Transgender athletes

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

s that a male horse or a female horse or a horse that's unsure?

Like as not, it's a gelding.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. And I don't believe you are skeptical enough, especially to reach the conclusion you did.

I may be misunderstanding, but I thought your position was to begin by assuming males are better riders then ask others to accept the assertion as valid or disprove this with evidence. Likewise, I thought Charons position was to ensure we validate our priors and confirm that our opening premise is actually valid before searching for disproof or gathering reasons to explain why. 

In what universe is that equivalent to “not being skeptical enough?”

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I mean very simply: a horse (just like a car or a man) has a maximum speed, faster than which he cannot run and a maximum height and length that she can jump,beyond which she cannot jump - even when unencumbered by bit, saddle and with rider.

Try running with a gag in your mouth and  a monkey on your back, see if it enhances your performance. And, no, a rider cannot reduce his or her own weight by physical effort: as previously stated, the weight limits are set by the Racing Commission; if a jockey is underweight, it's made up by lead weights.

If a rider tries to force them to exceed their capacity, the horse will be injured or killed - and very possibly, the rider, as well. 

Skill and mental acuity are not sex-determined characteristics. Neither is depth of vision, anticipation of other rider's moves, pacing, positioning out of the gate, judgement of whether to move on the inside or outside, when to take the horse in hand, when to give him his head, how long to hold back and when to start the final sprint.

If you want something more scientific than a statistical comparison of wins, go to a sport that lends itself to more objective measurement.

You really don't understand dynamics. But the confidence you're displaying in your misunderstanding is admirable.

https://horseracingsense.com/how-do-jockeys-make-horses-go-faster/

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

If a rider tries to force them to exceed their capacity, the horse will be injured or killed - and very possibly, the rider, as well. 

 

Is this unique to horses? Human athletes use overspeed training and, for some magical reason...live to compete afterward.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Skill and mental acuity are not sex-determined characteristics...

 

Who here are claiming either is?

To the point of this thread; without proper and fair segregations in sport, truly elite athletes dedicated to develop those skills and mental acuities can't compete with elite athletes (and often even less than elite athletes) that have certain levels of some physical attributes due to their XY chromosomes, without arbitrary restrictions forced on them in a less than healthy manner. 

(Ironically, in the case of jockeys where the ideal weight is at an extreme of the normal XY adult range...the needs of the sport tend to put unhealthy pressures on them as well)

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

I may be misunderstanding,

Bingo!

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

 I thought your position was to begin by assuming males are better riders

You thought wrong.

My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

Edited May 14, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

Fine. If that's your assumption, that's your assumption. All I ask is that you stay away from horses.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

Sorry if I missed it, but what part of riding the horse in a race do you assume the extra strength of males over females comes into play? The article you linked to talked a lot about the jockey moving well on the horse to help the forward motion, but I didn't see anything (in that article, anyway) about the need for extra strength.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry if I missed it, but what part of riding the horse in a race do you assume the extra strength of males over females comes into play? The article you linked to talked a lot about the jockey moving well on the horse to help the forward motion, but I didn't see anything (in that article, anyway) about the need for extra strength.

I made no claim with regard to strength specifically, though that does come into play, even if the rider is sufficiently strong for the task. (physical skills often reduce as maximal exertion is approached)

But the article does say:

"With this action, the rider slightly overcompensates for the horse’s motion. This movement requires substantial mechanical work by the jockey."

"The work required by a rider during a race will have his heart near-maximum beats per minute."

It's a physical sport, and not just for the horse. Ask any competitive jockey, regardless of sex.

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry if I missed it, but what part of riding the horse in a race do you assume the extra strength of males over females comes into play? The article you linked to talked a lot about the jockey moving well on the horse to help the forward motion, but I didn't see anything (in that article, anyway) about the need for extra strength.

This is a really messed up sport, imo. Women typically are underrated because it's known that at the same weight they have more body fat than men, but then the men have all kinds of health problems trying to "make weight". The strength needed for riding is only what you need to NOT fall off, so women actually do better because of superior stamina and pain tolerance. Women as jockeys generally don't get access to the best horses, even though physiologically they're on a par with their male counterparts.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023117712599

Quote

Because they are shorter than men, women can more often meet racing’s weight requirements while maintaining a weight that is healthy for their height. Table 1 shows that among adults who weigh 119 lb (54 kg) or less, more than half of men but only a quarter to a third of women were underweight for their height. At lower weights, the prevalence of underweight increases, but underweight remains less common among women than among men. This was true both from 1971 to 1974 and from 1999 to 2014.

Quote

Representation of women is even lower in elite races. Table 2 summarizes the history of women in the Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, and Belmont Stakes. Of the 301 different jockeys who have started these Triple Crown races since 1970, only 6 have been women. One woman started in the 1970s, 1 started in the 1980s, 2 started in the 1990s, 1 started in the 2000s, and 1 started in the 2010s. If not for the fact that two of these women started eight races each, it would appear that there has been no increase at all in women’s representation over the decades.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Fine. If that's your assumption, that's your assumption. All I ask is that you stay away from horses.

