Leaderboard

Ok, that confirms that you indeed do not get follow the gist of the argument. I am trying one more time and then I suggest that we give up on that as it does not seem to go anywhere. The argument of segregation is based on the fact that boys at some point become stronger than girls. Agreed? From there it follows that there is a physiological difference, and let us just call it strength to make it simple. After all if there is a difference, we should be able to measure by whatever means (otherwise there would be no difference). So let's say at girls have an average strength of 5 going up to 7, whereas boys have an average of 8 going up to 10. So let's say individuals with a strength of 8 or above are too dangerous to put together with folks with, say, more than two levels of difference. So let's say then that we put a threshold of 8 for the higher league. As no woman might reach it, it will be only men. However, men who do not reach that threshold (and therefore would be at similar risk of injury as women), would also not qualify. Conversely, transgender and potentially some other rare women who cross that threshold would then compete in that league, which would minimize risk of injury.

So you're saying, "Being male is not generally to possessing those qualities" is straight? I'm accusing you of being grammatically wrong. But I also think you've got a LOT of emotional investment in this issue, because you keep repeating the same arguments, even though lots of folks have peeled them apart fairly reasonably. And instead of then addressing THOSE points, you just double down, copy/paste something you've already said, and insist that any rebuttal is some kind of overactive political correctness, even though the positions have been thoroughly explained to you. If it's debatable, why do you keep copy/pasting the same things? And is thorough rejection a competent scientific stance? What's happened to your objectivity? Nobody is saying you have to agree, but it would help, if you're going to continue to discuss this, if you would at least keep moving forward instead of staying mired in your complete rejection.

Being male is not prerequisite to possessing those qualities. Your position is poor and your argument repetitive, weak, and unconvincing. So what? You seem to be suggesting they CAN be measured, but only based on being male or being female. That’s rather obviously bollocks. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It’s clear you’re not even trying at this point. I’d encourage you to salvage some dignity and either do better or stop posting. Perhaps you’re just drunk? Trying to find a way to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you’re not making it easy.

I'm not sure, but I also don't believe competition is 'fair' at the elite level anyway. For example, the US has a lot more money to train its women athletes in many other countries which gives them a clear advantage. The Dutch are the tallest women in the world. Some countries have better medical than others. I don't find the fact that a few trans women who compete at the elite level, competing under regulations specific to them, are a major threat to women's sports at the elite level. If I'm wrong, then this will be an experiment that fails eventually. But at least we will have tried, which I think is important.

It's called holding you accountable for what you say, not "oneupmanship". Don't play the victim just because you are asked to support your claims on a discussion forum.

You do mean (for physical sports where XY individuals dominate): "if someone "demonstrates the inability to compete at the top male level" do you not? Surely you are not filtering them out from competition at any level, correct? You're just removing the Tier 1 competitors from competing in Tier 2, to allow the Tier 2 competitors a chance to compete? Okay. So how is this going to work assuming you have a reasonable method of doing the filtering (which clearly you don't, even conceptually, without assuming best efforts in a trial...the potential reward for best effort being exclusion from Tier 2...a disincentive for anyone wanting to compete in that category) But let's say you have some reasonable method to do this...where are you going to draw your line dividing Tier 1 and Tier 2? Let's use the 100m as an example. Should we use the current women's 100m record? Or is that too fast? Let's say it's 10.xx seconds, with the xx chosen to allow elite females to compete, so you won't explicitly exclude the top current 10, 20, 40? females. How many more XY individuals would also be in this range? How would XY individuals not dominate this second tier, as well as the top tier? Is that okay if they do? (Let's not complicate things at this point, and consider also if they deserve equal pay)

This is business, special bird seed shingles for car wash roofs! I'm on it!

Just hold it in, fellows, one more minute !

*Consistent But... totally agree. I am sometimes inconsistent, as are we all. I personally seek to always be better today than I was yesterday. I often fail, but sometimes succeed, and your feedback is duly noted. Now, as for the thread-relevant on-topic suggestion that relatively simple updates to qualifications and sports divisions might help here... You seemed to accept my proposal at the level of younger athletes in schools, so let's try building on that consensus we've reached and see where it leads.

Not a fan of this style. It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling. It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held. "Particularly and sadly on a science forum." Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

I chuckled upon reading this ... That would have been good advice to give J Biden when making his Supreme Court selection criteria announcement. Oh wait ... you were all for selection based on how people urinate in that case. And even the color of their genitals.

