Biological males in women's sport

Franz Von Peppercorn II

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The issues don’t arise there though, they arise based upon what an individual decides to do once their new identity has been recognised in law.

This is the kind of argumentative style that breaks all known forms of logic.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

This is the kind of argumentative style that breaks all known forms of logic.

Well I’m guessing silverharp was going for the whole idea of when a person can identify as their preferred gender they’re able to get up to all sorts.

I would very much doubt that and suggest they’re more likely to be watched like a hawk if this thread is anything to go by :pac:

It’s not as if anyone needs a GRC to get up to all sorts either.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Biological women will have the advantage of oestrogen hormone which increases flexibility, whereas biological men will have testosterone which builds muscle which reduces their flexibility.

You're an idiot wrapped in a moron.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m guessing you think it’s wrong that people should be able to identify themselves as their preferred gender without any other evidence other than simply the fact that they want to. The issues don’t arise there though, they arise based upon what an individual decides to do once their new identity has been recognised in law. The law doesn’t exist to permit people to abuse it, and it certainly doesn’t give them a get out of jail free card to commit wrongdoing against another person. There are still laws governing that sort of behaviour which apply to everyone in society.

People can identify as whatever gender as they want. Gender. We all know that it doesn't override sex, which will never change despite whatever the wording of the law might be. Certain things, such as sports, which is what this thread is about, are segregated based on sex and there is good reason for that.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

People can identify as whatever gender as they want. Gender. We all know that it doesn't override sex, which will never change despite whatever the wording of the law might be. Certain things, such as sports, which is what this thread is about, are segregated based on sex and there is good reason for that.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve just written.

Now all you have to do is convince the sporting bodies which govern the qualifying criteria for entry into their competitions. It’s they who have decided the reasons given weren’t convincing enough to have the rules remain as they were, and the reasons given for changing the rules were a more convincing argument.


EDIT: After reading it, I’m not sure whether this article would help or hinder your case. It’s certainly worth reading though -

Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes

From the Conclusion:


A central assumption underlying the IAAF and IOC policies is that atypically high levels of endogenous testosterone in women create an unfair advantage and must therefore be regulated. The current scientific evidence, however, does not support the notion that endogenous testosterone levels confer athletic advantage in any straightforward or predictable way. Even if naturally occurring variation in testosterone conferred advantage, is that advantage unfair? It bears noting that athletes never begin on a fair playing field; if they were not exceptional in one regard or another, they would not have made it to a prestigious international athletic stage. Athletic excellence is the product of a complex entanglement of biological factors and material resources that have the potential to influence athletic advantage. However, the IAAF and IOC target testosterone as the most important factor in contributing to athletic advantage. The policies seek to do the impossible: isolate androgen from other possible biological factors and material resources to determine the impact that it alone, in the form of testosterone, has on athletic advantage. Setting hyperandrogenism apart from other possible biological factors that are not regulated by the IAAF and IOC but that also might influence athletic advantage seems illogical and unfair.

The policies raise troubling concerns about whether they succeed in balancing the aim of creating a “fair” playing field for women athletes against the aim of ensuring fairness for individual athletes. Given the very real documented harms that have come to female athletes who have undergone evaluation and sex testing, these policies are unlikely to protect against breaches of privacy and confidentiality that may arise because they are inconsistent and suspend athletes undergoing evaluation. Furthermore, they require female athletes to undergo treatment that may not be medically necessary and may, in fact, be medically and socially harmful, in order to compete. Finally, beyond those athletes who are directly affected by these investigations, the new policies may intensify the harmful “gender policing” that already plagues women’s sports.

Considerations of fairness support an approach that allows all legally recognized females to compete with other females, regardless of their hormonal levels, providing their bodies naturally produce the hormones. While a legal definition of sex opens up a scrutiny of its own, it is currently the single best sex categorization measure we have to rely on. It is true that countries may define sex in different ways, but this variability is not necessarily bad; it also allows countries to do so how they see fit.

jmayo

Dante7 wrote: »

You're an idiot wrapped in a moron.