Because I might beat them...amirite? I think it's a physical sport for jockeys...so I must be in favour of beating horses.

 

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 The strength needed for riding is only what you need to NOT fall off.

 

No worries Phi. As incredible as that claim is...you aren't likely to get much pushback on it here.

Just for fun though, run that by a competitive female jockey and see if she agrees.

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because I might beat them...amirite? I think it's a physical sport for jockeys...so I must be in favour of beating horses.

It does happen, and more often with men (for obvious reasons), but there's no doubt you need a fair amount of strength to hold onto a running horse. If anyone doesn't believe that, try riding a motorcycle on motocross trails for twenty minutes and you'll feel like you carried the bike part of the way. The horse/vehicle may be working harder, but it's not easy staying on.

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because I might beat them...amirite?

Because you have no understanding of or regard for them. 

 

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it's a physical sport for jockeys...so I must be in favour of beating horses.

Another of your assumptions?

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No worries Phi. As incredible as that claim is...you aren't likely to get much pushback on it here.

I would hope not. Men and women both control horses as jockeys by staying in a perfectly balanced position to reduce drag and improve stride. They aren't trying to hurry the horse around the track by the reins, or beat it with a heavy club that requires ogre strength. You urge the horse on by constricting and relaxing your legs to impart some vertical force, but again, it's more about stamina than physical strength. 

[Peterkin]

 

All sports are physical. Men and women both have bodies, muscles, joints, ligaments, lungs  and hearts. The question whether muscle/mass ratio is the decisive factor in a particular sport.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I made no claim with regard to strength specifically, though that does come into play, even if the rider is sufficiently strong for the task. (physical skills often reduce as maximal exertion is approached)

 

I assumed you meant strength because you said the sport was very "physical", which is where the males would have the advantage. Height and speed advantages of men shouldn't come into play so I didn't know what other "physical" advantages men had over women other than strength.

Other than keeping your body in the best possible position on the horse I cannot think (but don't know as I'm not a rider) where significant strength is required. As the horse is not trying to buck them off it seems likely to me that a rider's strength is not maxed out at any time. I'd certainly be happy to be proved incorrect as this conversation is just an interesting discussion for me.

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Other than keeping your body in the best possible position on the horse I cannot think (but don't know as I'm not a rider) where significant strength is required.

Thighs and calves. Jockeys - and for that matter, point-to-point riders - don't have their seat on the saddle most of the time; they're crouching in the stirrup. The calf muscles must be sufficiently developed to support the rider's own weight for sustained periods in that awkward position, and also to raise their seat up repeatedly. The thighs are mainly used to give subtle directions. Arm strength doesn't come into play: a five-year-old child can injure a horse's mouth (indeed, beginners  have to be watched closely, not to pull on the reins.) Halter reins (no mouthpiece, no metal)  require better communication with the horse. In either case, brute force should never apply.  

[iNow]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:50 PM, iNow said:

Maybe I'm growing jaded and cynical, but I seriously doubt it actually matters what Charon shares. Won’t change anyones mind. 
 

 

I guess 2 weeks ago I was right. 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

My point remains. You’ve begin with a conclusion and say others must disprove it, then say THEY’RE not being skeptical enough when they call that conclusion into question. It’s sad, otherwise I’d laugh. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Thighs and calves. Jockeys - and for that matter, point-to-point riders - don't have their seat on the saddle most of the time; they're crouching in the stirrup. The calf muscles must be sufficiently developed to support the rider's own weight for sustained periods in that awkward position, and also to raise their seat up repeatedly. The thighs are mainly used to give subtle directions. Arm strength doesn't come into play: a five-year-old child can injure a horse's mouth (indeed, beginners  have to be watched closely, not to pull on the reins.) Halter reins (no mouthpiece, no metal)  require better communication with the horse. In either case, brute force should never apply.  

So, sounds like a woman who trains to be a jockey should be able to meet all the physical needs to ride a horse in a race as well as a man. Is that right?

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So, sounds like a woman who trains to be a jockey should be able to meet all the physical needs to ride a horse in a race as well as a man. Is that right?

Sure. Female jockeys have been around for a century.

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sure. Female jockeys have been around for a century.

Being around for a century doesn't mean they can perform as well as men though. I assume you meant that as an add-on to your answer to my question.

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The only thing I can think that might make a difference is whether horses respond better to commands, on average, to a deep voice or higher-pitched voice when being urged in a competitive situation. All else being equal.

That would be reasonable start point, wouldn't it? And then if we actually start to observe differences between male and female riders, we would hypothesize that there might be something going on. However, as it is often assumed (also by some members of this board) that there must be a difference and then work their way backwards in order to satisfy their assumption. IIRC there was a paper looking at bet rates showing how folks underrate female jockey performance, which is a bit odd as folks make money with establishing good betting ratios.

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. And I don't believe you are skeptical enough, especially to reach the conclusion you did.