No one. J.C. asked if I was sure this was not a threat to women who complete at the elite level, and I answered that I was not. Try to pay attention. "Talent and ability" are neither unfair at the elite level, nor do American women have a clear advantage due to talent and ability. I have no idea what you are talking about. Um, are you following any of the conversations at all?

Especially given that sports is literally us humans making up and inventing from scratch arbitrary rules however we see fit.

I'm sure I'll be accused of "oneupmanship" and playing games, but can you provide a single quote from me that displays "extreme PC"? I anxiously await your tap dancing and misdirection as you do your best to not be held accountable for yet another baseless claim.

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever.

I’m also curious to know. Segregating based on size, strength, and ability clearly makes sense. Tell me again why we can’t do that while ignoring how someone urinates?

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?

I think you are missing the core idea behind the suggestions. If we put in a set of metrics (just a random and likely bad example: lift strength at a given body mass) and use that to define leagues, then likely we will create a group that will almost entirely male. However, it would give an in for transgender athletes to be sorted due to their physiology (e.g. if after transition they maintain a stronger physique, they would qualify for that league, if their physique is much closer the the female average, they would qualify for the other). Again, it is not about finding criteria that would equalize female and male performance but about checking whether we can find criteria that correlate with performance and not entirely based on genitals. Moreover, if we can define those criteria specific to a sports, we may have also a better idea where mixed competition makes the most sense, rather than our gut feeling at what women are better at and what men are better at.

Assembly theory posits that complex molecules found in large abundance are (almost surely) universal biosignatures. From their publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23258-x At the moment it only has proof of concept with mass spectrometry, but it's a general theory of complexity so could work with other forms of spectroscopy. Interesting direction anyway.

Yes, you can add that to the list also. My number one wish before I kick the bucket, is that the extraordinary confirmation of ETL is found and validated as such. Why shouldn't the standards be very high, considering it would be answering mankind's greatest question? Oparin - Haldane theory' Abiogenisis.

Putin dies and goes to hell, but after a while, he is given a day off for good behavior. So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, orders a drink, and asks the bartender: -Is Crimea ours? -Yes, it is. -And the Donbas? -Also ours. -And Kyiv? -We got that too. Satisfied, Putin drinks, and asks: -Thanks, how much do I owe you? -5 euros.

Let's first touch on my extreme PC accusation. It exists and that's a fact. I previously in another thread brought up an incident of a council in Sydney wanting to do away with "merry christmas"greetings and install "happy holidays" you know, because it may offend some.Then we have what I was "chastised" for in another forum, re casual banter and calling strangers I was interacting with "love". Yet that situation has been shown to be the extreme PC near every day of my life, particularly on the occasion when I called an ambulance to my wife who was suffering a bad bout of asthma, and they were addressing her as sweety, love, and telling me "don't worry love, she'll be OK" And of course then we have this current issue. I'm not going to answer all posts, as obviously my replies would not be up to the educational standards that some of my peers here have. And I won't repeat my past arguments anymore, despite some never being addressed, particularly my main argument re the NRL and their segregation policies under expert medical and scientific advice. And of course the women themselves. I'm rather confident that most in my society are happy with the status quo, with obviously a few feminazis screaming their arse off. The other point you raise re laziness might have some merit. I certainly am sometimes too lazy to go back checking on what ssomeone has said or may have said, but on the bright side, my memory is still pretty good for an old bastard. You are also correct re your implication that I may be hinting at some simply following the crowd. I'm rather sure of that in fact, at least with two or three here. Re name calling, that's an interesting point. But something to consider may be that I am more to the point, rather then beating about the bush, making half baked insinuations, that are directed in my direction. On your insinuation in my direction re "substansive discussion", let me say that unlike most of you folk here, I didn't go to uni, and understand my debating style and ability is probably not to the high degree that others may have. That doesn't make me wrong though. One of the best debaters around, but obviously also an extreme right wing patsy and opportunist is this Jordon Peterson character, who would probably make mince meat out of me in any debate no matter how substantially correct I was. Being a science forum though, I was expecting more along the lines of the scientific method, and the huge differences between the hard and soft sciences, and the difficulties in measuring such "qualities" as toughness, durabilty, strength and all those other factors I have mentioned, that make sex segregation in some sport, as highly necessary for the general protection of generally lighter frame females. The transgender question is answered in a pleasing cautionary way in the rules of the NRL which I dare not post again! In finalising my contribution to this thread, again I am doubling down on my position, as so far no one has shown me, or agued against the medical and scientific advice under which the NRL and union hierarchy have acted on. And as one or two other wise souls have mentioned after a quick look through some of the posts, the public and the women directly involved in sport is the final arbiter, and I am again rather confident that the public and those women in this scenario will stick rightly with the status quo, including the rare transgender argument. Finally to a couple of others that imo have seen this debate for what it is with regards to a few cases, thanks for the support, but don't be too concerned, I am big enough and ugly enough to understand where some are coming from and why. In that regard, I am beholding to no one (except the Mrs and young bloke) and will continue to express my position that I see as being left of centre, without any extremes of politics either left or right, and despite some of the rather pretentious "feel good" religious like unworkable philosophical situations that some have championed in this and other threads. PS: . SWANSONT: I chose your post to directly answer on spec, and none of the situations I have raised, necessarilly apply to you personally.

