Transgender athletes

[Phi for All]

12 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,

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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

I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class. 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class. 

Indeed, football is the most egalitarian of sport's; it doesn't care who your ancestors are or what gender you are, it only cares if you're good enough to pay; it's only a matter of time before some women are recognised as good enough to pass a ball to a man...

Edited May 19, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

I wonder, as a side-bar, whether team sports might not change in regard for and enforcement of the rules if the teams were mixed sex; the players might exhibit a lower level of aggression.

 But hockey fans, for example, would hate that: they appreciate "the physicality" of the game (read fouling, fighting and brawling) They're paying watch gladiatorial combat. I wonder how much that lust for violence contributes to the insistence on the status quo. And i sometimes wonder it's contributed to rendering most sports unenjoyable to those of us who used to play for fun.  

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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

I am shocked to learn that there are so many transgender men who compete at the elite level of all sports who are just waiting in the wings to swoop in and will all the competitions.

[Phi for All]

18 hours 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.

It seems like all the arguments you mention either mischaracterize opposing arguments, or argue from incredulity, or are outright strawmen attacks. If you can meet the physical requirements necessary to compete at a certain level, can you explain to me again why your age or gender is an issue?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks.

I do not think there are women that can compete with men in a professional sport that relies on speed and/or strength.  For instance the record for a 100 meter race by a women was 10.49 seconds by Florence Griffith-Joyner.  The top 10 high school boys 100 meter times were 10.15 seconds or less, which is more than 1/2 second faster.

If Caitlyn Jenner had competed as a women in the Olympics she would have probably won 10 gold metals while setting world records.

IMO it is simply unfair to women born as a women to allow transgender women to compete against them.     

[TheVat]

Just quick thank you to @Peterkin and @beecee for replies to my post yesterday which a time crunch (ongoing) thwarted my replies.  The issues of participation, fun, and phenotype in performance seem fractal in their complexity.  

 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I do not think there are women that can compete with men in a professional sport that relies on speed and/or strength.  For instance the record for a 100 meter race …

I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at this point, but yet again the issue vanishes if you classify and set brackets based on skill and strength and ignore whether they pee standing or sitting. 

Will certain sports continue being dominated by cis-gendered males? Of course, but if fairness is your metric then excluding trans people is the least fair approach of all. 

Just set qualification thresholds based on skill and capability and merit. Done and dusted. Solved. 

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at this point, but yet again the issue vanishes if you classify and set brackets based on skill and strength and ignore whether they pee standing or sitting. 

Will certain sports continue being dominated by cis-gendered males? Of course, but if fairness is your metric then excluding trans people is the least fair approach of all. 

Just set qualification thresholds based on skill and capability and merit. Done and dusted. Solved. 

The first thing that needs to change before things like this can be largely embraced is that the old farts need to embark on their heavenly travels.  Their page is already printed.

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The first thing that needs to change before things like this can be largely embraced is that the old farts need to embark on their heavenly travels.  Their page is already printed.

I always appreciate this kind of remark, especially accompanied by a big happy grin at the prospect of my imminent demise. I'm working on it.... OTH, not all young people are progressive. 

[MigL]

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Their page is already printed.

Every body appreciates the printed classics.
A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 .

 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. 

If you say so.

Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization.
Is that a 'strawman' ?
I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them.
I was not replying to an imaginary argument.

So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?

Edited May 19, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization.

I understand that games have been long co-opted as commercial mass entertainment. I agreed that it's probably too late to reclaim them. Re-purposing is a concept I find problematic here: the purposes that competitive sport used to serve in early societies do not apply in modern ones. The functions it might serve now are divided by age, class and financial status: physical fitness, business team-building, the social solidarity of fandom, access to education for underprivileged youth, to teach the children the importance of winning, lucrative careers, investment opportunities, big cash prizes and advertising contracts, etc. Fun and friendship are irrelevant.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

This just in...

Quote

U.S. Soccer will provide equal pay to members of its men's and women's national teams after an agreement on new collective bargaining agreements was reached Wednesday.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10036136-us-soccer-agrees-to-new-cba-with-top-mens-womens-players-guaranteeing-equal-pay?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This just in...

Probably means a cut in pay for the men to bring them down to the women's level.
Soccer ( Euro football ) will never be a major American sport.
Too much fake/imagined violence, and not enough real violence, as in Hockey or Am. football.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Probably means a cut in pay for the men to bring them down to the women's level.

Part of the money they get is from success in the World Cup, so maybe not.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I always appreciate this kind of remark, especially accompanied by a big happy grin at the prospect of my imminent demise. I'm working on it.... OTH, not all young people are progressive. 

I'm on the wrong side of 60.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm on the wrong side of 60.

Which side is that? Never mind; I realize that this part of the matter is far off topic. What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? 

Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.   

Edited May 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Probably means a cut in pay for the men to bring them down to the women's level.

Probably. Certainly women would not have been fighting for "equal" pay if they made more than the men.

