cthia wrote:
There is "normal." "Outside normal." "Abnormal."
* Ask yourself why athletes are not allowed to use performance-enhancing substances. Is it because all athletes can't afford it or have access to it? NO! It is because it damages the sport by creating an insane advantage between contestants. Elevated testesterone levels do as well. Same situation. Yet she gets to run on a technicality? No more sense of fair play?
Sorry. I disagree completely. She was born with naturally high levels of testosterone, just as my son was born with a height advantage. The same argument you used to say that it's not an advantage for him works for her as well - running competitively requires techniques learned through years of training. Runners don't just go all out - there's certain ways to breathe, how to plant each foot, how far to raise your knees, how long of a stride to take, and so on. Just because she has more power in her doesn't necessarily mean she can use it to its full advantage.
cthia wrote:Then why segregate men and women in the first place?
Yes, why? If a woman can keep up with a man, sports or otherwise, then why not? Billie Jean King beat the pants off whatsisname in tennis back in the seventies, even though he was supposed to be stronger and have more endurance than her. Tennis requires a lot of strength and endurance to play well on an international level, and King and whatsisname were both at the top levels of their respective sex divisions. I've seen several stories of girls trying out for, and getting on, their high school football teams, and doing well. There are women from around the world who do well in the military, in combat positions. Overall, I have no issues with anyone, male or female, who wants to compete in ANY sport, whether against others of the same sex, or those of the opposite sex.
cthia wrote:Well then, lets compromise. To semi-paraphrase Harrington, "If you're going to hammer me as a fan, then hammer me hard."
Let's allow doping. Let's allow increased hormone levels. Let's allow genetic enhancements. Let's allow gene tampering. Let's allow mechanical and digital enhancements. Let's allow drug popping in between sets. Lets allow outright men to run in the female events - (oops, this one's already possible.)
I never said a damn thing about doping. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, because the woman being discussed hasn't doped. This is a strawman and you know it. This woman has naturally high levels of something that can increase her capabilities, and you're treating her as if she's doing something illegal. I guess being born better than someone else at whatever means you can't take advantage of that advantage. That must be a lovely world you live in where all men truly are created equal.
How about all the other students at my middle son's high school? Should they be banned because they have a natural-born advantage over him due to his autism and diabetes? This is essentially your argument. They have an unfair advantage, and so should not be allowed to "compete" against those less advantaged than them. Never mind the fact that "competing" against those who have advantages over him inspires him to try harder, rather than just giving up. Isn't that a good thing?
cthia wrote:Now, lets book its opening night in a circus. Not a lot of seating capacity in a circus.
* Also, in the case of doping, its health issue.
The GAMES will fall into ill repute if measures are not taken now to protect them.
First the NFL. Then America's past time of baseball is tainted by steroids and has lost fans.
Diminished GAMES and lost fans are on the horizon.
There's also the threat of lost Olympians, as they will forego competing against super-man/girl. Oops, that's already happened as well - entire countries of athletes have been banned. Tainting the GAMES
Sure, that happens due to DRUGS. ILLEGAL DRUGS! Just stop it with the doping comments, because they are not germaine to the topic. Tell me what drugs this woman took that were illegal? Why is she being punished for being born?
