Manatee Mentors 2015.2 CLOSED (Poptarts? Pet pics?) (Page 101)

Hmmm, so, what would this mean?

No snarkyness, just curious.

We have levels or I guess, groups in my running club. It makes sense, we should be grouped with people who run the same paces.

There are no females in level 1 or 2.

Maybe---you register into a race with a PR, not an age.  You compete against others who have similar abilities.

Are there no men below you?

Levels do not discriminate by gender but by skill, right? Those men in levels below you have to suck it up just like you have to suck it up to the men above you.

Is having levels that discouraging to women? I will never be at the top of anything athletic, so I'm asking in a serious way. Do women "need" or want their own leagues? If so, then we encourage support for them, but can't be upset about an unlevel playing field. It's as level as it's going to get. 

(and I may edit this as I think about it more)

Again, I'm speaking sports overall.

Completely unrelated to current discussion

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/15/406994360/jury-reaches-verdict-in-boston-marathon-bomber-trial

So, gender plays no part, simply ability.

As humans, I think we tend to put most things into categories, and gender is an easily identifiable one of those. Age is another, thus I am not competing against you young whippersnappers. It would be harder to quantify based on ability. Not impossible, simply harder.

Related to topic. I watched this race a couple of weeks ago. Very cool! And I hope it leads to more women making the attempts.

http://www.supercrosslive.com/news/2015/may/02/vicki-golden-makes-history-las-vegas-finale-becoming-first-female-history-qualify-monster-energy

Wasn't going to bring this up, but gender isn't as easily identifiable as you think.  Do you base it on gender expression, gender identity, pieces and parts people were born with or acquired, genetics (which aren't always clear-cut either)?  What about people who are intersexed and have both male and female sex organs and prefer to consider themselves as "gender queer" rather than putting themselves in one box or the other?  Having only 2 genders to choose from forces them to deny their identity in order to participate in sporting events, or they simply can't participate at all.  I realize that these people are a small proportion of the population but is it fair to assume that gender is binary and immutable?

DH, who was born female, participates in sporting events and he takes testosterone shots to maintain his male characteristics.  He's also legally male in the eyes of the state.  He'll never be in contention for OA or AG awards.  Is it okay for him to compete as a male?  Does he have to disclose his testosterone use?  Does he have to get a TUE?  What about people like him but who are better/faster athletes?  If a person who was born female but now identifies and presents as male, has had gender reassignment surgery to give him all the male parts and none of the female parts, and uses testosterone competes in a head to head race with a person who was born as and currently identifies as female and he wins, is he cheating?  IIRC, the IOC (or some other upper-level governing body) has taken the stance that transgendered/transsexual athletes can compete as their expressed gender rather than their birth gender, but there was a big flap about it a few years ago. 

Not sure how all this plays into the conversation about the men/women/competition issue; just something to consider when talking about gender in sports.

Here ends *my* soapbox for the day.

They came back with that decision faster than I expected

Wasn't going to bring this up, but gender isn't as easily identifiable as you think.  Do you base it on gender expression, gender identity, pieces and parts people were born with or acquired, genetics (which aren't always clear-cut either)?  What about people who are intersexed and have both male and female sex organs and prefer to consider themselves as "gender queer" rather than putting themselves in one box or the other?  Having only 2 genders to choose from forces them to deny their identity in order to participate in sporting events, or they simply can't participate at all.  I realize that these people are a small proportion of the population but is it fair to assume that gender is binary and immutable?

DH, who was born female, participates in sporting events and he takes testosterone shots to maintain his male characteristics.  He's also legally male in the eyes of the state.  He'll never be in contention for OA or AG awards.  Is it okay for him to compete as a male?  Does he have to disclose his testosterone use?  Does he have to get a TUE?  What about people like him but who are better/faster athletes?  If a person who was born female but now identifies and presents as male, has had gender reassignment surgery to give him all the male parts and none of the female parts, and uses testosterone competes in a head to head race with a person who was born as and currently identifies as female and he wins, is he cheating?  IIRC, the IOC (or some other upper-level governing body) has taken the stance that transgendered/transsexual athletes can compete as their expressed gender rather than their birth gender, but there was a big flap about it a few years ago. 

Not sure how all this plays into the conversation about the men/women/competition issue; just something to consider when talking about gender in sports.

Here ends *my* soapbox for the day.

As Chris said, I too love this group.

