omenti

the polkadot giraffe is waiting for the light to go green

a minipost

Our minds are impressive at constructing imagery from words.  Some of us like audio or printed books better than films because 'our minds are more visual than someone else's interpretation.  So it came as a shock last year when my wife discovered she has a condition called aphantasia - the inability to construct a visual mental image.   She thought references to any product of the minds eye was a figure of speech.  

 

Sukie, being Sukie, dove in and started talking to researchers to learn about the condition.  She's been part of a study that's determined about one to one and a half percent of the population has the condition (she clocks in with extreme aphantasia).   She was particularly interested in positive benefits.  Work so far suggests that a larger than expected population of scientists and engineers has the condition and work is underway looking at specific subfields.  Sukie's very smart and creative - just in a way my mind can't imagine.  Live living with an alien intelligence:-)

 

On the other side of the coin is hyperphantasia..  people who have intense visual theaters.  Think about an apple in your hand and you see one there.  Here's a nice piece on the subject.  It's still very early work, but it raises some interesting questions.  It may be that it's common in children, but most outgrow it.  Children may have incredibly rich visual experiences... perhaps some make believe friends and things like ghosts are very real to some. And what about visions?  There's a type that can represent positions -- is this part of court sense among elite soccer and basketball players?

 

I'm fairly visual - a book or audiobook almost always beats video or film for me.   I took the admittedly blunt screen test and scored a bit below hyperphantasia on the continuum.  Much of my thinking is abstract and visual, but I also have synesthesia which is less rare among mathematicians and physicists and often used, at least my flavor, for visual thinking.  As with most things there's a bit of a downside.  Having synesthesia means a couple of primary senses aren't orthogonal and I'm clumsy with sports that require a crisp separation.  (you won't see a soccer player with synesthesia, but it's possible to have a weight lifter or rowing athlete - and trust me - I'm neither). 

 

A bottom line is there's an enormous amount of neurodiversity in humanity.   Every one of us is  neuroatypical and it's our differences that make us special.

 

 

science vs policy and a wedge issue

Something a few of you have heard from me privately and something that may raise some eyebrows.  Namely  gender in lieu of biological sex in athletic events.

 

It's generally agreed there are three important issues in sport:  safety, fairness and inclusivity.  Many sports have categories to promote fairness and even safety -- age and weight categories for example.  Some areas of sport - parasports are a good example - have dozens of categories.  And females (I'll try and avoid the term women as it's more closely associated with gender these days) have their own protected category as, for most sports, males have a serious advantage.

 

Currently the  IOC and many pro-LGBT groups have come down on inclusivity trumping fairness and safety.   When males go through puberty a number of athletic advantages are bestowed.  Testosterone is the primary trigger, but most of these changes are permanent and chemically lowering testosterone levels after the fact only has a marginal impact on athletic performance.  There are a few pieces of work that the science in "unsettled" and there are areas that need more study, as in all science, but the basics are well-established. 

 

I tend to be very liberal and pro-LGBT, but the violation of fairness in sport for biological females is a bridge too far for me.¹  Female events exist to give women a fair chance to compete.  I'm biased as a good friend who happens to be a World Champion, two time Olympian, four time first team All American and Honda Award winner.. she also happens to be female.  Additionally I know a few other world class athletes who are women. They're afraid to speak openly on the subject, but anonymous polls are usually at the 90% level for keeping female events open only to XX competitors.  This does not mean to exclude trans-women from sport.  They can compete with men in an open category where they're more fairly matched.  If need be the open category can have trans and non-trans divisions, but there's a strong belief among female athletes that their category needs protection.  Unfortunately they're not being listened to.

 

Recently 20 of the top sports scientists published a paper in fairly clear language on the subject in one of the most recognized sport science journals.  

from the paper (I encourage that anyone with an interest in the subject to read the full paper)

The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes

Abstract
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

 

It's unfortunately that people who are coming down on the side of fair competition are being lumped with heavily politicized anti LGBT hysteria.  It's something of a wedge issue and I hate seeing it being used as part of the hammer to come down on the LGBT community. 

__________

¹ There are real genetic edge cases that happen to be quite rare and mechanisms exist to deal with some of these issues - but that's looking at less than 0.1% of the population rather than 99.9+%