Jaysus if they were in UK they would fit right into Boris's cabinet.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

Jaysus if they were in UK they would fit right into Boris's cabinet.

Here’s British artistic gymnast Nile Wilson attempting Katelyn Onashi’s split bounce, should be nooooo problem to a male of course, right? Five minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLG5jpa_jMM

I suppose if you’re not that attached to your meat and two veg and fancy giving yourself an instant vasectomy, it might be possible to do it with enough training :pac:

batman_oh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here’s British artistic gymnast Nile Wilson attempting Katelyn Onashi’s split bounce, should be nooooo problem to a male of course, right? Five minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLG5jpa_jMM

I suppose if you’re not that attached to your meat and two veg and fancy giving yourself an instant vasectomy, it might be possible to do it with enough training :pac:

Awesome - now show me a male sprinter failing to beat the roided monster Flo-Jo's ancient 100 metres record. Sure there are some things a female can do better, but without cheating/hormones/drugs they aren't beating males in 99% of physical sports

One eyed Jack

batman_oh wrote: »

Awesome - now show me a male sprinter failing to beat the roided monster Flo-Jo's ancient 100 metres record. Sure there are some things a female can do better, but without cheating/hormones/drugs they aren't beating males in 99% of physical sports

They aren’t at the moment, no. Is it possible that they could at some point in the future? I would say absolutely it is. Athletic ability (I would suggest any ability), let alone success in any given sport, is a combination of factors, as opposed to just one single factor that gives any competitor an advantage over their competition.

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here’s British artistic gymnast Nile Wilson attempting Katelyn Onashi’s split bounce, should be nooooo problem to a male of course, right? Five minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLG5jpa_jMM

I suppose if you’re not that attached to your meat and two veg and fancy giving yourself an instant vasectomy, it might be possible to do it with enough training :pac:

Congratulations you found one area where a woman might have an advantage over man.

I can't be ar**ed giving all the thousands of others where men trump women in sporting competitions.
I suppose you could group them by speed, strength, height.

You are either as Dante7 quite eloquently described or suffering from some sort of severe delusion to carry on with this charade of an argument.

Donnielighto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because they’re two completely different situations. There are no age discrimination laws for example that suggest a 30 year old is being discriminated against because they don’t qualify for juvenile sports.

There are laws relating to discrimination on the basis of gender which make it unlawful for sports governing bodies to say transgender athletes who have been recognised in law as their preferred gender are not permitted to compete against other athletes of the same gender (or sex, if you want to go that way).

Laws can change and this isn't a personal issue it's a fairness one. In competitive terms this is akindl to growth hormones then coming off them, some of these gains get locked in.

It's a difficult situation but it's it's the right one to ban them.

If trans athletes are allowed compete when home density etc is already in place then we may as well make it single open class by age, get rid of sex at all.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

Congratulations you found one area where a woman might have an advantage over man.

I can't be ar**ed giving all the thousands of others where men trump women in sporting competitions.
I suppose you could group them by speed, strength, height.

You are either as Dante7 quite eloquently described or suffering from some sort of severe delusion to carry on with this charade of an argument.

You could group competitors whatever way you like and the losers would still accuse the winners of cheating. That’s why we had the situation earlier in the thread where I was taken to task for mistaking Sonia O’ Sullivan for a man, but it’s perfectly acceptable to claim Chinese athletes aren’t very good at the oul’ tuck job as you could see their package in the photos, apparently. I didn’t look that closely myself tbh, but apparently that’s all it takes to have female athletes be subjected to invasive testing to verify their sex.

So essentially I’m expected to believe that in the 100 or so years of female competitions where there have officially only ever been two confirmed male athletes attempting to compete in the women’s events at a time when all female athletes were subject to sex testing, suddenly female athletics are going to be overtaken by people with natural abilities which threaten fairness in women’s sports that much, that they have to be completely excluded from being allowed to compete in order to be fair to competitors of lesser ability.

