"We know that men have, on average, an advantage in performance in athletics of about 10% to 12% over women"
This cited advantage is the low end (running). The difference gets much larger in other disciplines. In weightlifting, the gap is 30-40%.
This cited advantage is the low end (running). The difference gets much larger in other disciplines. In weightlifting, the gap is 30-40%.
"which the sports authorities have attributed to differences in levels of a male hormone called testosterone"
Yes.
Yes.
"But the question is whether there is in real life, during actual competitions, an advantage of performance linked to this male hormone"
This follow up immediately assumes - or deliberately places - the only role of testosterone in male advantage as a matter of current levels.
This follow up immediately assumes - or deliberately places - the only role of testosterone in male advantage as a matter of current levels.
We know that adding testosterone boosts performance; that's why its a banned substance in athletics.
"higher levels of the male hormone testosterone are associated with better performance only in a very small number of athletic disciplines"
As @Scienceofsport explains very nicely, once high testosterone has been selected for (as in male sports)...
As @Scienceofsport explains very nicely, once high testosterone has been selected for (as in male sports)...
...there is no reason to assume it has finer effects at sorting winners from losers. It's intuitive, but not necessarily true.
Once you're in the game, the winners and losers are separated by factors like skill, hand speed, a better eye, a superior strategy.
Once you're in the game, the winners and losers are separated by factors like skill, hand speed, a better eye, a superior strategy.
Differences in those factors can, and clearly do, overcome differences in testosterone level *once both players are in the game*.
High testosterone is your entry pass, not your winning ticket.
High testosterone is your entry pass, not your winning ticket.
In this sense, we can look at a "survival of the fittest" model.
The above is a misnomer. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival (and assumed reproduction) of the *fit enough*.
The above is a misnomer. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival (and assumed reproduction) of the *fit enough*.
Once the *not fit enough* have been lost from the population, all those who "passed the test" are then sorted for reproductive success by other characteristics.
"a very small number of athletic disciplines: 400 meters, 800 meters, hammer throw, pole vault"
This is an IAAF study that has been pretty much discarded as bad science. It detracts from his credibility.
This is an IAAF study that has been pretty much discarded as bad science. It detracts from his credibility.
"and it [testosterone] certainly does not explain the whole 10% difference"
This is where Vilain goes badly wrong, and it's a mistake made by a particular cycling advocate too.
This is where Vilain goes badly wrong, and it's a mistake made by a particular cycling advocate too.
They are, I believe, saying that differences in *current testosterone* within the male category or within the female category do not deliver a 10% difference in performance between male or female athletes.
I have no idea why they think that means it's not relevant for inter-category differences, that is, those between males and females.
Even if we grant the argument, he is left with a massive hole to fill.
If it's not *current testosterone*, what is his proposed explanation for the male performance advantage?
If it's not *current testosterone*, what is his proposed explanation for the male performance advantage?
All he has demonstrated, again if we accept his logic, is that *current testosterone* is a really bad marker for performance.
So there must be something else underpinning the gap.
So there must be something else underpinning the gap.
Of course, I and many others argue that it is not necessarily *current testosterone* that underpins male advantage, but the effect of testosterone during the development of that male, particularly at puberty.
By arguing that *current testosterone fails to discriminate performance within sex categories*, Vilain is hoping we won't notice that *developmental testosterone has lifelong effects on a male body*.
Maybe Vilain himself hasn't processed that?
Maybe Vilain himself hasn't processed that?
"every sport requires different talents and anatomies for success...For example, the body of a marathon runner is extremely different from the body of a shot put champion"
But the marathon runner isn't winning shot put, nor vice versa.
But the marathon runner isn't winning shot put, nor vice versa.
This is just handwaving filler. We know there are different sports that advantage different body types.
We're not cross-comparing different sports. We are comparing male and female performance within a sport.
We're not cross-comparing different sports. We are comparing male and female performance within a sport.
Unless Vilain wants athletic selection at the discipline level, so all the females do (female) gymnastics and all the males do, well, pretty much everything else.
Oh I'm bored now. I might pick up again later, but don't count on it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