Thanks for bringing this up, Mary, as I was thinking about it a few posts back.  My first instinct is "Make more categories"--coming from a completely "level the playing field" standpoint.  But is that inclusive, or does it become marginalization?  I suspect it would be the latter.  Personally, I feel that if you have made the decision to, have, or are transitioning, you should compete with whom you identify.  But there will be people who don't feel that is fair (I suspect more for M to F).  And that leads to "we should have OA awards"...it's circular because now we are back to the original concern--if the OA winner is based on total OA and not gender OA, it will, most of the time, be a male.  Chris (I think it was he) is correct--each of us has a different view of equality, level playing field, etc even if we are just talking about sport (not career advancement, etc etc).  I still don't have an answer--just respect for all.  

Wasn't going to bring this up, but gender isn't as easily identifiable as you think.  Do you base it on gender expression, gender identity, pieces and parts people were born with or acquired, genetics (which aren't always clear-cut either)?  What about people who are intersexed and have both male and female sex organs and prefer to consider themselves as "gender queer" rather than putting themselves in one box or the other?  Having only 2 genders to choose from forces them to deny their identity in order to participate in sporting events, or they simply can't participate at all.  I realize that these people are a small proportion of the population but is it fair to assume that gender is binary and immutable?

DH, who was born female, participates in sporting events and he takes testosterone shots to maintain his male characteristics.  He's also legally male in the eyes of the state.  He'll never be in contention for OA or AG awards.  Is it okay for him to compete as a male?  Does he have to disclose his testosterone use?  Does he have to get a TUE?  What about people like him but who are better/faster athletes?  If a person who was born female but now identifies and presents as male, has had gender reassignment surgery to give him all the male parts and none of the female parts, and uses testosterone competes in a head to head race with a person who was born as and currently identifies as female and he wins, is he cheating?  IIRC, the IOC (or some other upper-level governing body) has taken the stance that transgendered/transsexual athletes can compete as their expressed gender rather than their birth gender, but there was a big flap about it a few years ago. 

Not sure how all this plays into the conversation about the men/women/competition issue; just something to consider when talking about gender in sports.

Here ends *my* soapbox for the day.

Are you surprised by the verdict? 

I'm not sure this thread can handle two deep conversations in one day!

But yes, I am surprised. For starters it was federal, and not state, instructions they were following. So that explains some of the loss of a Massachusetts mindset perhaps.  But to not have a hung jury really surprises me.

I'm not sure this thread can handle two deep conversations in one day!

But yes, I am surprised. For starters it was federal, and not state, instructions they were following. So that explains some of the loss of a Massachusetts mindset perhaps.  But to not have a hung jury really surprises me.

Haha! 

Ok, on a light note, anyone care to comment on that hair?

Haha! 

Ok, on a light note, anyone care to comment on that hair?

As Chris said, I too love this group.

Thanks for bringing this up, Mary, as I was thinking about it a few posts back.  My first instinct is "Make more categories"--coming from a completely "level the playing field" standpoint.  But is that inclusive, or does it become marginalization?  I suspect it would be the latter.  Personally, I feel that if you have made the decision to, have, or are transitioning, you should compete with whom you identify.  But there will be people who don't feel that is fair (I suspect more for M to F).  And that leads to "we should have OA awards"...it's circular because now we are back to the original concern--if the OA winner is based on total OA and not gender OA, it will, most of the time, be a male.  Chris (I think it was he) is correct--each of us has a different view of equality, level playing field, etc even if we are just talking about sport (not career advancement, etc etc).  I still don't have an answer--just respect for all.  

Only Jesse Thomas knows that kind of hair!

I bet you it is intentional.  It makes him look young and.....impressionable?   That's not quite the right word I am searching for.  

I'm not sure this thread can handle two deep conversations in one day!

But yes, I am surprised. For starters it was federal, and not state, instructions they were following. So that explains some of the loss of a Massachusetts mindset perhaps.  But to not have a hung jury really surprises me.

yeah, Massachusetts is a really liberal state, but I think the magnitude of what this guy and his brother did probably made conservatives out of a lot of people - at least for this case!

I didn't think along those lines until I got up and left my desk just before, so I apologize for that, or if I offended you in any way.  And yes, it is a much deeper conversation than I originally considered it to be.  More to think about this weekend.

I'm not offended at all.  It's easy to forget when you don't have to consider it.  Most of us never have to think about why we identify as a particular gender, it just is.  It's similar to how a lot of people don't think there's racism or sexism or homophobia because they've never experienced it.  There are times when, even as aware as I try to be, I'm caught by surprise that DH is relieved to discover that a locker room has separate shower stalls with doors or curtains.  Oh.  Right.  He doesn't want to out himself to random strangers every time he takes a shower.  Luckily, he talks with me about stuff like that so I'm reminded periodically of how much privilege I have to not have to think about it.  Since I've never had to grapple with it but have seen others who have, I can only hope that I continue to challenge myself and help break down others' barriers to understanding.