Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

Oh dear, I was going to say that about your answer to my last post.

But now you have taken my lines.

 

I'm glad to hear you have repented.

How is that relevent to my comment that I don't know what the phrase means?

That's more like what I said.

But you haven't commented on the fact that no man can feel whatever a woman suffering (and it can be great suffering) feels when she has an ovarian cyst.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

I must also confess my ignorance as to who Shania Twain is.

Yummy.  

Edited July 5, 2021 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/4/2021 at 3:50 PM, CharonY said:

 

 

It is still puzzling to me (and I am repeating myself here, but it does not seem to get addressed) that there is the assumption that any evaluation of transgender would be highly subjective, yet at the same time they maintain that the performance of female transgender athletes puts them categorically above a cisgender women. If they do, it should be easy enough to measure. 

 

Maybe is puzzling to you...yet not addressed by anyone here...because no one here made such a bizarre claim...at least that I'm aware of.

The fact that elite teenage boys teams could dominate your National women's soccer and ice hockey teams has been discussed...sorry if seemed to you that someone thought any biologically male team could.

On 7/4/2021 at 3:50 PM, CharonY said:

 And if you cannot measure, why would you need make a new category? And of course, with further understanding of the biology of sexes we now also know that the binary gender distinction is a categorization based on convenience, which covers the vast majority of cases. Yet clearly, the distinction ignores detailed biological realities and is therefore not inherently objective.

 

 

Or why even have the category in the first place? Let's go back to the 1800s.

After all...nice girls don't want to compete.

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

There’s too much bad faith argumentation happening in this thread, and at least one member is pretty clearly trolling [/meta]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

That's not an answer to my question, its another question.

I was simply mimicking your style in hopes of making progress. It’s unfortunate that you don’t seem to share that desire. 

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe is puzzling to you...yet not addressed by anyone here...because no one here made such a bizarre claim...at least that I'm aware of.

The fact that elite teenage boys teams could dominate your National women's soccer and ice hockey teams has been discussed...sorry if seemed to you that someone thought any biologically male team could.

You seem to be arguing both sides. Your earlier posts seem to argue that transgender women would be physically superior to cisgender women in a variety of sports. The proposed solution was to to make an open competition for the highest levels of a given sport. You have made the claim that this would be impossible, but have not substantiated that. I provided a couple of examples which so far were soundly ignored so at this point it is absolutely unclear what you are arguing in the first place.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I must also confess my ignorance as to who Shania Twain is.

Because no-one deserves to remain ignorant ...

Enjoy.

( and because this thread is uickly developing into another 'Schroedinger's cat proves there is no God' thread that I don't want to participate in )

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Holmes said:

That's an insult.

Incorrect again. The reference was to your ignorance… your lack of knowledge, education, or awareness… on a specific topic. Perhaps you took offense to this, but it’s not an insult. Had Charon instead called you an idiot, stupid, or even a moronic fool, then that would’ve been accurately described as an insult, but none of those things happened. 
 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

because this thread is uickly developing into another 'Schroedinger's cat proves there is no God' thread that I don't want to participate in

Have you identified the common variable across threads yet?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Holmes said:

To say "I feel a like a woman" when you are a man is nonsensical I think.

Now if a transgender woman declares they are a transgender woman then how do they know? what reasoning do they go through that leads to the conclusion "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body" what exactly is the reasoning?

What is it like to be a bat?

Nagel describes the flaw in your argument.

Edited July 6, 2021 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

This is false and based on poor reasoning IMO.

I’m thinking of categories like weight classes in wrestling as an easy example. Even when 2 wrestlers are at the exact same weight (the thing which qualifies them to compete in that particular class), they are never equal in skill nor guaranteed a win as the outcome. Same for boxing and many other sports.

I’m simply proposing we extend this type of categorization, minus concern for gender. Voila… doesn’t matter if you’re trans, boy, girl, or other. You either qualify for that class or you don’t. Once qualified, you compete against other similarly qualified humans. 

But weight and other classifications are generally sub-categories within the 2 main classes - male and female - in many sports. 

The 2 main classifications of male and female discriminate against the other gender identities. However, they do offer a fair equal opportunity rights that women have been fighting for years. If we abolish this classification, so not to discriminate against any gender, then we will be in a situation where male athletes will dominate most sports. The vast majority of national and world champions will be male. I'm not sure if this would be the best way forward?

So again, the purist in me wants to give all an equal and fair opportunity that results in an equal and fair outcome. This is probably unrealistic, but the closer we can get the better society will be. 

I don't know the answer to solving this? 

You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can aim to please most of the people most of the time.      

[studiot]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Because no-one deserves to remain ignorant ...

Thanks.

Do you like Caro Emerald's music ?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't know the answer to solving this? 

So long as the athlete meets the criteria for the class, you let them compete alongside the gender with which they identify. This isn’t hard. It’s just a game… erm… a sport.

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

So long as the athlete meets the criteria for the class, you let them compete alongside the gender with which they identify. This isn’t hard. It’s just a game… erm… a sport.

I don't disagree, but is the gender classification not fundamentally based on the physical advantage one gender may hold over another in the first place? 

