The testing was originally instituted in the 60s because communist countries were accused of trying to pass men off as women in order to dominate the Olympics, but as the website Feministe points out, "Note how Soundarajan is not identified as a male [in the New York Times]. The article uses feminine pronouns, for goodness' sake. Her only crime was being intersexed, having one of those genetic abnormalities that can cause the test to yield false results. In fact, it doesn't appear that there are any cases of this kind of screening revealing men cheating by pretending to be women at this level of competition at all."
Another reason this testing is fishy: the Olympic organizers aren't testing men for genetic abnormalities. Men with Klinefelter syndrome have two X chromosomes and Y, so are genetically more similar to women than the average man. Since scientists have already proved that these genetic differences give athletes no advantage, is there any way to call this situation anything other than outright discrimination?
This doesn't seem obviously unfair to me. Women and men compete in different classes because if they didn't, there wouldn't be any female athletes at high levels. Testosterone is crazy that way. So there's no reason to worry that men with an extra X chromosome have an unfair advantage in their sport. Call me when men start competing in rhythmic gymnastics.
That said, some of the conditions, like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, convey no advantage on female athletes, as far as I know. There's no reason that women should be bounced from the olympics for this. On the other hand, the woman pictured on Jezebel has some fairly masculine features, which suggest that she's getting a testosterone boost.
They do practice RG in other countries. Can I have your number now?
Moving away from the juvenile humor, there's so much news about all these efforts about leveling the playing field in athletics that it leaves one to suspect that the end result anyway is to level the results. Every athlete has something different about them that gives them an advantage or disadvantage. Gone are the days where these were considered matters of course.
Women and men compete in different classes because if they didn't, there wouldn't be any female athletes at high levels.
Except in my personal favorite, riflery. Broad hips and a low center of gravity do have their upsides.
It turns out that the countries behind the iron curtain were just pumping their female athletes so full of testosterone and other male hormones that they looked like men.
A number of the women from those teams have gone and had sex changes because they are so masculine looking today.
Jay,
Maybe they want to create a physical version of Harrison Bergeron.
Maybe loading the boys up with Progestorone could help for ice dancing? I don't think they have men's synchro swimming or ribbon dancing. Except for certain shooting events, every other Olympic pursuit I can think of gives males (or male-like beings) an advantage, so I don't think we need to fear that girly-boys will be taking over the olympics, whereas a "woman" with male musculature would be at a huge advantage.
The disparity may have some use even if it were just for psychological purposes (for the viewers, that is).
As Holdfast suggests, it is not obvious to most people where men having feminine traits will help them (and if they did, would probably be the ones made fun of instead of admired), whereas most people might imagine that a woman having masculine traits does have an advantage in strength dominated events.
Even if you could show that there is no difference, people may believe otherwise.
Trivia Question:
Who was the first female athlete to be gender tested and in what year and in what sport did she compete?
Trivia Question:
Who was the first Olympic female athlete to be gender tested and in what year and in what sport did she compete?
Hint:
She competed for the United States in two Olympics.
Hmm. I'm flashing back to that episode of House with the female model who it turned out was a male with nill testosterone levels. How did House put it? 'manipulative yet completely docile.' I have to believe that the kind of hell that lady sprinters for example put themselves through to train on a daily basis, as well as the level of pain they endure from said training, points to some sort of imbalance there. For all I know, it could be a variance in the levels by as little as .8% or something. Trying to decide on the 'propper levels' for a test like that could get very ugly really fast. Of course, I'd rather date the sprinter than Cameron Richardson, so what does that say about me?
BTW, is it true that, in the Olympics, "men's" sports are actually officially limited to men, as opposed to be completely open but always stocked with men because, as Megan points out, for almost every sport the best male athletes are better than the best female athletes? (E..g, AFAIK, the PGA tour, commonly referred to as the "men's" tour, is actually open to all comers.) --sw
Scott,
That's the main reason why a lot of LPGA golfers aren't happy with Michelle Wie
Actually, without being "sexist" the above is the truth for almost every realm of human competition (even mental fields like math and logic). Men are the best (and also the worst, but there are rarely competitions for that). In most Olympic events, the women's world record times won't even get you into the Olympic trials for men.
Actually, the reason for this is male genetic variability. Men are the genetic experiments to see which set of genes are better for the environment, and as such they vary greatly. Women, on the other hand, control reproduction rates and therefore are far to valuable to the survival of the species to "waste" on environmental testing. This is simply due to how reproduction works.
So that is why men are on top and will always be on top. That's why more men are CEO's of successful businesses and always will be (until we gender-segregate business like we do the Olympics).