I dunno about you but to me that sounds like rather than the elite in any sport setting the bar, the standard for what’s fair in competition will be set by the competitors with the least ability, and if anyone achieves anything in the sport, they should expect to be subject to sex testing and social exclusion. If that hasn’t put biological females off entering competitive sports already, I don’t see how permitting biological males will put off those female athletes who are determined to be successful (as long as they don’t try to be too successful, of course :rolleyes:).

SoupMonster

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve just written.

Considerations of fairness support an approach ....
It is true that countries may define sex in different ways, but this variability is not necessarily bad; it also allows countries to do so how they see fit.

So a country could adopt the trans idea and randomly assign sex at birth, resulting in half their legally female population being male and vice versa.

This would be not necessarily bad and would have no impact on fairness in sport. Gotcha.

One eyed Jack

SoupMonster wrote: »

So a country could adopt the trans idea and randomly assign sex at birth, resulting in half their legally female population being male and vice versa.

This would be not necessarily bad and would have no impact on fairness in sport. Gotcha.

I think what they mean by that is that in some countries they already recognise what we in the West would classify as transgender, as an entirely separate sex from either male or female. These are international competitions, with athletes competing from countries that do not share Weatern concepts of sex and gender.

I don’t think any country randomly “assigns” sex at birth, they’re pretty much going on visual inspection which has been adequate up to now for the vast, vast, vast majority of people. However, legal recognition of either sex or gender has meant that the whole binary thinking has become infinitely more complex the more we discover about the variances in human biology and physiology.

I’m still fine with the idea of male and female sex, but there’s no denying that a growing number of people who didn’t have the ability before, now have the ability to discover that the medical and scientific evidence for male and female sex isn’t as clear cut as it was once thought to be. It was put to me earlier in the thread that I question biology as though I’m somehow wrong to question biology. How the hell is anyone supposed to learn and grow if they don’t question things?

That’s why when another poster claimed that the appearance of the Chinese athletes “package” was supporting evidence that they were biologically male, I didn’t think anything of it because I’ve seen plenty of biological females pubic mounds in my time, enough to know that could be one possible explanation for what was observed externally at least. If you weren’t aware of the possibility though, I can understand why the bulge might easily be mistaken for something else, but because of the accusation, a biological female athlete has to be subjected to humiliation and intimate examination to satisfy her accusers. There was a time on this site when we laughed about American imported nonsense like “thigh gaps” and all the rest of it as markers of beauty, yet here we are about what is essentially the same thing - dissecting biological females appearance that don’t meet our cultural expectations. There’s about as much science behind it as Megan Rapinoe’s “scientific” claims :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, I’ll be interested to see if there’s any merit to some of these “scientific” claims when the Thailand team in the next Women’s World Cup roll out a team of ladyboys on the pitch to see if they are capable of returning the 15-0 walkover the US took such delight in this year, or will the US claim Thailand had an unfair advantage over the bucketloads of money the US has to spend on the sport that doesn’t give them any advantage whatsoever... apparently.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think what they mean by that is that in some countries they already recognise what we in the West would classify as transgender, as an entirely separate sex from either male or female. These are international competitions, with athletes competing from countries that do not share Weatern concepts of sex and gender.

I don’t think any country randomly “assigns” sex at birth, they’re pretty much going on visual inspection which has been adequate up to now for the vast, vast, vast majority of people. However, legal recognition of either sex or gender has meant that the whole binary thinking has become infinitely more complex the more we discover about the variances in human biology and physiology.

I’m still fine with the idea of male and female sex, but there’s no denying that a growing number of people who didn’t have the ability before, now have the ability to discover that the medical and scientific evidence for male and female sex isn’t as clear cut as it was once thought to be. It was put to me earlier in the thread that I question biology as though I’m somehow wrong to question biology. How the hell is anyone supposed to learn and grow if they don’t question things?

