Transgender athletes

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Then you would agree that like science, it has been shown to bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition.

Like @Peterkin I'd have to also answer 'no' to this one.

"Bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition" is very poetic but is a bit of a stretch. A person may find friendship and competition in sport, but the rest of 'mankind' is left out of the picture. I've never found a 'friend in sport' due to someone else competing in the Olympics.

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

As I expressed more fully earlier.....

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?

I think you must have skipped the half of the arguments in the last 36 pages that didn't support your opinion, or failed to follow the logic in them, while believing your own were fairly robust.

Reading this post of yours, Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" quote comes to mind here.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Like @Peterkin I'd have to also answer 'no' to this one.

"Bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition" is very poetic but is a bit of a stretch. A person may find friendship and competition in sport, but the rest of 'mankind' is left out of the picture. I've never found a 'friend in sport' due to someone else competing in the Olympics.

I think we have many examples of sport bringing mankind together, the Olympic games being the prime example. And certainly no more of a stretch then your comment, "the rest of mankind"

https://stacker.com/stories/4096/30-examples-sports-bringing-world-together

Probably the greatest swimmer ever, the Americal Kate Ledecky after being beaten by Australia's Arriane Titmus at the last Olympics.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think you must have skipped the half of the arguments in the last 36 pages that didn't support your opinion, or failed to follow the logic in them, while believing your own were fairly robust.

Reading this post of yours, Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" quote comes to mind here.

Reading back over the arguments, I didn't miss them. It wasn't my arguments I was going by (I'm not a sports fan at all anymore, haven't been for a long time), but rather better arguments offered by participants other than you or beecee. Like setting standards for the industry that involve actual sporting capabilities like strength, endurance, agility and other performance factors, and establishing categories of competition that reflect those standards. 

So that a person of any gender and age can compete in the categories they qualify for. I didn't see logic anywherre else.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?

I'm really not sure what you are on about. Segregation of male and female in sports that require muscle strength, mass and size, are to protect the female from harm. Other sports such as darts, horse riding perhaps, see other qualities and human properties that support the concept of male and female playing together. Another segregating factor is amateurism and professionalism. I'm certainly not going to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxxing champion...nor for that matter, with the world feather weight champion. As I mentioned earlier in Australia, junior rugby league is played with a mixture of sexes up until the ages of 10 or so. From there though, as puberty takes hold and males get bigger and stronger, they have separate competitions, as obviously they should.

No I havn't really read all of this thread, just popped in on occasions to express what I see as logic and common sense. 

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm really not sure what you are on about. Segregation of male and female in sports that require muscle strength, mass and size, are to protect the female from harm. Other sports such as darts, horse riding perhaps, see other qualities and human properties that support the concept of male and female playing together. Another segregating factor is amateurism and professionalism. I'm certainly not going to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxxing champion...nor for that matter, with the world feather weight champion. As I mentioned earlier in Australia, junior rugby league is played with a mixture of sexes up until the ages of 10 or so. From there though, as puberty takes hold and males get bigger and stronger, they have separate competitions, as obviously they should.

No I havn't really read all of this thread, just popped in on occasions to express what I see as logic and common sense. 

This must be the logic JCM mentioned.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I think we have many examples of sport bringing mankind together,

Your link mentioned Jesse Owens and Luz Long defying Nazi sentiments. Perfect example of what I am saying. It brought those two athletes together, but shortly afterward the rest of mankind killed 50,000,000 of their own. Hardly an example of "bringing mankind together".

I'm also unsure how Titmus beating Ledecky brought mankind together.

Edited May 18, 2022 by zapatos

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This must be the logic JCM mentioned.

 

52 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So that a person of any gender and age can compete in the categories they qualify for. I didn't see logic anywherre else.

Are you saying that someone of female gender would qualify to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxing champion? Or qualify to play professional rugby league or union with larger, stronger, faster males? Testing for sporting prowess and capabilities (as you say) automatically sort those valid "divisions" out, in sports where the male natural phyisicality demands segregation. 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your link mentioned Jesse Owens and Luz Long defying Nazi sentiments. Perfect example of what I am saying. It brought those two athletes together, but shortly afterward the rest of mankind killed 50,000,000 of their own. Hardly an example of "bringing mankind together".

Mankind is not perfect. There are "mad" people out there, criminals, evil arseholes. The American Jesse Owens, helped by Long, showed the Hitler philsophy for what it was...bunkum. The vast majority of the world united agaainst that bunkum.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm also unsure how Titmus beating Ledecky brought mankind together either.

I'm not sure how many people were tuned to the Olympic games either, but a reasonably large number I suggest. And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you saying that someone of female gender would qualify to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxing champion? Or qualify to play professional rugby league or union with larger, stronger, faster males? Testing for sporting prowess and capabilities (as you say) automatically sort those valid "divisions" out, in sports where the male natural phyisicality demands segregation. 

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. 

As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

The vast majority of the world united agaainst that bunkum.

Guess you don't know what it was like to be a black in America in the 1930's.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

And in what way did mankind unite in friendship and competition after that event? 

