics. Time will tell. I honestly do not feel like my age, and do not identify with that number but rather with a much younger age for many of the reasons you can read in the article linked. This being said, even if the law allowed me to change the number either way, I would not consider this to be a valid differentiator for sports. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603055 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/08/dutch-man-69-starts-legal-fight-to-identify-as-20-years-younger https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/08/dutch-man-69-s...
faeriechangling 5y ago
I feel something being overlooked is the fact that it's relatively easy to dope without detection when your natural state is "doping" when weightlifting is one of the dirtiest sports out there.
belorn 5y ago
Just to take one example of a genetic feature in the wild, there is a gene receptor which if you have the right mutation will cause an 25-50% increase in oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells. Some people call it a naturally occurring blood doping. The definition of fairness is difficult when dealing with even single genetic features.

ivanbakel 5y ago

> While it's hard to draw a precise line, there's a clear difference between having some genetic features that give you an advantage, and having most genetic features that give you an advantage. I don't see the clear difference. In what qualitative sense does Hubbard's genetic advantage differ from the genetic advantage of any athlete at the top of their sport? There are many competitions which are dominated by one individual, regardless of the training or medical help which every other competitor can afford. Should those people be excluded from competing for reasons of fairness?

dagw 5y ago

The evidence is in the performance which falls squarely in line with male performance The article seems to make clear that while she is in the top 10, she's not in the top 3 and is in no way a favorite to win. So I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to be showing. Two women in this weight class have scored a 300+ in competition while Hubbard's best is a 285 from 2019.

prestigious 5y ago
I think the point is they took the spot from somebody who deserves to represent their country in Olympic competition and they aren’t even likely to win.
buran77 5y ago
It's supposed to say that she's exhibiting typical male level performance, which happens to be substantially above typical female performance at that level. This means she's taking full advantage of a body which developed and trained as male for 35 years to get ahead of women who have to rely "only" on training. You wouldn't let an adult compete in a junior competition because they feel young at heart. You wouldn't let someone compete while on performance enhancing drugs just because they needed them. You would ban athletes who who are repeatedly caught using steroids because it's well known they provide an unfair advantage even years later. And that absolutely pales in comparison to having a trained male body in a women's weightlifting competition.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  Equally, you wouldn't ban a child from a junior competition just because they were able to achieve an adult's performance out of "fairness" to the other children. Hubbard may have a physical advantage over cis women - but lots of athletes have physical advantages over each other. What is different about the kind of advantage you might obtain by being trans? Also, comparing a trans woman to someone who "feels young at heart" is a false equivalence, and an offensive one. One is an identity, the other is not.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Your last point is one that people don’t agree on though, which makes the topic challenging.
  - buran77 5y ago
    If you read the very first line of the first comment I made above [0] you'll see why the "but some are better than others" is a very unrealistic and uncharitable take on the topic. The whole reason we have separated men and women trials in almost every sport is that the difference between men and women goes far beyond "lots of athletes have an advantage over each other". Having a male body for 35 years is much more than your average advantage. You decided let your personal sensibilities get in the way of understanding my arguments that are much stronger than anything you presented. Sports aren't about gender identity but about sex. As entitled as any individual is to decide on a body that reflects their identity, their biological sex is still very much unchanged. And so are the advantages years of being a male provide. As you can see from actual athletes, this situation is offensive for those women who after a lifetime of training and hard work see themselves competing against effectively a biological male body with a massive advantage that dwarfs even years of performance enhancing drugs would give. And to your last point, saying gender identity is OK, age identity is not [1], and that it's OK to identify as a different gender or even no gender at all but anything else is not acceptable is grossly hypocritical and might be as ignorant as people were 50 years ago about gender related topics. Time will tell. I honestly do not feel like my age, and do not identify with that number but rather with a much younger age for many of the reasons you can read in the article linked. This being said, even if the law allowed me to change the number either way, I would not consider this to be a valid differentiator for sports. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603055 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/08/dutch-man-69-starts-legal-fight-to-identify-as-20-years-younger https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/08/dutch-man-69-s...

faeriechangling 5y ago

I feel something being overlooked is the fact that it's relatively easy to dope without detection when your natural state is "doping" when weightlifting is one of the dirtiest sports out there.

belorn 5y ago

Just to take one example of a genetic feature in the wild, there is a gene receptor which if you have the right mutation will cause an 25-50% increase in oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells. Some people call it a naturally occurring blood doping. The definition of fairness is difficult when dealing with even single genetic features.