Women's sport: how to sort out who should qualify?

[Uncwilly]

Not going to click on that whilst at work.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Not going to click on that whilst at work.

I'm not at work so clicked on it. There's really nothing there to be embarrassed about.

[LaurV]

Well, joke or not, the message is clear: "you are ugly, have hairy legs, and no chance for a sex partner"... "and get those cracked heels cleaned!"

Dumb fxking idiots... (edit: no, I am not a woman)

[MooMoo2]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Today's judgment upholding the International Association of Athletics Federations' requirement that the South African athlete Caster Semenya will have to take drugs to reduce her testosterone levels in order to compete in women's events is sending shockwaves through the sporting world. The decision is controversial to say the least. The subject is an area where there is no easy answer as far as I can see.

...

What about non-physical sports? In chess, for example, women also sometimes have their own events, notably the Women's World Chess Championship. I have made some enquiries among chess players and have been told that FIDE, the chess governing body, does not appear to have addressed this issue at all yet. I would think it is only a matter of time before there is an entrant in the Women's World Championship for whom their gender is called into question. What should qualify someone to compete in a women's event in mind sports like chess?

I came across an interesting article which raises the possibility that women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

Some anecdotal evidence - my time for Semenya's event, the 800m, is 2:11.25 * While that time wouldn't have beaten Semenya or gotten me an Olympic medal in the women's race, it's roughly in the same ballpark as the slower female Olympians and would have been a women's world record as late as 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_me...rd_progression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlet...lon#800_metres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlet...0_metres#Heats

This year, I was in roughly similar shape, having spent almost a year training for a day hike to Mt. Whitney. That hike is pretty much an ultra-endurance event - 22 miles, 6000+ feet of elevation gain, and a maximum altitude of 14,500' / 4420m. After three days of acclimation in a mountain town, I reached the summit and carried nothing more than poles and a light daypack. Given my training and somewhat impressive time in the 800, did I do better than every other woman I saw on the trail that day? Not even close; I got passed by at least a dozen women who didn't even look tired, even though some of them were carrying massive house-sized packs. Maybe women really are better athletes than men if the distance is long enough.

*in case anyone's interested, the race results are at: https://www.espn.com/high-school/tra...ll-comers-2-18 , and the race video is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDUW7qXVn3k

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

I got passed by at least a dozen women who didn't even look tired, even though some of them were carrying massive house-sized packs. Maybe women really are better athletes than men if the distance is long enough.

Well, there are people who go in one trip, but there are those who camp mid-way for the night (I know that I did; and I can say that the two campsites are fairly large). So they passed you over maybe because they go only half distance?

And don't even ask me how many women and men passed by me! I was one of the slowest (and arguably dumbest, because I went alone - there are always folks around, but my team was a team of 1 and average age of 50).

P.S. There was recently a funny meme in Russian circles; but you would need an explanation: the background is that in school everyone learns "Есть женщины в русских селеньях ... // Коня на скаку остановит, // В горящую избу войдёт!" (an excerpt from N.Nekrasov).
So the meme goes like this: "If you can stop a runaway horse and walk into a burning house - you are not a real man."

[MooMoo2]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Well, there are people who go in one trip, but there are those who camp mid-way for the night (I know that I did; and I can say that the two campsites are fairly large). So they passed you over maybe because they go only half distance?

And don't even ask me how many women and men passed by me! I was one of the slowest (and arguably dumbest, because I went alone - there are always folks around, but my team was a team of 1 and average age of 50).

I think the people carrying small packs were those who tried to do the whole thing in a day, while those carrying giant packs were the overnight campers. I got passed by women and men from both groups, though.

I started at night, and like you, I went alone. It takes a bit of bravery (and/or stupidity?) to go on a solo night hike after seeing signs warning of helicopter rescues and active bears in the area. But I didn't second guess that decision until 3 or so miles into the hike when I saw a pair of green eyes in the middle of the trail that were staring at me and refusing to move. It turned out to be a deer.

[retina]

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

I came across an interesting article which raises the possibility that women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

No. Not possible.

Top male athletes in all physical sports outperform the top females. It isn't even close.

The Bell curves overlap so top females are definitely ahead of most males. But comparing like for like, the men and women at the same place in their respective curves, the men are ahead.

This isn't sexist, it is just statistics. It says nothing about the reason for the difference. It might be biomechanical, it might be sociological, it might be psychological, it might be a combination of all three, or something else entirely. So if we figure out the reason then perhaps we can close the gap.

[MooMoo2]

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

I came across an interesting article which raises the possibility that women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

Originally Posted by retina

No. Not possible.

Top male athletes in all physical sports outperform the top females. It isn't even close.

I looked up the world records for various distances and tried to find out whether there was any type of trend toward a decreasing male-female gap as the distances grew longer:

200m: 19.19 men, 21.34 women, women are 11.2% slower
1500m: 3:26.00 men, 3:50.07 women, women are 11.7% slower
5000m: 12:35.36 men, 14:06.62 women, women are 12.1% slower
10000m: 26:11.00 men, 29:17.45 women, women are 11.9% slower
Marathon: 1:59:40 men, 2:14:04 women, women are 12.0% slower
100 miles: 11:28:03 men, 12:42:40 women, women are 10.8% slower

For the "most distance you can run in a fixed amount of time" records, you have:
1 hour: 21.33 km men, 18.93 km women, men can run 12.7% further
6 hours: 97.200 km men, 85.492 km women, men can run 13.7% further
12 hours: 163.785 km men, 149.130 km women, men can run 9.8% further
24 hours: 303.506 km men, 262.193 km women, men can run 15.8% further
48 hours: 473.495 km men, 397.103 km women, men can run 19.2% further
6 days: 1036.800 km men, 883.631 km women, men can run 17.3% further

The gap is smallest for events most similar to 100 miles / 12 hours, but widens for distances which are shorter or longer than that.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by retina

It might be biomechanical

That would be my bet for the dominant. Let's take for a single example just the bones/the skeleton.

Originally Posted by retina

So if we figure out the reason then perhaps we can close the gap.

There is a constant difference in genome-programmed differences (for the development decades), so if one can reprogram that for the complete range from -0.75 to 18 years of age (nobody knows how to do that correctly; there are some incomplete proxies - e.g. you can just manipulate hormone expression, but that is far not all) - then (to take one subsystem) skeleton will be at age 18 the same as for males and that would (maybe) erase the gap. But it could be for all intents and purposes equivalent to turning that person into a male (!).

[MooMoo2]

Originally Posted by Batalov

There is a constant difference in genome-programmed differences (for the development decades), so if one can reprogram that for the complete range from -0.75 to 18 years of age (nobody knows how to do that correctly; there are some incomplete proxies - e.g. you can just manipulate hormone expression, but that is far not all) - then (to take one subsystem) skeleton will be at age 18 the same as for males and that would (maybe) erase the gap. But it could be for all intents and purposes equivalent to turning that person into a male (!).

Perhaps that range can be taken from 11 to 18 instead of from -0.75 to 18? For the sprints, the age group records for 10 year old boys is virtually identical to that of 10 year old girls:
http://age-records.125mb.com/

100m: 12.06 for boys under age 11, 12.15 for girls under age 11
200m: 24.69 for boys under age 11, 24.43 for girls under age 11
400m: 56.83 for boys under age 11, 57.07 for girls under age 11

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

100m: 12.06 for boys under age 11, 12.15 for girls under age 11
200m: 24.69 for boys under age 11, 24.43 for girls under age 11
400m: 56.83 for boys under age 11, 57.07 for girls under age 11

Yay! In one range preteen girls actually beat boys! (maybe Payne will be the new Bolt)