Bringing this all back to the question posed, now we can view it in a different light. What we are dealing with is the Olympics to find the best alongside the Political Correctness Olympics which is a a special realm set up in a controlled manner such that women are able to be competitive. Therefore, as long as our professed goal is to have a special set of rules to give these women competitive potential (much like "qualified" handicaps are required for the Special Olympics) the rules should be upheld.
"Actually, the reason for this is male genetic variability. Men are the genetic experiments to see which set of genes are better for the environment, and as such they vary greatly. Women, on the other hand, control reproduction rates and therefore are far to valuable to the survival of the species to "waste" on environmental testing. This is simply due to how reproduction works."
I'd even go a step further. (In our evolutionary past) if you're a female, you'll reproduce pretty much if you're simply capable of it (worst case scenario, you get impregnated and abandoned and your offspring have a lower chance of survival). If you're male you've got to win a mate. So males get put through a filter for all sorts of stuff. Women get put through a filter for having a body that can carry a baby to term, breastfeed it until it can eat other food, finally to watch after it until it can get its own food. That filter is the same for all women. It's not like females branched out and all specialized in different things.
The fact that more than 60% of all of our ancestors were female implies that men will be better at pretty much every field not directly related to child rearing.
"Actually, the reason for this is male genetic variability."
Are you being serious? Look, men and women aren't two different species--to spell it out, half your genes come from your mom, and half of them came from your dad. Given this incredibly basic biological fact, where do you think this extra 'male genetic variability' might be coming from? Hint, it's not the Y chromosome.
Perhaps you think that genes are *expressed* at a 'higher variability' in males? If so, I'd love a source for that.
Men are the genetic experiments to see which set of genes are better for the environment, and as such they vary greatly. Women, on the other hand, control reproduction rates and therefore are far to valuable to the survival of the species to "waste" on environmental testing.
This couldn't be more idiotic. Women are subject to just as much sexual selection as men; the useless prominence of breasts, hips, and buttocks proves it. And why wouldn't they be? Women can't get themselves pregnant, and males exhibit just as much mate choice as women.
Indeed, a given woman is going to contain more variation in genes, because she has two X's to the man's one. (The Y chromosome has almost no genes.)
So there's no reason to worry that men with an extra X chromosome have an unfair advantage in their sport.
XYY syndrome, though, could certainly provide an advantage. It's been associated with greater physical strength and aggressiveness (XYY males, or "hypermales", are proportionally overrepresented in the prison population.)
Yet it's not tested, is it?
Actually, men are better at that too (and yes, I can cite studies), but someone's gotta do it... and that someone will be the least capable of the pair of obtaining gainful employment or supplying or the family unit. Considering women use a filter of seeking men who earn/provide more than them, a predictable pattern emerges...
But the point is, someone has to be around to take care of the children. Considering that no matter what we want there is going to be a critical group of men who are better suited for the task than any group of women, that keeps women safe from the dangers of work outside the family unit. (P.S. Women only wanted into the workforce once 'daily survival' was assumed rather than hoped for. Before then, they were more than happy to allow men to work the potentially deadly jobs.) That keeps women safe and available for reproduction. Keeping them pumping out babies brings bigger numbers, and bigger numbers brings safety to the clan/tribe as a whole.
And as a FYI, roughly 2/3 of our ancestors were female... two women reproduced for every man. I can't tell you how many women or men eventually did reproduce (one piece of research believes it was 40% of men and 80% of women) but I can say, with authority, that roughly 66% of our ancestors were women.
Dead serious. Look, it's not just humans that work this way, VIRTUALLY EVERY SPECIES WITH TWO GENDERS WORKS THIS WAY. We're far from the only example.
Research IQ, Math ability, Height, Weight... any distribution of human potential. Even in physical categories where men lead (height, weight, strength), men have more potential differential than women.
One of the more well-documented areas is in IQ. Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence and branch out from there. You'll find that while men and women have very similar average IQ's, men dominate on both tails of the bell curve due to their higher variability. Also, this will explain to you why the vast majority of CEOs and other leaders are male... The bigger the pool, the more likely the best will be male. If you have a background in math, we can even calculate the likelihood:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
Keep reading, you'll get it. But to answer your unasked question: "Men and women aren't two different species"... we almost are. Men and women have different 'goals' from a biological perspective. Women are to repopulate the species and grow in numbers, men are to to be weeded out to find out which set of genetics is most advantageous for the environment. We're set up that way because the species works better that way.
And as a FYI, roughly 2/3 of our ancestors were female... two women reproduced for every man.
I can assert, with authority, that there's no way you come from a family where every individual had three biological parents.
You just can't think outside of your tight little box, can you?
There are, on average, 3 parents for every 2 kids. Two kids, two mothers, one father.
And yes, women were subject to selection mostly based on attractiveness (read: fertility.. most men interpret fertility as attractiveness). But women were subject to much less selection than men were. Most men did not reproduce, it is estimated that most women did.