What was the original reasoning behind male & female classifications? Does this reasoning still hold true or is it out dated? 

I'm not arguing for one or the other, I have stated position many times. I'm just asking these questions to get a better understanding of the situation. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

So you think our society has moved past where we need to define differences between men and women ?
Yet are perfectly happy with the 47 'defined' genders, LGBQT+...

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think you're full of shit; for instance, in a same sex marriage, who wears the trousers? 

FFS, how is that relevant ?
Notice how my response above doesn't add much to the discussion ?
( this is a teaching moment )

Indeed...

I think our society is trying to move past that point, 47 defined gender's is a satirical joke, designed to show the absurdity of calling them "transgender".

We're all just people, trying to win 'the game of life'; no definition needed...

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

What was the original reasoning behind male & female classifications?

Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks and romans are no longer around for us to ask. 

I imagine the reasons were similar to the reasons used to prevent women from voting or owning property, though. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I don't disagree, but is the gender classification not fundamentally based on the physical advantage one gender may hold over another in the first place? 

What advantage?

In what, is it an advantage?

 

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks and romans are no longer around for us to ask. 

Is this meant to be sarcastic or a genuine reply?

I asked a reasonable question that I don't know the answer to.

Society has taught me that male and female classification in sports was due to the physical advantage a male may have over a female. So my question is, is this a fact and if so is this reasoning outdated? 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What advantage?

In what, is it an advantage?

 

Generally - strength 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Is this meant to be sarcastic

No

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

my question is, is this a fact and if so is this reasoning outdated? 

Yea

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Generally - strength 

What good is strength, if your adversary stronger?

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

No

Yea

Ok, thanks,

So all female athletes have potentially has much strength and power as their male counter parts in each and every discipline? 

This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in how this is determined?  

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What good is strength, if your adversary stronger?

Exactly.

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, thanks,

So all female athletes have potentially has much strength and power as their male counter parts in each and every discipline? 

This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in how this is determined?  

Exactly.

I'd like to rephrase the question slightly, so does this mean now we identify multiple genders, that each gender has potentially equal strength and power capabilities ?

Edited July 6, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, thanks,

So all female athletes have potentially has much strength and power as their male counter parts in each and every discipline? 

This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in how this is determined?  

Exactly.

It's not gender specific, it's entirely subjective.

[Intoscience]

Just now, dimreepr said:

It's not gender specific, it's entirely subjective.

So why have gender classification?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So all female athletes have potentially has much strength and power as their male counter parts in each and every discipline? 

How is this relevant if you proceed using classes and divisions as I and others have been suggesting? You either meet the qualifications to compete or you don’t. Gender doesn’t need to be a threshold criteria. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

So why have gender classification?

Why indeed; classification is all we need.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So why have gender classification?

Tradition. Status quo. Other similar irrelevancies. 

Did you know women are allowed in combat now, too? And yes!! They can carry their mates when they’re injured. It’s truly a magical time. 

[Intoscience]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

How is this relevant if you proceed using classes and divisions as I and others have been suggesting? You either meet the qualifications to compete or you don’t. Gender doesn’t need to be a threshold criteria. 

I don't entirely disagree,

It would be an interesting and maybe fruitful experiment to ditch the old regime of gender classification and introduce such a system as you suggest.  

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Did you know women are allowed in combat now, too? And yes!! They can carry their mates when they’re injured. It’s truly a magical time. 

I maybe mis-interpreting you, but I don't like your insinuation.

I'm not sexist in anyway, I advocate equal opportunity regardless of gender! My argument is for the rights and fairness of all gender identities.  

My wife was in the forces, she is an accomplished athlete, she gives as good as she gets regardless her adversary. She has fought and beat men in many disciplines (she is tough, and scary at times). But she recognises and accepts the physical advantages the majority of males have over her. Is she wrong to have this view?   

Edited July 6, 2021 by Intoscience

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

My wife was in the forces, she is an accomplished athlete, she gives as good as she gets regardless her adversary. She has fought and beat men in many disciplines (she is tough, and scary at times).

Thank her for her service. She sounds pretty badass, and appears to be a pretty good example of exactly the point I’m making. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

she recognises and accepts the physical advantages the majority of males have over her. Is she wrong to have this view?   

She’s welcome to her opinion, but yes. I’d pushback on this idea of “majority.” Perhaps a plurality, but not necessarily a majority.

Sure, some men will be more physically able and have a higher ceiling on their physical capabilities or performance potentials, but probably not “most”… at least not here in the US where beer bellies abound and potato chips are often a side dish beside the cheeseburger and milkshake.

Either way, and even if I’m wrong… those performance ceilings I mentioned can be pretty easily accommodated and dealt with by using the sorts of divisions and classifications we’ve referenced, and with the added benefit of rendering moot these discussions about how best to include (or sadly too often to EXCLUDE) trans humans in sports when they wish to compete.

Gender need not be a threshold qualification criteria in sport. It really is that simple IMO, and similarly it need not matter what plumbing a person uses when they piss… unless we force it to matter. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by iNow