As I said, a bit of a stretch.

[beecee]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. 

Testing for sporting prowess and capabilities (as you say) automatically sort those valid "divisions" out, in sports where the male natural phyisicality demands segregation. Other sports not so much so most certainly.  It is an observational fact that generally speaking, men would have a biological advantage in certain sports that women could not overcome. It logically follows then that segregation is the right choice. Did you note the example I gave with junior rugby league and union in Australia, and the non segregation up to a certain age? 

And of course to add to that is the valid segregation of professional and amateur sprtsman and women. 

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?

Is that really a valid analogy? Even as a young man, I would never had hopped into the ring with Joe Frazier. I was never a professional boxer, first and foremost, and would never have the capabilities to stand even stand a chance...as that poor 80 year old women you chose to throw into the ring.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Guess you don't know what it was like to be a black in America in the 1930's.

No I don't, other then they still went to war against a common enemy, when the need arose. With the segregation in America, I would say that this has improved somewhat since the 1930"s? Not perfect by any means and as with our own indigenous population, plenty more work and effort to be done to achieve full equality. But are we not now off topic?

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And in what way did mankind unite in friendship and competition after that event? 

 As I said....I'm not sure how many people were tuned to the Olympic games either, but a reasonably large number I suggest. And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

Now you of course can reflect on the bad and negative side of sporting competiton, as much as you like, ( we can find that in any endeavour) but sporting competitions will continue as always, and the associated rivalry, friendship etc will continue and blossom. I don't believe we have had any wars over sport yet, or the fact that one competitor beat another from another country. 

Sport of course can also be used as a lever against unprovoked aggression and invasion, as per Russia and Putin invading the Ukraine. Sport along with other means is being used as punishment and as a disinsentive.

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by beecee

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

Simply quoting your previous statements is not the same as answering the question.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Now you of course can reflect on the bad and negative side of sporting competiton, as much as you like,

Can you say Straw Man?

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

With the segregation in America, I would say that this has improved somewhat since the 1930"s? Not perfect by any means and as with our own indigenous population, plenty more work and effort to be done to achieve full equality. But are we not now off topic?

One of us is.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't believe we have had any wars over sport yet, or the fact that one competitor beat another from another country. 

I have no idea where you are going with this, but it certainly has nothing to do with mankind uniting in friendship and competition.

As you clearly have no intention of staying on topic I'll be leaving this conversation now.

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Is that really a valid analogy? Even as a young man, I would never had hopped into the ring with Joe Frazier. I was never a professional boxer, first and foremost, and would never have the capabilities to stand even stand a chance...as that poor 80 year old women you chose to throw into the ring.

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did.

My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Simply quoting your previous statements is not the same as answering the question.

It was the answer.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you say Straw Man?

Can you say fact?

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

One of us is.

Good. So let's drop the American black issue and the 1930's racial segregation in America.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I have no idea where you are going with this, but it certainly has nothing to do with mankind uniting in friendship and competition.

Of course you do, you are just playing one-upmanship.

Again.....

I think we have many examples of sport bringing mankind together, the Olympic games being the prime example. And in more recent times, the Invictus games. And certainly no more of a stretch then your comment, "the rest of mankind" 

Edited May 18, 2022 by beecee

[J.C.MacSwell]

I happen to be the World Weightlifting champion in my category, assuming the arbiters get it right, and exclude anyone capable of lifting more than I can.

...and though not quite as many people are willing to spend their hard earned money to watch me play as, say the American Men's Soccer Team... I demand equal pay!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/sports/2022/05/18/us-soccer-equal-pay-deal-gingras-pkg-lead-vpx.cnn

Edited May 18, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did.

Your choice, scenario is OK with me, but still invalid for obvious reasons.

 

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

Your 80 year old women, (poor old dear) or if you like an 80 year old man,( poor old bastard)  is simply an example and validation of remarks I have made now in a couple of threads, with regards to political correctness being taken too far...from the sublime to the ridiculious. 

[TheVat]

I confess to some confusion over how a purely fitness-based system of eligibility in a mass-plus-strength sport would be more inclusive.  

Whenever I peer in here, I see good hearted people wanting to make things fair.   But removal of gendered sports would instantly remove probably 90% of women from eligibility from mass-strength-fast-twitch fiber dependent games like football.  Realistically, what would solve this, Small People's Football?  Shotput With Delicate Arms League?  Rowing with Lower Upper Body Strength League?

Somehow it's hard to see high school or college kids flocking to such offerings.  

 

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 But removal of gendered sports would instantly remove probably 90% of women from eligibility from mass-strength-fast-twitch fiber dependent games like football. 

I'd be okay with that. Suppose you exclude the brutal sports from co-ed classification and keep them segregated? Probably most women could live with that, but it still leaves the transgendered out in the cold. I suppose, if they really wanted to play American football or rugby, they'd have to out in different leagues for the best fit. 