There are, on average, 3 parents for every 2 kids. Two kids, two mothers, one father.
And, again, I can assure you that any given child had two biological parents - no more, no less.
There's really no dispute about this. As a result, I can guarantee that, among your direct ancestors, there's a precisely equal number of men and women, much in the same way I can guarantee that none of your direct ancestors were childless couples.
But women were subject to much less selection than men were.
The idea that men are such horn-dogs that they'll fuck anything with a hole is what underlies your premise, but it's abundantly untrue; men make mate choices as well, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that women are any less subject to sexual selection than men. Humans are social creatures, with social parenting of children; it's simply not the case that fatherhood comes without cost to men, and as a result they exhibit mate choice, just like women.
This isn't even getting started on your retarded, false ideas about gender and IQ.
And, again, you just don't get it. How many times was the same man a parent vs how many times was a woman a parent? A man who was a parent was, on average, a parent twice as often. According to one estimation, 40% of the men made babies with 80% of the women. It's a simple biological fact that twice as many women have reproduced as men, no matter how inconvenient it is for you to believe otherwise.
Other than the fact that TWICE AS MANY WOMEN AS MEN REPRODUCED. No.. no difference in mate selection at all, is there?
That men and women have similar average IQs (usually insignificantly different) but do have significantly different standard deviations? That's not "my retarded false ideas"... it's FACTS BACKED UP BY NUMEROUS RESEARCH STUDIES.
Anything else you want to rail against just because it's an inconvenient truth for you?
"it's FACTS BACKED UP BY NUMEROUS RESEARCH STUDIES."
Well since it's written in caps I totally believe it now.
Well apparently that's what it takes for some people to listen...
Beyond the two I've already listed, another good resource is http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm and if that's not enough pick up any good textbook in medicine. The fact that men have greater genetic variability is such a non-issue (founded, proven, and non-controversial) that it's actually rare to find a "study" to point you towards... it's like finding a study that the sky is blue... instead it's an accepted fact. The reason I point to IQ rather than height/weight/anything else is because IQ, in and of itself, is slightly more controversial and therefore more likely to receive research. (and news as people who actually do the research are reprimanded for daring to discover that there ARE intelligence differences between the races and genders.)
Go find any good sized research study and examine the size of standard deviations between the male and female populations in the study. This works for just about any physiological factor in human biology.
"The fact that men have greater genetic variability is such a non-issue (founded, proven, and non-controversial) that it's actually rare to find a "study" to point you towards..."
Okay, I'll put it in a slightly different way. Picture two siblings, a boy and a girl. The boy got half his genes from his mom, and half from his dad. The girl also got half of her genes from her mom, and half from her dad (different halves, of course). So, HOW does the boy get 'greater genetic variability'?
This is why my comment about men and women being part of the same species was relevant--they *share* their genes. Every generation, the genes get mixed together. There's absolutely no opportunity for the men to pick up extra variability.
Now, of course, having an XY (and testosterone) means that some genes are *expressed* differently than if you had an XX--for example, men tend to have greater height and strength, and the basis for that is genetic. But we're talking about very few genes, here. When you talk about 'greater variability' in *every* area, and you say that it's definitely genetic, let's just say alarm bells start ringing.
The fact that men have greater genetic variability is such a non-issue (founded, proven, and non-controversial) that it's actually rare to find a "study" to point you towards...
Oh, boy, there's an argument we can have confidence in - "it's so true nobody's bothered to prove it."
In fact, genetic variability studies are done all the time, so there must surely be dozens on this specific issue. And you haven't addressed any of the objections, which makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. How can men experience significantly more genetic variability at the same time that they have significantly less alleles?
The boy got half his genes from his mom, and half from his dad.
It's actually slightly worse than that - the boy gets slightly more of his genes from his mother than his father, because the Y chromosome from the father has almost no genes on it. The girl gets an equal amount from both.
Other than that, you're right, of course; by the very definition of human reproduction, there's simply no opportunity for genetic variability to diverge between men and women.
No, it's been proven so long ago that nobody really bothers to question it. I mean, imagine a study: "are men taller?" We'd consider that a waste of time, effort, and money. Genetic researchers would consider a male/female genetic diversity study as much of a waste. (and for the record, men are, on average, taller... however they do express a greater diversity of heights than women.)
Don't forget about the mitocondrial DNA. All of that comes from mom.
You're exactly right, which is why there is ZERO difference between average height, weight, and strength between men and women. They share the same genes, right? Therefore there should be absolutely no difference in averages.
Of course there are differences between the genders, even with the same/similar genetics. I've just demonstrated three absolutely obvious ones. There is something about being male (or, conversely, perhaps about being female) that expresses higher (or lower) average heights and weights. Actually, I'll lean towards women being set apart because...