I'd love to hear the final reasoning that was able to convince enough people to agree to it.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Part of the money they get is from success in the World Cup, so maybe not.

Yeah, you need to be careful what you wish for. Just because women generate less income now doesn't mean they will in the future, and their higher relative success in their league may mean they could be pumping up the mens' salaries in the future.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just because women generate less income now doesn't mean they will in the future, and their higher relative success in their league may mean they could be pumping up the mens' salaries in the future.

For one thing, they play better soccer. For another, a large contingent of kids just coming of age (here they are again - those youngsters!) grew up with the game, and a lot of girls, denied participation in boy sports at an early age, have role models and heroes in that league, and they will probably come out to games in increasing numbers.

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? 

Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.   

I look at progression from a moral and objective angle. That which is new and so called progressive, is not necessarily morally superior to some older established moral stance. 

 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If Caitlyn Jenner had competed as a women in the Olympics she would have probably won 10 gold metals while setting world records.

IMO it is simply unfair to women born as a women to allow transgender women to compete against them.     

I totally agree with those sentiments, and while it maybe difficult to have a segregated sections for transgenders, perhaps that is just something we must accept. 

Although as I said, our NRL does have catagorisations for disability people with strict expert categories within that category. What I mean by difficult for transgenders, obviously is in refeence to how many there are that want to compete.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

This just in...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10036136-us-soccer-agrees-to-new-cba-with-top-mens-womens-players-guaranteeing-equal-pay?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

As I mentioned yesterday...

Will more categories be added?...and when they all demand equal pay based on sharing total revenues who is to say no to them?

But I guess for now it's nice to see them all get their half million a year...plenty of incentive for cis gendered females and any transgendered females that feel they can play at or near high school level male soccer....might even be a few cis gendered males willing to tryout...who would have the gall to question their motive for switching teams? 

After that all shakes out, let's assume they decide to stay with just two categories, open and some arbitrary "other"...on what basis should "other" be limited to those identifying as female?

This thread started with many claiming there was no threat whatsoever to female sports...I guess "We've come a long way baby!"

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. 

I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class. 

You believe it because you want to believe it. You have no scientific basis for it, unless the "women out there" you are referring to are those with XY chromosomes. 

Your fantasy is not helping women's sports and in the long term will not help transgenders.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For one thing, they play better soccer.

Define better.

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

That which is new and so called progressive, is not necessarily morally superior to some older established moral stance. 

That which is progressive is not necessarily new.

[beecee]

https://www.english-online.at/news-articles/sports/do-women-and-men-play-soccer-differently.htm

After watching the  finals  of the FIFA Women’s World Cup and Japan’s victory  over the United States there is one main question that comes up: What’s the difference between men’s and women’s soccer?

Many sports experts have found out that woman’s soccer games are smoother and the game is not interrupted as often as with men. There are fewer injuries and fouled players get up more quickly than men, who often fake  injuries and stall  for time. Women are more honest  when they play soccer. There is no swearing and pushing around.

Women’s soccer matches tend to be slower. Because their lungs are smaller than men’s a smaller amount of oxygen  can get into the blood and the lungs. Thus, women cannot play as fast as men over a longer period of time.  Because both men’s and women’s soccer games are 90 minutes long women are likely to get tired sooner. A recent study  also shows that men activate  different muscles  and their  hips during a game.

There are other differences as well. Because women are, on average ,smaller than men, they have more space on the field and more room for attacking . Female defenders cannot defend the whole  penalty area . The result is that more goals are scored in women’s games than in men’s.

Women’s soccer has improved  technically over the past years. The handling of the ball and dribbling  has become much better. Passes are more precise too.

The FIFA Women’s World Cup in Germany has shown that there can be as much enthusiasm in the game as in men’s soccer. Stadiums were packed. The spectators were delighted  to see high- class games.

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That which is progressive is not necessarily new.

https://www.google.com/search?q=progressive&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&sxsrf=ALiCzsbvVEjjOiPMyXpMPcYMgwrlE4-e8A%3A16529965696

1. happening or developing gradually or in stages.

    
2. person or idea) favouring social reform.

   • an advocate of social reform.

     "people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue"

     ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      

     With the highlighted section re women's soccer, this aspect also applies with the WNRL teams. While the men play 40 minutes per half, the women's play 35 minutes per half.

Edited May 19, 2022 by beecee

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For one thing, they play better soccer.

I'll have to disagree with you on that one. I've been watching both for years and my view is that the men's game is clearly stronger. What the women have is much weaker competition, which always makes you look good.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For another, a large contingent of kids just coming of age (here they are again - those youngsters!) grew up with the game, and a lot of girls, denied participation in boy sports at an early age, have role models and heroes in that league, and they will probably come out to games in increasing numbers.

I agree with this. Women and girls will watch the women's soccer just because it is women's soccer. Men won't watch men's soccer just because the teams are composed of men.