Of course, big mass-strength-twitch sports already exclude a lot of men, and team sports divided by age disadvatage slow-growing boys, while unfairly benefiting fast-growing girls. How about the experts and organizers of each sport  coming up with an innovative system of classification for their sport; try out a few ideas and see what works?

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Somehow it's hard to see high school or college kids flocking to such offerings

They wouldn't have to spectate: they could participate.  

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I confess to some confusion over how a purely fitness-based system of eligibility in a mass-plus-strength sport would be more inclusive.  

Whenever I peer in here, I see good hearted people wanting to make things fair. 

I'm pretty good hearted, and I believe as fair as anyone should be, along of course with the reality of the situation at hand. 😉

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 But removal of gendered sports would instantly remove probably 90% of women from eligibility from mass-strength-fast-twitch fiber dependent games like football. 

Absolutely although probably closer to 95%. Just to add that in Australia's NRL, (national rugby league) we do have the WNRL, and that is proving ever more popular and is aired prior to our men's match of the day.

53 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Small People's Football?  Shotput With Delicate Arms League?  Rowing with Lower Upper Body Strength League?

Somehow it's hard to see high school or college kids flocking to such offerings.  

Our junior league is as I have already said, mixed with boys and girls playing together until about the age of 10 or so and when puberty is reached and boys start becoming stronger, faster and more durable. They are sorted by size, maturity, as well as age. Similar to weight for age with horse racing. 

The NRL also have a disability foremat in a similar vane for those that desire in that category . 

 

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'd be okay with that. Suppose you exclude the brutal sports from co-ed classification and keep them segregated?

Define "brutal sports? Note: We had an International cricketer hit in the neck by a rising bouncer and later died.https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2281925-phillip-hughes-dies-at-age-25-after-being-struck-by-cricket-ball

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Probably most women could live with that, but it still leaves the transgendered out in the cold.  

Can't really speak for the transgendered, but most woment already live with the status quo with regards to women and sport, with no problems at all.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 I suppose, if they really wanted to play American football or rugby, they'd have to out in different leagues for the best fit. 

Know SFA about American football, but both the superior codes of Rugby League and Rugby Union, have womens sides, both amateur and professionals for those wanting to play.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Of course, big mass-strength-twitch sports already exclude a lot of men, and team sports divided by age disadvatage slow-growing boys, while unfairly benefiting fast-growing girls. How about the experts and organizers of each sport  coming up with an innovative system of classification for their sport; try out a few ideas and see what works?

In recent times with mixed sex playing junior Rugby, a weight for age system applies, based on size, maturity and age. Once puberty is reached and surpassed, though it goes by age alone, up to the professional ranks and then its only segregation by sex, male or female.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

They wouldn't have to spectate: they could participate.  

Or both. I once participated, now I am a spectator.

[MigL]

While some of you guys may want to re-purpose sports as 'games' that all people should be able to play, the rest of the world is pushing back; they want sports where elite athletes compete against each other, and where some of us simply watch them and enjoy their performances.
Sporting competitions will not change, no matter how much Peterkin or Dimreepr want to 'play'.

So trans athletes have to be incorporated, somehow, into the existing system, in a way that is fair for all.
It would be madness to include the 6 trans athletes ( I remembered INow ) at the expense, and detriment, of thousands, if not millions, of women.

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sporting competitions will not change, no matter how much Peterkin or Dimreepr want to 'play'.

Probably true. Oh well.

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

While some of you guys may want to re-purpose sports as 'games' that all people should be able to play, the rest of the world is pushing back; they want sports where elite athletes compete against each other, and where some of us simply watch them and enjoy their performances.
Sporting competitions will not change, no matter how much Peterkin or Dimreepr want to 'play'.

So trans athletes have to be incorporated, somehow, into the existing system, in a way that is fair for all.
It would be madness to include the 6 trans athletes ( I remembered INow ) at the expense, and detriment, of thousands, if not millions, of women.

Why, are they going to win all the competitions?

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why, are they going to win all the competitions?

If they are to be fully accepted in top level female sports in the category of their chosen gender, and be handicapped neither unhealthily nor unfairly (the two handicaps being generally incompatible and necessarily arbitrary), transgender women will dominate many if not most established sports, due to the the inherent and well understood advantages of having XY chromosomes and having gone through puberty.

How will this be conducive to their acceptance by society? In sport and otherwise.

How will the US Women's Soccer Team feel when they are either all replaced by transgender females, or are only able to maintain their place by overly restrictive and/or unhealthy rules that essentially eliminate transgender females from trying out?

Or is that just okay? As long as someone is representing them and getting equal pay with the men...

[Intoscience]

On 5/16/2022 at 3:57 PM, Phi for All said:

I disagree. I think it's definitely something our modern society has developed, and it seems more psychological than physiological at times. Look at your own phrasing, girls are just "good at some things" but "boys are better at others". There is a toxic competition at work here, much more ego than id.

So you believe that the performance differences between males and females is sociological rather than biological? 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Why, are they going to win all the competitions?

The vast majority at the elite level, yes. Especially those sports where physical strength plays a major part in performance.