I'm not a geneticist, but from what I understand, the extra X gene acts as a "control" which suppresses the expression of some of the more radical extremes. The X gene acts as a checksum for some of the other expression and having two checksums available keeps the expression closer to averages.
Just about every measurable human physiological trait: height, weight, strength, IQ, other mental traits, skin color (yep), just about everything we can see expressed. Of course, the baselines for men and women are often very similar or with one gender having a advantage on the average (men have greater spacial recognition, women have greater multitasking skills) but even in both categories, men have a larger standard deviation than women.)
Right now I'm searching for the full text on this article: Gender-specific brachial artery blood pressure-independent relationship between pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass index in a group of African ancestry. Which, from the abstract, would appear to say even this trait has more diversity amongst men.
While searching for more to present to you, I ran across another site I failed to bookmark back when :(
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/genderdiff.htm
"Whatever the explanation it is a statistical fact that the variance of the distribution of abilities among males is greater than the variance of the distribution for females. In a sense this difference can be interpreted as more natural genetic experimentation with the males of the species than the females.
The higher proportion of geniuses among males is counterbalanced with a higher proportion of idiots. Nature recognizes that the females of the species are the foundation of its survival whereas there is a great surplus of males in any species and it does not matter that a significant proportion is wasted in experiments that fail. The successful experiments are predominantly male but so are the unsuccessful experiments. Nature does waste females in experiments. Nature is amazingly wise not to waste females in that way. "
I think I've covered that now. Was that the only objection or did you have others?
I know it's totally Politically Incorrect to think this way, but men and women are fundamentally different. We were made that way for the survival of the species.
No, it's been proven so long ago that nobody really bothers to question it.
How long ago, spawn? The PCR technology that would even make such a study possible is only two decades old or so, and the searchable biology archives go back much farther than that.
I mean, imagine a study: "are men taller?"
You can look around and see that men are taller, and you can prove it with a ruler and a notebook. You can look up and see that the sky is blue.
Nobody that I'm aware of can just look at a person and see their genes, so a study proving greater genetic variability among men rather than women is hardly as trivial as you're making it out to be.
And given the reality of human reproduction, it's the exact opposite of what we should expect to see, so it's not obvious either. So there should be ample research work on this, if it's as well-known as you say it is.
Yet you can't muster a single paper in support. That's how I know you're full of shit, basically.
Don't forget about the mitocondrial DNA. All of that comes from mom.
True, but irrelevant. Millennia of endosymbiosis have pared down the mitochondrial genome to almost nothing but metabolic functions, and most of those alleles are fixed; mtDNA isn't going to have an effect on phenotypic diversity.
I'm not a geneticist, but from what I understand, the extra X gene acts as a "control" which suppresses the expression of some of the more radical extremes.
Suffice to say, this is untrue. This isn't even close to true. And "X" is a chromosome, not a gene.
I think I've covered that now.
Where? Your nonsense about the "X gene" doesn't even begin to address it, even if it weren't just something you made up on the spot.
And, similarly, you can look at height, weight, IQ, and other human distributions and notice that men have greater diversity than women. Looking at the expression of genetics is just as possible as looking at the genes themselves, we need not require PCRs to study this subject. That's why the question was answered so long ago that it is uncontroversial today.
In fact, it's only in the realm of "men and women are exactly the same" idiots that the topic carries any controversy at all. If the topic was controversial at all, then EVERY SINGLE HUMAN STUDY would have a section of "why are men more diverse than women??" Instead, we've accepted it as true and moved on to studying other things.
You want some proof? Then let me just supply some numbers for you so you can do your homework. Start with http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad361.pdf and calculate some standard deviations. Notice that MALES HAVE LARGER STANDARD DEVIATIONS.
No, we can see the expression of their genes, as I've already mentioned. You don't need to see someone's DNA sequence to notice that some 6'10" person has the genetics to be tall.
I've supplied a few resources. You've supplied zero. Which of us is "full of shit" in this instance?
It's untrue? Based on what? What proof do you offer?
I, on the other hand, presented a link WHICH, IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH NOTES (sorry, need all caps so you'll read again)
"The purpose of this page is to present a hypothesis of Rodolfo A. Gonzalez to the effect that significant elements of human intelligence are a result of genes carried only on the X-chromosome. A male gets his X-chromosome only from his mother but a female gets one X-chromosome from her mother and one from her father. Under the Gonzalez hypothesis this means that a female's ability due to these factors is a function of two variables, the genes inherited from both her parents, whereas a male's abilities are a function of the genes inherited from his mother. Thus there should be a lower variation in female abilities than in male abilities."
Now, are you going to offer any proof to support your side, or do you honestly believe continuing to scream "you're wrong even tho I have nothing to support me!!!" will eventually work for you?
