The allegations that Olympic boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting failed an eligibility test for women's competition have been made by only the International Boxing Association.
Who, btw, should never have lost her chance to stay in competition. Her testosterone levels are no more an advantage than Michael Phelps height, wingspan, hand/feet size and his body producing less lactic acid which shortens his recovery time.
Being a champion athlete requires both determination and innate physical advantages. This is in some sense unfair to people who try as hard as the champions do but, through no fault of their own, lack the champions’ physical advantages. Therefore you can argue that since there aren’t things like basketball leagues for short people, there shouldn’t be separate competitions for men and women either. This is ultimately a matter of opinion, but I expect that you will have a hard time convincing the public. There are separate competitions, and while that’s the case, it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition. The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
Caster Semenya is entirely unexceptional by the standards of male runners. For example, she won first place in the Women’s 800 metres race at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:58.66, which would have gotten her 47th place (out of 48) in the men’s heats. She would therefore not even run in the semifinals. The winner of the men’s race had a time of 1:45.29, more than ten seconds less than hers. I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
Or sometimes it was just done to stop women from beating men.
In the 1992 Olympics, a woman won gold in the mixed sex skeet shooting category, beating male competitors.
In 1996 women were barred from the erstwhile mixed event, but did not get a separate category either. Only from the 2000 Olympics a separate women’s skeet shooting event was established.
You’re assuming that testosterone levels are the only thing that affects the outcome. It is not. Nor is it the strongest indicator of who will win. Stop being narrow minded and singular in your assessment.
It’s the biggest factor that affects the outcome when serious athletes compete. The most athletic people with standard female levels of testosterone will be nowhere near as good at most sports as the most athletic people with standard male levels of testosterone. That’s why I pointed out that Semenya’s first place finish in the women’s race would have been 47th place in the men’s. The fastest women at that competition were about as fast as the slowest men.
How many different sports where the best women are significantly worse than the best men would I have to list before you were convinced? Because it’s almost all sports…
Science is undecided on whether high testosterone levels give women an edge in sports. Many successful male athletes have comparatively low testosterone levels
Males with the highest testosterone levels were significantly faster in the 20 m (p = 0.033) and 30 m (p = 0.014) sprint trials compared to males with lower testosterone levels.
There is a wide sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and a reproducible dose-response relationship between circulating testosterone and muscle mass and strength as well as circulating hemoglobin in both men and women. These dichotomies largely account for the sex differences in muscle mass and strength and circulating hemoglobin levels that result in at least an 8% to 12% ergogenic advantage in men.
Together, these findings indicate that, in female athletes, even normal levels of endogenous androgens are positively correlated to lean mass and physical performance.
This is what I found after looking for just a few minutes. I’m honestly not sure why I’m doing this, because the positive effect of testosterone on athletic performance is a well-established fact. That’s why some athletes try to cheat by injecting testosterone, and why people with XY chromosomes but total androgen insensitivity develop a female phenotype (although they are infertile). I really have no idea why you think that science is undecided on this topic.
Most of the studies you linked are focused on men. The evidence regarding women is more tenuous.
Testosterone levels are generally linked to muscle size and strength, as well as higher haemoglobin concentration and thus better oxygen uptake. It has also been associated with more competitiveness in men. In terms of competitiveness, testosterone influences men’s tendency to take more risks, both within and beyond sports.
There is limited research on how testosterone affects women (or how oestrogen affects men). Men and women generally do not have overlapping ranges of testosterone. In her book Better Faster Farther: How Running Changed Everything We Know About Women, Maggie Mertens writes that averages can mask the great diversity of hormone ranges.
There isn’t a clear linear relationship between testosterone levels and performance, says Mertens, a journalist focusing on sports and gender. “In fact, a lot of very elite male athletes have pretty low testosterone levels overall on average.” One endocrinology study found low testosterone concentrations in one-quarter of men competing in 12 of the 15 Olympic sports analysed. And Mertens says even women with hyperandrogenism, who can have testosterone levels that reach typical male ranges, don’t have the same level of performance as men.
Who, btw, should never have lost her chance to stay in competition. Her testosterone levels are no more an advantage than Michael Phelps height, wingspan, hand/feet size and his body producing less lactic acid which shortens his recovery time.
Being a champion athlete requires both determination and innate physical advantages. This is in some sense unfair to people who try as hard as the champions do but, through no fault of their own, lack the champions’ physical advantages. Therefore you can argue that since there aren’t things like basketball leagues for short people, there shouldn’t be separate competitions for men and women either. This is ultimately a matter of opinion, but I expect that you will have a hard time convincing the public. There are separate competitions, and while that’s the case, it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition. The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
Caster Semenya is entirely unexceptional by the standards of male runners. For example, she won first place in the Women’s 800 metres race at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:58.66, which would have gotten her 47th place (out of 48) in the men’s heats. She would therefore not even run in the semifinals. The winner of the men’s race had a time of 1:45.29, more than ten seconds less than hers. I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
Or sometimes it was just done to stop women from beating men.
In the 1992 Olympics, a woman won gold in the mixed sex skeet shooting category, beating male competitors.
In 1996 women were barred from the erstwhile mixed event, but did not get a separate category either. Only from the 2000 Olympics a separate women’s skeet shooting event was established.
You’re assuming that testosterone levels are the only thing that affects the outcome. It is not. Nor is it the strongest indicator of who will win. Stop being narrow minded and singular in your assessment.
It’s the biggest factor that affects the outcome when serious athletes compete. The most athletic people with standard female levels of testosterone will be nowhere near as good at most sports as the most athletic people with standard male levels of testosterone. That’s why I pointed out that Semenya’s first place finish in the women’s race would have been 47th place in the men’s. The fastest women at that competition were about as fast as the slowest men.
There’s also the famous incident where 203rd-ranked German Karsten Braasch beat Serena Williams and Venus Williams back-to-back at the 1998 Australian Open.
You have zero scientific proof of that.
Come back if you ever find any.
How many different sports where the best women are significantly worse than the best men would I have to list before you were convinced? Because it’s almost all sports…
Conjecture is not scientific proof.
Science is undecided on whether high testosterone levels give women an edge in sports. Many successful male athletes have comparatively low testosterone levels
The relationship of testosterone levels with sprint performance in young professional track and field athletes
Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study
Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance
Female hyperandrogenism and elite sport
This is what I found after looking for just a few minutes. I’m honestly not sure why I’m doing this, because the positive effect of testosterone on athletic performance is a well-established fact. That’s why some athletes try to cheat by injecting testosterone, and why people with XY chromosomes but total androgen insensitivity develop a female phenotype (although they are infertile). I really have no idea why you think that science is undecided on this topic.
Most of the studies you linked are focused on men. The evidence regarding women is more tenuous.
Emphases mine.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men