4 ms·

Double edged sword here. This is obviously scientific. We have womens and mens sports separate because of these distinctions. But I can see how they can bundle

Double edged sword here. This is obviously scientific. We have womens and mens sports separate because of these distinctions. But I can see how they can bundle it with the famous 4chan “X% of crime is committed by Y race” which takes 0 account of the actual factors that contribute to that stat as they focus incorrectly on race.

k__ 5y ago
Yes, correlation and causation aren't always straight forward and often the former is used as the latter just to discredit a group of people "in the name of science".
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  There's no way we're going to solve these problems if facts are suppressed because people might draw the "wrong" conclusions from them. Racial crime rates are directly pertinent to, for example, assessing BLM claims that black people are being targeted by police. Many people (incorrectly) believe this is true because the relevant facts are suppressed.
vibrato2 5y ago
It’s about 50% of violent crime by about 2% of the population by the way. Young black males
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
awb 5y ago
Men’s and women’s sports are segregated in part because men have large amounts of testosterone which is like a naturally occurring performance enhancing drug. So, of course men will outperform women in most sports, even if all other factors like access and funding were equal. But the chart leaves out sports where women can beat men or are very comparable like some gymnastics, ultra-long distance swimming & running, sailing, bowling, equine sports, shooting, rock climbing, racing etc. Basically, sports that minimize the importance of muscle mass and maximize the importance of muscle efficiency and endurance tend to be much more competitive, but that’s missing from this chart which shows men being superior across the board.
- wayneftw 5y ago
  From the study: "The metrics were compiled from publicly available sports federation databases and/or tournament/competition records." "Although not an exhaustive list, examples of performance gaps in a range of sports with various durations, physiological performance determinants, skill components and force requirements are shown..." [0] To clarify why I'm quoting these - I don't think they're trying to spin it one way or the other. Reading the report one can see that they say things like "which creates advantages in sports where levers influence force application, where longer limb/digit length is favorable", i.e. not all sports. So, they're coming to the same conclusion. Either way - some small percentage of people are always going to be upset if they can't just do whatever they want. [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
  - awb 5y ago
    But from that same paper: > When comparing athletes who compete directly against one another, such as elite or comparable levels of school-aged athletes, the physiological advantages conferred by biological sex appear, on assessment of performance data, insurmountable. The paper is missing that these differences are not insurmountable in all sports, and not even in all Olympic sports (they reference the IOC multiple times). It's an important distinction not addressed adequately in the chart or the paper IMO. > In this review, we aim to assess whether evidence exists to support the assumption that testosterone suppression in transgender women removes these advantages. If your study is designed to analyze the fairness of different testosterone levels in all Olympic sports (or a cross-section of all sports) in an un-biased way, then you should include data on all Olympic sports (curling, artistic gymnastics, artistic swimming, equestrian, fencing, figure skating, marathon swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, sailing, rock climbing, surfing, table tennis, etc.), or at least include varying types of sports like endurance sports, dexterity sports, artistic sports, equine sports, etc. Maybe they just don't have data for those other sports, but then at least include a prominent caveat that this data is incomplete and is not a good representation of all sports or even all Olympic sports, or limit the scope of your paper to what your more narrow analysis actually is. > Of course, different sports select for different physiological characteristics—an advantage in one discipline may be neutral or even a disadvantage in another—but examination of a variety of record and performance metrics in any discipline reveals there are few sporting disciplines where males do not possess performance advantage over females as a result of the physiological characteristics affected by testosterone. Correct, but why not name those sports and include them in the chart? Apparently the authors know that these sports exist enough to acknowledge that they are "few" in number. Just a little too much of an agenda wrapped in science for my taste. I don't think it's the best chart to be promoting, because it's incomplete and paints a picture that male sporting dominance over females is "insurmountable", when in fact "dominant in many areas, but comparable in a few areas" is a much more accurate conclusion. That said, I don't think it's hate speech by any means, just a poor chart from a poor paper with incomplete data.
woofster 5y ago
you talkin bout them niggers?

k__ 5y ago

Yes, correlation and causation aren't always straight forward and often the former is used as the latter just to discredit a group of people "in the name of science".

gotoeleven 5y ago
There's no way we're going to solve these problems if facts are suppressed because people might draw the "wrong" conclusions from them. Racial crime rates are directly pertinent to, for example, assessing BLM claims that black people are being targeted by police. Many people (incorrectly) believe this is true because the relevant facts are suppressed.

vibrato2 5y ago

It’s about 50% of violent crime by about 2% of the population by the way. Young black males

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

awb 5y ago

Men’s and women’s sports are segregated in part because men have large amounts of testosterone which is like a naturally occurring performance enhancing drug. So, of course men will outperform women in most sports, even if all other factors like access and funding were equal. But the chart leaves out sports where women can beat men or are very comparable like some gymnastics, ultra-long distance swimming & running, sailing, bowling, equine sports, shooting, rock climbing, racing etc. Basically, sports that minimize the importance of muscle mass and maximize the importance of muscle efficiency and endurance tend to be much more competitive, but that’s missing from this chart which shows men being superior across the board.

wayneftw 5y ago
From the study: "The metrics were compiled from publicly available sports federation databases and/or tournament/competition records." "Although not an exhaustive list, examples of performance gaps in a range of sports with various durations, physiological performance determinants, skill components and force requirements are shown..." [0] To clarify why I'm quoting these - I don't think they're trying to spin it one way or the other. Reading the report one can see that they say things like "which creates advantages in sports where levers influence force application, where longer limb/digit length is favorable", i.e. not all sports. So, they're coming to the same conclusion. Either way - some small percentage of people are always going to be upset if they can't just do whatever they want. [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
- awb 5y ago
  But from that same paper: > When comparing athletes who compete directly against one another, such as elite or comparable levels of school-aged athletes, the physiological advantages conferred by biological sex appear, on assessment of performance data, insurmountable. The paper is missing that these differences are not insurmountable in all sports, and not even in all Olympic sports (they reference the IOC multiple times). It's an important distinction not addressed adequately in the chart or the paper IMO. > In this review, we aim to assess whether evidence exists to support the assumption that testosterone suppression in transgender women removes these advantages. If your study is designed to analyze the fairness of different testosterone levels in all Olympic sports (or a cross-section of all sports) in an un-biased way, then you should include data on all Olympic sports (curling, artistic gymnastics, artistic swimming, equestrian, fencing, figure skating, marathon swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, sailing, rock climbing, surfing, table tennis, etc.), or at least include varying types of sports like endurance sports, dexterity sports, artistic sports, equine sports, etc. Maybe they just don't have data for those other sports, but then at least include a prominent caveat that this data is incomplete and is not a good representation of all sports or even all Olympic sports, or limit the scope of your paper to what your more narrow analysis actually is. > Of course, different sports select for different physiological characteristics—an advantage in one discipline may be neutral or even a disadvantage in another—but examination of a variety of record and performance metrics in any discipline reveals there are few sporting disciplines where males do not possess performance advantage over females as a result of the physiological characteristics affected by testosterone. Correct, but why not name those sports and include them in the chart? Apparently the authors know that these sports exist enough to acknowledge that they are "few" in number. Just a little too much of an agenda wrapped in science for my taste. I don't think it's the best chart to be promoting, because it's incomplete and paints a picture that male sporting dominance over females is "insurmountable", when in fact "dominant in many areas, but comparable in a few areas" is a much more accurate conclusion. That said, I don't think it's hate speech by any means, just a poor chart from a poor paper with incomplete data.

woofster 5y ago

you talkin bout them niggers?