And, similarly, you can look at height, weight, IQ, and other human distributions and notice that men have greater diversity than women.
The unsupported jump is that that has anything to do with genetics. That may simply be a function of men being exposed to a wider degree of environments, for example.
That's why the question was answered so long ago that it is uncontroversial today.
It's not controversial because it's not widely believed. It's only the sexist community and their troupe of biological ignoramuses (like yourself) that believe this. The general scientific community doesn't believe it at all, which is why you have at least two people with experience in the biological sciences, here, telling you it's not true. There's no evidence of a greater genetic diversity among men because that's a physical impossibility; there's no way that men could be genetically sequestered from women long enough for the degree of diversity to diverge.
You don't need to see someone's DNA sequence to notice that some 6'10" person has the genetics to be tall.
Sure. But does someone 5'8" have the genetics to be tall, and was made short by environment; or do they have the genetics to be short and an environment that made them tall?
Height is probably the worst example you could be running with here. No, actually, height is better than IQ, because at least measuring someone's height means measuring something real. It's well-known that IQ tests don't measure anything but your education - which is what they were invented to do.
Notice that MALES HAVE LARGER STANDARD DEVIATIONS.
Irrelevant.
I've supplied a few resources.
Well, no, you suppled one guy's website. We're still waiting for any peer-reviewed research, and the only things I've been telling you are things you would have learned if you hadn't failed Intro to Genetics.
What proof do you offer?
The proof I already offered - there's no such thing as the "X gene", for starters.
Other than that, look up "Barr bodies" and you'll see that there's no possible way the "extra" X could be involved in regulating genes on the other X, because the additional X is completely dormant within the cell. (The problem for your hypothesis, additionally, is that which X becomes deactivated is determined completely randomly; it's different for each cell.)
Now, are you going to offer any proof to support your side
It's your job to prove your position, not my job to disprove it. And you've offered nothing of substance, only your own deep ignorance of human genetics. I suspect you don't even know what you're talking about when you say "genetic diversity", and your continual reference to things that are strictly phenotype is the proof of that.
Well, perhaps if that "environmental factor" is exposure to testosterone then we might have something, because otherwise this "environmental factor" affects every male in every species in every documented culture along just about every physiological factor. So unless there is one hell of some conspiracy theory, men simply express more genetic diversity than women by nature of being male (or not being female, whatever the case may be).
And are you one of those two idiots? Because if you can't figure out how 2/3rds of our ancestors are female, perhaps you should turn in any degree you have and spare whatever university the shame of having graduated you. My faith in your backgrounds is pretty much null.
Actually, this is the key point of the entire discussion, of why men are the Olympians and women have "Special Olympics" limited just to women. Seriously, if you can't get this, please turn in your High School diploma as well.
Let us assume there is some distribution X that measures "ability to swim the 100m freestyle" (ok, some conglomeration of factors, but I'm going to simplify it for discussion's sake). Now let's assume, like every physiological factor in humanity, that men have a larger standard deviation than women. We can even assume that the averages are the same between men and women. Now, how likely is it that the 'best of the best' is male? We will find that, given any group X, the likelihood that the best is male is a function of the size of the group which increases to almost certainty as the group size increases. When dealing with large (worldwide) groups, the top 0.1% of competitors is exclusively male. Why? Because men with extreme levels of talent (99th male percentile) are 1:100 chances genetically, while women with said level of talent are in the 1:10,000 likelihood... true genetic freaks of chance. To be in the male 99th percentile you would have to be in the female 9,999th percentile. And the ratio increases as we reach even higher percentiles of male potential, as we are really seeking the 999,999th percentile men, which would leave perhaps one woman in three or four Earth populations having a chance of competing. And this is due to the larger standard deviation of men, which is why the Olympics protects a special field of competition for women only (because the top women simply can't compete with the top men.. perhaps one generation out of 10 has the chance to produce one female capable of competition.) Go back to the math site and it will spell out the potential and odds for you.
Now, again, that same standard deviation that we see in all human nature (Height, weight, strength, IQ, business skill, you keep naming it..) is exactly why the top 1% in competition are predominately to exclusively men in any given field (business, chess, mathletes, etc.).
Of course, said diversity is also why men are at the bottom rungs of society as well, altho we rarely hold competitions to find out who is the worst in any given area.
So I mis-spoke (mis-typed?) X gene for X chromosome. If your critique is going to be on that moot of a point, you don't have that strong of an argument at all.
No, that it's random is PRECISELY the reason that the extra X chromosome is a buffer effect. Let's say I have some genetic code that tells me "be a genius" but expression said gene is repressed by some code on the X chromosome, if code to repress is present. Let's just say to have effect, said "be a genius" gene needs to be expressed in at least 66% of my brain... otherwise I'm simply just smart. Now if I'm male and my X doesn't have a copy of the controlling genetics, I'm a genius! But if I'm female, and one of my two copies does, then "be a genius" is only turned on in 50% of my brain which ends up that I'm only smart. That's why having an extra X works as a genetic buffer. It's a buffer in the body level, just a chance of being on or off at the individual cell.