That’s why when another poster claimed that the appearance of the Chinese athletes “package” was supporting evidence that they were biologically male, I didn’t think anything of it because I’ve seen plenty of biological females pubic mounds in my time, enough to know that could be one possible explanation for what was observed externally at least. If you weren’t aware of the possibility though, I can understand why the bulge might easily be mistaken for something else, but because of the accusation, a biological female athlete has to be subjected to humiliation and intimate examination to satisfy her accusers. There was a time on this site when we laughed about American imported nonsense like “thigh gaps” and all the rest of it as markers of beauty, yet here we are about what is essentially the same thing - dissecting biological females appearance that don’t meet our cultural expectations. There’s about as much science behind it as Megan Rapinoe’s “scientific” claims :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, I’ll be interested to see if there’s any merit to some of these “scientific” claims when the Thailand team in the next Women’s World Cup roll out a team of ladyboys on the pitch to see if they are capable of returning the 15-0 walkover the US took such delight in this year, or will the US claim Thailand had an unfair advantage over the bucketloads of money the US has to spend on the sport that doesn’t give them any advantage whatsoever... apparently.

Would you just stop. Those chinese athletes dont look in anyway female, something which humans are very good at identifying (well, most of us). They look and sound like men and most people can tell the difference between a mons pubis and a penis ffs. The fact that you think Sonia O' Sullivan looks like a man because you didn't find her ****able is entirely your own issue. She doesn't. Its feck all to do with "cultural expectations". Sure the whole thing started when chinese people themselves starting questioning whether they were in fact male. So if you're trying to suggest that we are racist people who think that chinese women look like men then you're wrong. Have a look at this video and explain how the second person to speak could be considered female in anyway. If you didn't know about this controversy you would assume male after watching it right? If you watch that and think that the sex of that person is ambiguous, then you dont function correctly as a human being sorry.

https://youtu.be/CJeYmHogTGY

While were at it are we sure Usain Bolt is a male? Dwayne Johnson? How can we be so sure if sex indicators are just some arbitrary cultural expectations?

I'm not going to bother replying to your nonsense anymore.

metaoblivia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here’s British artistic gymnast Nile Wilson attempting Katelyn Onashi’s split bounce, should be nooooo problem to a male of course, right? Five minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLG5jpa_jMM

I suppose if you’re not that attached to your meat and two veg and fancy giving yourself an instant vasectomy, it might be possible to do it with enough training :pac:

Do you know how many extra points that split bounce got her?

None.

It's cool but it's not a skill. The jump is the skill and her credit for it depends on if she hits the split position in the air. The landing position and bounce back up are choreography. So when it comes to the actual skill - a split leaps/jump - men can absolutely hit full splits in the air. Most male gymnasts can't because it's not required anywhere in the code so they don't train them (most can do their splits though), but male dancers do lovely leaps and jumps all the time.

So I'm not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make here. That Nile Wilson can't do a bit of choreography that has zero impact on scoring potential? The poor dear, will he ever recover?

You know what would have an impact on scoring? If Katelyn tumbled a double double, a piked double front and a triple twist. That would give her the hardest floor routine in women's NCAA. She doesn't, of course. But you know who has tumbled all three of those passes in a routine? Nile Wilson. And that's not to mention his two other tumbling runs and his strength skill. But women in NCAA gymnastics only do 2-3 tumbling runs and have no strength skill requirement, so it's not a fair comparison, I suppose. But split bounce choreography! Yay!

One eyed Jack

metaoblivia wrote: »

So I'm not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make here.

The point I was making was obvious - biological males won’t be doing a move like that any time soon. I wasn’t making any point about the points or lack thereof or anything else. The whole argument is centred around men being able to outperform women in every event and all the rest of it, and my only point in using the example I did and making the comparison I did was because of this whole idea of “anything women can do men can do better”. I’d be curious to see a biological male doing that (not saying they couldn’t, but even with a cup they’re still risking doing an incredible amount of damage to their undercarriage).

metaoblivia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I was making was obvious - biological males won’t be doing a move like that any time soon. I wasn’t making any point about the points or lack thereof or anything else. The whole argument is centred around men being able to outperform women in every event and all the rest of it, and my only point in using the example I did and making the comparison I did was because of this whole idea of “anything women can do men can do better”. I’d be curious to see a biological male doing that (not saying they couldn’t, but even with a cup they’re still risking doing an incredible amount of damage to their undercarriage).