And the dance continues. Where is the quote showing my "extreme PC" that I'm "forcing" down your throat? Either put up or shut up.

They don't exist. You are making up stories because it fits your world view and allows you to pontificate from on high. Are you suggesting a slightly built female is likely to make the National Rugby Team?

It's actually you that needs to be held acountable, considering I answered your question. "Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others". You wanting, actually demanding names, is just as I said, your attempt at oneupmanship, nothing more, nothing less. You have my answer. Deal with it. And of course my claims of segregation in the rugby codes are certainly supported by the professional medical advice sought by the NRL, and as referenced in the link I gave. So your own accountablity faulters yet again.

And the dance begins. Where is the quote showing my "extreme PC"?

You used the word "prerequisite". I used the word "generally". Get things straight before you start accusing others. At best, the position you hold is debatable, not correct. I totally though reject it. To the contrary. I'm suggesting they are difficult to measure and hence your idea falls apart even before acceptance...or if you like, its obviously bollocks.. I know what it means matey, and you know I know what it means. Isn't that an example of being obtuse? And the fact that your idea remains in the wilderness, is evident to its extreme PC nature, and will almost certainly stay that way.

??? The rugby codes are already rightly segregated and have mostly always been, from the age of 10, as per medical advice. I have no issue with that and find their rules and methodologies regarding transgenders, wise, cautionary and acceptable. The only issue I have is the argument regarding open slather and desegregation based on sex, in all sports, as PC gone mad, unworkable, and actually working against women's participation in sport in general. See above...or to repeat myself again, the suggestion of open slather and no segregation in sport, is superfluous and unnecessary at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given. In actual fact, such PC intervention, may lead to the elimination or reduction of current entertaining and necessary, women's sport. It's already done, but according to sex. *sheesh* Let me again repeat myself for what I now see as some being purposely obtuse. In the body contact sports like the rugby codes, no female will match the size, strength, ability, toughness and heavy knocks endured, as happens in the men's code. I have posted video of professional men's and womens NRL games already, and the differences are as clear as dog balls. The men's game is harder, faster, more violent, more aggressive then the women's by many factors. It's a real shame that on a science forum, some see the need to blindly adhere to and follow extreme PC demands.

No they certaily do exist, and I have linked to the rugby League official rules to show that they exist. What doesn't exist, of course ( at least in the rugby codes, tennis, cricket, weight lifting etc etc etc) is your preferred extreme PC that you try and force down mine and others throats.

I accept the sloppy language jibe and yes you are correct, it certainly was in reference to extreme PC being forced doown throats on this forum. 🤭 It seems you are just not a pretty face! I was never much of a dancer and with the accusation of oneupmanship, if the cap fits, wear it. Again, In most body contact sports, particularly the rugby codes, segregation based on sex, above the age of 10, is applied exclusively by the NRL on expert professional medical advice. That's the state of the nation and as it should be and will always be.

Certainly old friend!!! So you disagree with the extreme PC notion of doing away with sex segregation in body contact sports like the rugby codes, rather you prefer to be based on all the other doubtfully measurable qualities? You know like speed, weight, height, toughness, durability, aggression, ability to take and absorb hard knocks. Why not tell me what you stand for instead of beating round the bush. (although I do have a rough idea!!😁) Essentially, if the cap fits, wear it. Again, In most body contact sports, particularly the rugby codes, segregation based on sex, above the age of 10, is applied exclusively by the NRL on expert professional medical advice. That's the state of the nation and as it should be and will always be. Again if the cap fits, wear it. It's a real shame that on a science forum, some see the need to blindly adhere to and follow extreme PC demands.

I'm far more convinced after being misrepresented yesterday, and so much ignoring of the facts that I have linked to with regards to the NRL, and the standing medical advice that's being ignored, that some are also playing being obtuse for conveneance sake. Incredible how some are so drawn to automatically blindly accepting what extreme PC demands of them for convenience sake. Particularly and sadly on a science forum.