Yes, I recognize that this requires "out of the box" thinking which you've already failed spectacularly above, but try to follow along. This is all about probabilities and odds and the chances of expressing said genes throughout a greater portion of the body which allows the expression of said genetics to lead to overall greater genetic expression diversity amongst men.
It all makes sense once you play the numbers.
Again, I'm not a geneticist. Perhaps I'm using a term that has a "reserved word" for those who do have that background. But what I am talking about is the expressed genetic diversity... the fact that height/weight/IQ, everything has a greater standard deviation amongst men than it does amongst women.
Am I finally stretching your box enough to get this concept?
I think men do have more genetic diversity, but this is largely because of sex-linked conditions. Hemophilia, color-blindness, and baldness don't give you much of an advantage in most fields of endeavor.
Ds is just some kind of sexist crackpot though, why feed him?
It's perfectly possible to have twice as many distinct female ancestors as distinct male ancestors.
Calculate the numbers. For every generation, the raw number of ancestors you had has to double, right? Two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-greats, etc.
So, going back thirty generations, your raw number of ancestors would exceed one billion. However, there were fewer than one billion people alive on any given date prior to the Nineteenth Century, so clearly many of your 28-great-grandparents had to be duplicates. If your 28-great-grandmothers were your 28-great-grandmother and average of four times over, but your 28-great-grandfathers was your 28-great-grandfather an average of eight times over, then you have twice as many distinct 28-great-grandmothers than you have distinct 28-great-grandfathers.
Those traits, no. But other traits (IQ, whatever makes up business skill, etc) oh yes. And, again, men have greater genetic diversity and therefore are more likely to be outliers (top and bottom). As the size of the pool increases, the more likely it is that a man will be the top contender. (ASCII chart to follow)
I'm sexist because I think men and women are different? Listen, in any species, the ONLY difference bigger than "male or female" is "alive or dead"... The genders are different, VERY different, from biological as well as a social reasons.
And actually, one could easily determine that the social differences between the sexes stems from the biological differences. Women make babies which makes numbers which makes size of a tribe which makes the tribe more powerful. That's perhaps the biggest reason why women are protected to such a degree: they create power for the tribe!
Thank you for helping Chet et. all think outside of their boxes.
Now, once you start playing with the numbers and cells inside the body, you start to understand how the extra X chromosome keeps women closer to the mean.
The ASCII chart:
Using two very roughly estimated bell curves (this is a repost of work I've done elsewhere and someday I'll find a good curve generator and use real numbers). So, to repost my example of why the "glass ceiling" exists and why it will never, and I do mean never, be broken:
As long as the top men compete with the top women in an equal playing field, the men will win. Even if we take away other female limiting factors (their propensity to drop out for children, their propensity to marry up and then drop out of the rat race) women still wouldn't make up anywhere near half of the top positions.
Going back to the increased genetic variability of men, let me try an Ascii chart to show my point:
(NOTICE: These numbers are for example only. I even rough guessed the bell curve fit as I don't have a generator handy at work)
For Business Skill in men and women (notice men's bell curve is wider, as it would be)
Skill Men Women
200 0.11% 0.04%
190 0.15% 0.07%
180 0.26% 0.11%
170 0.44% 0.18%
160 1.09% 0.25%
150 2.62% 0.72%
140 5.46% 2.15%
130 8.74% 5.72%
120 10.92% 12.52%
110 13.11% 17.88%
100 14.20% 20.74%
90 13.11% 17.88%
80 10.92% 12.52%
70 8.74% 5.72%
60 5.46% 2.15%
50 2.62% 0.72%
40 1.09% 0.25%
30 0.44% 0.18%
20 0.26% 0.11%
10 0.15% 0.07%
0 0.11% 0.04%
Now, men and women share the same Average skill: 100.
But let's say that being a CEO requires a business skill of 170 or higher: That means .96% of men qualify and .40% of women qualify. (At this point I'm realizing that I made women's curve way to wide.. in truth IQ's of 170 are 30:1 men. But, again, this is just example only) That means for approximately ever 10 CEOs, 7 of them should be men. In a distribution that fits that of IQ, it would be for every 100 CEOs, 97 of them would be men.
What that really means is that women cannot compete with men on an equal playing field. It's simple biological fact.