Sure they can't do it, but it has literally no impact on their ability to succeed in the sport, even if they were competing under the same rules as women. So it just isn't a very good example.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Would you just stop. Those chinese athletes dont look in anyway female, something which humans are very good at identifying (well, most of us). They look and sound like men and most people can tell the difference between a mons pubis and a penis ffs. The fact that you think Sonia O' Sullivan looks like a man because you didn't find her ****able is entirely your own issue. She doesn't. Its feck all to do with "cultural expectations".

That’s not my issue at all, because I neither said nor implied any such thing. I explained that I didn’t think at the time, which was nearly 25 years ago and the first time I’d seen a woman like her, that she looked like any woman I’d seen up to that point in my life. Nothing about finding her whatever :rolleyes:

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Sure the whole thing started when chinese people themselves starting questioning whether they were in fact male. So if you're trying to suggest that we are racist people who think that chinese women look like men then you're wrong. Have a look at this video and explain how the second person to speak could be considered female in anyway. If you didn't know about this controversy you would assume male after watching it right? If you watch that and think that the sex of that person is ambiguous, then you dont function correctly as a human being sorry.

Why would I be thinking anyone here is racist? Labels like that are stupid, frankly, which is why I don’t use them. As for the argument that it’s ok to question someone’s sex because the people from their own country started it first - I’m as Irish as Sonia O’ Sullivan, your point proves nothing. I said it was malicious, and I stand by that. I made a mistake at the time and I can admit when I make a mistake, but to accuse someone and then try and argue that you’re only doing it because you’re concerned about women? Of course you are, sounds like it and all.

I don’t function as a human because I don’t agree with you? Is that where we’re at now? Earlier on you suggested we leave it to the experts to decide who know more than I do about sports, but you don’t accept their decision either. Maybe they’re not functioning humans either. Whatever you need to tell yourself I guess.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

While were at it are we sure Usain Bolt is a male? Dwayne Johnson? How can we be so sure if sex indicators are just some arbitrary cultural expectations?

I'm not going to bother replying to your nonsense anymore.

Both have been accused of using performance enhancing drugs in their careers. Dwayne Johnson admitted to using steroids. If they wanted to compete against women I have no doubt you’d be pointing out how unfair it would be, but since they don’t, they’re not relevant here.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

Sometimes a man can be more womanly than a woman. Wouldn't lose any sleep about it.

ingalway

SexMatters.jpg

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

metaoblivia wrote: »

Do you know how many extra points that split bounce got her?

None.

It's cool but it's not a skill. The jump is the skill and her credit for it depends on if she hits the split position in the air. The landing position and bounce back up are choreography. So when it comes to the actual skill - a split leaps/jump - men can absolutely hit full splits in the air. Most male gymnasts can't because it's not required anywhere in the code so they don't train them (most can do their splits though), but male dancers do lovely leaps and jumps all the time.

So I'm not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make here. That Nile Wilson can't do a bit of choreography that has zero impact on scoring potential? The poor dear, will he ever recover?

You know what would have an impact on scoring? If Katelyn tumbled a double double, a piked double front and a triple twist. That would give her the hardest floor routine in women's NCAA. She doesn't, of course. But you know who has tumbled all three of those passes in a routine? Nile Wilson. And that's not to mention his two other tumbling runs and his strength skill. But women in NCAA gymnastics only do 2-3 tumbling runs and have no strength skill requirement, so it's not a fair comparison, I suppose. But split bounce choreography! Yay!

And let us never forget what happened to a female gymnast who was pressured to do a move that should only be attempted by men - Elena Mukhina. She got a snapped spine for her trouble.

Calina

OEJ, I don't get what your issue is. I remember Sonia as a 17 year old. That has to be at least 30 years ago.

You are literally the only person I know who seems to have had any confusion about what sex she is.

It actually reflects poorly on you rather than supports any argument you appear to be tryibg to make.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Calina wrote: »

OEJ, I don't get what your issue is. I remember Sonia as a 17 year old. That has to be at least 30 years ago.

You are literally the only person I know who seems to have had any confusion about what sex she is.