My conclusion is fairly simple. There is insufficient evidence that indicates a significant impact of the sex of the rider on the outcome. I have provided at least two references that have looked at it. So far your only counter-argument is that you do not believe it to be the case. Skepticism requires data and so far only one side has provided any.

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It mentioned 43 past and present licensed jockeys. What were their ages and fitness levels? What were their weights during the tests? How many of the formerly licensed jockeys had health issues that might affect the results? How many were at race weight? How were the differences all accounted for?

A no effect finding requires a lower burden of proof. If a homeopathic drug does not shown an effect compared to a placebo, we would not simply assume that the study was flawed and ask whether they used the correct dilution of nothing or whether the flasks had the right silica composition.

If you have any evidence that for some reasons only the male jockeys were sickly, feel free to show it. Otherwise you cannot just selectively dismiss data. Using your approach I could simply dismiss every single study in existence by increasing the burden of proof until I find my bias confirmed. Note that if there is a follow-up that looks at more factors and finds certain associations, that would be a different matter. As it stands, there is no study I could find that contradict these findings.

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Shouldn't that alone raise your skepticism? This study is early on the subject and limited, covering aspects that don't even pertain to top racing speeds, and even the best scientific studies are susceptible to bias. 

This does not make sense. Here they decide to go further than other studies (which looked at win ratio and could not find evidence of male dominance) and try to look at it mechanistically. Again, here is evidence and you still have provided nothing. In my world, data is crucial and trumps gut feeling. And as iNow explained yet again, one does not simply start with an assumption and then ignores all evidence to the contrary (or only looks for support).

If I am generous the one supporting factor could be that there are male winners than female winners. But then we have seen that there many more male jockeys than female ones.  So that makes a straight comparison a problem. The other issue is of course that horses are very important. If you put a great jockey on a weak horse, it is unlikely to suddenly turn into a winner. So some folks tried to account for horse rankings and then see if women who ride similar ranked horses as their male counterparts perform worse. But the data does not pan out (so we can not simply assume that it is happening). Then perhaps the effects are subtle and maybe men can slightly but significant improve or at least change how horses perform (does not have to be due to male physiology, for example, potentially men might treat horses differently resulting in performance differences). The last study did not find that, either, except for weak significance related to heart rate, which is difficult to translate into performance increases.

So if there are sex specific differences between men and women, they appear to be weak or at least difficult to detect. From this dearth of data to get to the point where we not only assume a difference, but also think that it is due to physiology, is just straight up bad science. It basically has the same level of evidence as claiming that Asians are biologically better suited for maths.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Being around for a century doesn't mean they can perform as well as men though.

It was an answer to your question. Women do all kinds of things now that only men used to be allowed to to do: drive cars, study medicine, vote... What's the big deal? In a sport where the motive power comes from a source other than the human - whether that's a car, a horse, a camel or an airplane - skill and brains count for more than muscle. (Of course, that doesn't mean black men can play baseball....)

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It was an answer to your question. Women do all kinds of things now that only men used to be allowed to to do: drive cars, study medicine, vote... What's the big deal? In a sport where the motive power comes from a source other than the human - whether that's a car, a horse, a camel or an airplane - skill and brains count for more than muscle. (Of course, that doesn't mean black men can play baseball....)

Women have been playing basketball for as long as men. That doesn't mean they are equal to men in that sport.

This entire discussion has to do with whether or not men and women are equals as jockeys. Simply stating that women have been racing for 100 years tells us absolutely nothing about their ability to compete against men.

I can't believe you are trying to pass that off as evidence that they can compete as equals against men.

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That doesn't mean they are equal to men in that sport.

You asked whether, with the right training, women can become jockeys. They have become jockeys, which ought to be sufficient proof that they can.

 

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

tells us absolutely nothing about their ability to compete against men.

They're not competing against men in the race; the horses (colts, fillies, mares, stallions and geldings - nobody seems to mind about that) are competing against other horses. All the jockeys are competing for is a chance to ride the best horses in the most prestigious races. 

As I'm growing tired of pointing out, it's not like basketball.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This entire discussion has to do with whether or not men and women are equals as jockeys

If we start back at the beginning, it’s actually about whether “pees standing” or “pees sitting” is the best way to categorize and separate athletes within a sport, or if new legislation should continue to be crafted to create new laws actively preventing transgendered kids from playing their preferred sport in the league mostly closely aligned with their identity… with who they are in every other moment of their lives. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

You asked whether, with the right training, women can become jockeys. They have become jockeys, which ought to be sufficient proof that they can.

 

No. I didn't ask that. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

So, sounds like a woman who trains to be a jockey should be able to meet all the physical needs to ride a horse in a race as well as a man. Is that right?

 

[Peterkin]

And way back there somewhere, I think I advocated for size/weight/level categories, so that small men and women could also participate. 

Just now, zapatos said:

So, sounds like a woman who trains to be a jockey should be able to meet all the physical needs to ride a horse in a race as well as a man. Is that right?

That right. They can, they have, they won Olympic medals.