---
The same thing applies in the Olympics, only at an even more extreme level. Instead of looking for "biological variability score of 170 or above" what they are really looking for is 200+ or even 250+ (yes, I know the scale breaks down above 200, but work with me here). From a mathematical perspective, to even get into the competition one has to be greater than 5 standard deviations away from the mean, and 5 standard deviations for men is really 7-9+ SDs for women (depending on the trait in question). Because those "one in two hundred billion" women don't come along so often, we instead set aside a special field of competition just for the women such that they can have a chance to compete, and therefore, yes, it is imperative that we keep said field pure.
But, after all, I guess it's "sexist" to have a mens and women's Olympics... I mean they're equal after all, aren't they?
I don't wish to continue the thread of standard deviation of characteristics except to say that "demonspawn" was broadly correct in initial observation before the general descent into namecalling.
But I do wish to return to a more fundamental point made in Megan's original note, and indeed in the one she referenced. There is an implicit assumption that women deserve a separate competition in the first place. Why? Just because the average/top woman is likely to lose to the average/top man?
It's probably bad form to link in comments to your own notes, but my blog discussed these points back in July 2007 and again on July 31st this year, coincidentally the same day as you (Megan). I guess you can click through my initials below to them. But I think my conclusion is very different. The new sex tests include an element of gene expression as well as simple chromosome counts, but they are still invasive and humiliating, agreed. But the logical conclusion is that all such discrimination is unfair, and it's unfair to restrict any serious competition to "women", or at least to accord it equal status/money as a genuinely open competition.
It all makes sense once you play the numbers.
Your example doesn't "play" the numbers, it simply front-loads the numbers to arrive at the result you wanted.
The truth is that there's absolutely no reason to believe that there's a gene for "business skill", that it is sex-linked, that it has to be in 66% or more of your brain, or any other such nonsense. If I picked numbers out of my ass, I could front-load my examples too, and "prove" you completely wrong, but there would be no intellectual merit in doing so.
The truth is that you're a sexist troll who has no idea what he's talking about.
But what I am talking about is the expressed genetic diversity...
What you're talking about are physical/mental characteristics which you've conflated with phenotype. And expressed genetic diversity has nothing to do with it, because it's not your expressed genetics that you pass on. It's your entire genetics, half at a time. It's completely impossible for men to be passing on increased male-only diversity, which means that the population of men can't have a substantially greater degree of diversity than women.
It's just a physical impossibility. You'd know this if you could think beyond your sexism for even a second.
It was an example so you just might get it, apparently you just can't.
Please explain to me why people with IQ's of 170 are 30:1 men... (yes, the same is true of people who have IQ's of 30, but again we're measuring the top, not the bottom).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html
"All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women."
So unless EVERY trait is sex linked, then there is simply something about being male or not being female that allows for greater diversity in expression of genetically decided traits. I've explained what I've read to be the leading theory to the best of my ability. Yes, it's attempting to "explain psychology at the cellular level" as I've heard it explained, but a larger number of 'exceptional' cells within a system leads to a grater 'exceptional' level of ability in the overall system. Being female leads to less exceptional cells (because the second X is around as an extra checksum/buffer).
Then please explain how it happens. If it is "impossible" by your measure, then how is it that every male population has larger standard deviations for just about every human trait? Keep shouting that it's "impossible" that the sky is blue and perhaps you'll convince someone somewhere, I guess.
I've already given you the data for height, weight, IQ... do you need more examples before you'll finally just get it? Men express more diversity. Simple biological fact.
Please define sexism. If you are one of those immature idiots who thinks "sexism" means "anyone that thinks men and women are different" then PLEASE wake up and take a deep whiff of obvious: MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT! If they weren't, then we would only have one Olympics instead of two!
I read over it. Nice wish, unfortunately you are not going to get the results that you want. To requote my source of http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm let me pull something from it that explains the awesome competitive power of greater standard deviations:
[Explaining the large male:female ratio of mathematicians in the National Academy of Sciences]
"Sex differences in both mean and variance contribute to the preponderance of men in the Academy, but they contribute unequally. At this level of ability men predominate mostly because of their greater variability. If we set the mean difference to zero and redo the calculation, men would constitute 91% of the Academy membership, down from 95%, but still a hefty majority. Alternatively, if we set the variance ratio to unity, leaving the means intact, the male representation drops substantially to 64%."
Now, given some category of competition Z where women do have a advantage in the mean, the greater standard deviation that exists in males would still lead to more men being in the top 0.001% (where the world-level competition takes place).
P.S. read the Q&A from the second link... it gets to the root of the problem quite well.
Oh hell, let me just C&P it to save Chet the effort of having to follow a link:
Q & A
Q: Girls frequently get better math grades than boys, even though boys score higher on tests of mathematical aptitude. How do you explain this? And isn't classroom performance linked more strongly to future job performance than test scores?