It actually reflects poorly on you rather than supports any argument you appear to be tryibg to make.

Uh huh.

I mean, I have heard people say she’s not great-looking but nobody I’ve known has ever been confused about she’s a woman or not.

metaoblivia

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And let us never forget what happened to a female gymnast who was pressured to do a move that should only be attempted by men - Elena Mukhina. She got a snapped spine for her trouble.

She did snap her neck on a roll out skill, but that was more to do with her coaches forcing her to train on a broken leg that hadn't fully healed. Other female gymnasts competed the roll out tumbles successfully - notably 88 Olympic champion Yelena Shushunova - before they were banned in women's gymnastics in the early 90s. As of 2017, roll out tumbles have also been banned in men's gymnastics. It's dangerous for anyone to land a tumble head first, regardless of gender, I imagine.

One eyed Jack

Calina wrote: »

OEJ, I don't get what your issue is. I remember Sonia as a 17 year old. That has to be at least 30 years ago.

You are literally the only person I know who seems to have had any confusion about what sex she is.

It actually reflects poorly on you rather than supports any argument you appear to be tryibg to make.

I know well it reflects poorly on me at the time (I would have been 12 if it was 30 years ago, I’m useless with dates and time so I’ll go with yours), that’s the point I was trying to make - I had extremely limited experience of the variety of human physiology at the time. Now that I’m older and have considerably more experiences of the variety in human physiology, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume deep voice, facial features and a bulge in their shorts means they’re more than likely biologically male. I’ve met enough women, biological females if you prefer, to know that none of those characteristics would suggest they aren’t who or what they purport to be.

Btw five minutes afterwards I knew I had assumed wrongly that Sonia O’ Sullivan wasn’t female, it was just the initial shock I suppose I got when I saw her like this at the time -

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

metaoblivia wrote: »

She did snap her neck on a roll out skill, but that was more to do with her coaches forcing her to train on a broken leg that hadn't fully healed. Other female gymnasts competed the roll out tumbles successfully - notably 88 Olympic champion Yelena Shushunova - before they were banned in women's gymnastics in the early 90s. As of 2017, roll out tumbles have also been banned in men's gymnastics. It's dangerous for anyone to land a tumble head first, regardless of gender, I imagine.

It wasn’t just the injury. She had already realised that the new skill they wanted her to learn was very risky even before the injury. It was a combination of the two really, I think. But maybe it’s also risky for guys.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It wasn’t just the injury. She had already realised that the new skill they wanted her to learn was very risky even before the injury. It was a combination of the two really, I think. But maybe it’s also risky for guys.

No she probably just didn't try hard enough. Or something

Potential-Monke

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It wasn’t just the injury. She had already realised that the new skill they wanted her to learn was very risky even before the injury. It was a combination of the two really, I think.

Just read about it, it was the pressure from Russian Authorities to become the winners across the board again. She broke her leg, was in a cast, doctors were pressured to remove it early so she could get back to training, against her wishes. When they removed it, she said something was wrong, they x rayed and saw it wasn't healed properly, and was put back in a cast. More pressure on the doctors then to remove it early again, which they did, and she was 'forced' back into training.

She knew it was dangerous, and could predict an accident, but they kept pressuring her. Then, shortly before the competition, she landed on her neck and was instantly a quadriplegic. Her first thought was "Thank god I don't have to go to the Olympics". Sad state of affairs.

She didn't blame all the trainers (only 1 I believe) as she knew they were also pressured from Russian authorities to get the win, and get her back onto the podium across all disciplines. She took some of the blame for not saying no, but I can understand the pressure she must have been under. Russia back then didn't care about personnel, just about image and winning. Hope it's not the same today.

I just watched the last ever female Thomas Salto move on YouTube, dangerous stuff.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

^^^ So creepy.

But metaoblivia is probably right that what she was attempting would probably be risky for anyone, male or female so might not be the best example of it being something only men can do.

As for Soviet pressure, it reminds me of East German athletes reporting that if they refused to take their “vitamins”, they were in danger of being ostracised.