LS: When you say "better grades" I think you mean "better average grades." In a high school math class, we expect to find a narrow male majority of 52% in the top half of ability (obtained by setting N /NS = 2 in (3)). Thus with almost equal numbers of boys and girls on each side of the ability median, a bit of extra industry on the part of the ladies, or more likely a bit of slacking off by the boys could easily tilt the average grade toward the girls. None of this, however, is relevant to job performance in fields like engineering, math or physical science. There, considerably more than average ability is required. The technological workforce will emerge from the more selective fractions of the class, where boys predominate to an extent that is not compensable by extra diligence. The 95th percentile of mathematical ability, for example, will be about 64% male, the 99th percentile, 71% male.
Q: If, as you claim, 71% of the 99th percentile is male, that still leaves 29% who are female. What have you done to bring senior female faculty up to this level in Mathematics, Engineering and Physical Sciences?
LS: Full professors in Mathematics at Harvard represent ability in the top 0.0001% of the population, not the top 1%. We could therefore reasonably expect to find no more than one or two women at that rank, with two being extremely unlikely. I haven't done an analysis of Engineering and Physical Sciences, but I suspect prospects for women there are similar but less stark.
Q: OK, so we can't expect gender equity in Mathematics, Engineering and Physical Sciences at Harvard, but can we at least expect 29% of the workforce in these fields to be women?
LS: Not likely. Men and women exhibit other behavioral differences which are apparent almost from birth. To some extent they mirror sex-differentiated behavior in animals. Boys are more aggressive, girls more nurturing. Female babies react more to facial expressions, males to moving objects. By adolescence these behaviors have morphed into girls' interest in social relationships, and boys' interest in machines and devices. Obviously, such divergence of interests influences career choices. Girls lean more toward fields like psychology, while similarly talented men incline toward engineering or physical science. A study6 by Lubinski and Benbow followed the careers of mathematically precocious youth from age 13 to 23. All were in the top 1% of mathematical ability. At age 23 less than 1% of the girls were pursuing doctorates in mathematics, engineering, or physical science, while almost 8% of the boys were. Equal aptitude not withstanding, girls pursued doctorates in biology at more than twice the rate of boys, and in the humanities at almost three times the rate of boys. For all these reasons, we should regard 29% as an upper bound to the percentage of women in the technological work force. In practice, their numbers will be significantly less.
Q: If all this is so, why are we meeting here today?
A: Good question. We are meeting here today because feminists, in order to support their androgynous fantasies, encourage able young women to enter technological fields even when their interests lie elsewhere.
Q: I see several people have left and one has thrown up. Do you think there will be repercussions campuswide?
A. Nah. We are, after all, first and foremost scholars, researchers and above all colleagues.
Thank you all again.
"Fairness" is a completely relative term unless you just outlaw the Olympics entirely. That would be fair, but an almost universally unpopular outcome.
I am not sure why we even have separate competitions for men and women. Let the best of both genders compete together and make all the gender testing irrelevant. There is no philosophical or entertainment value difference between woman's Olympics and Special Olympics, beach volleyball excepted.
Chet, men cannot have more genetic diversity than women, that is true. But they do have more phenotypic diversity. It is phenotypic diversity that matters in the Olympics, and life in general. Nobody cares about the DNA you don't express.
The reason why women have a lower standard deviation in most measured traits is X-inactivation. Mammalian cells are "balanced" when they have one X chromosome. Females have two Xs, so the solution devised by evolution is to turn off one of them. But which one gets turned off is random, and so every female gets roughly half of her cells expressing one of her Xs, and the other half, the other X. Hence, any rare gene on one of her X chromosomes will have its expression muted. If it does "good" stuff -- raise IQ, for example -- she gets less of it than a man would with that particular X chromosome. Same if it does "bad" stuff. Thus less phenotypic diversity.
Of course, all this talk about standard deviation, etc. misses the most important point wrt the Olympics. Men do not dominate women in most forms of athletic competition because they are more variable. They dominate them because they are bigger, faster, and stronger.
Apparently I was using a reserved word. Thanks for the update about how I should phrase it.
Actually, men are "bigger, faster, and stronger" to the degree to make "men's events" exclusively male because of the diversity. Going right back to the math, I can explain to you the awesome power of greater standard deviations:
"Sex differences in both mean and variance contribute to the preponderance of men in the Academy, but they contribute unequally. At this level of ability men predominate mostly because of their greater variability. If we set the mean difference to zero [give men and women the same average ability] and redo the calculation, men would constitute 91% of the Academy membership, down from 95%, but still a hefty majority. Alternatively, if we set the variance ratio to unity [give men and women both the same standard deviation], leaving the means intact, the male representation drops substantially to 64%."
Without the gap in standard deviation, it's likely we would see a number of women competing in "men's events"... possibly even to a degree that we would no longer have the political correctness need to sex-segregate the competitions.