Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

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.   

I'm on the old side. It's not always the case, but  paradigm social change, like towards less rigid notions of gender, perhaps require generational lengths of time to become 'normal'.

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm on the old side. It's not always the case, but  paradigm social change, like towards less rigid notions of gender, perhaps require generational lengths of time to become 'normal'.

Right. We thought we were making equal pay and reproductive rights 'normal' since 1969. Now they're brand new issues again, because the generation that came along behind us grew old enough to have all the power.

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I've been watching both for years and my view is that the men's game is clearly stronger.

I didn't say stronger; I said better. As in more accurate, better co-ordinated, more effective plays, less fouling, far, far less histrionics and time-wasting. Matter of taste.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[TheVat]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

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.

Is that really true?  Has a research team attached pulse oximeters to players, or done some other measure of oxygenation?  I have been a longtime hiker, on challenging grades, and my impression is that fit women have, if anything, more stamina than men, complain less, need less hydration, and "activate...their hips" quite efficiently (sometimes distractingly).  

[Peterkin]

One of the truly pathetic sights, for me, is some great big tattooed macha-man falling on his knees in the spit-damp turf, gesticulating and miming mortally injured innocence when he's just grabbed another guy by the throat and thrown him to that self-same ground.

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I said better. As in more accurate, better co-ordinated, more effective plays,

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said 'stronger'. Clearly the men have stronger muscles and thus I wouldn't have bothered pointing that out.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm on the old side. It's not always the case, but  paradigm social change, like towards less rigid notions of gender, perhaps require generational lengths of time to become 'normal'.

I'm on the mature side of 70, approaching the 80 mark. Although techically behind the times, as far as IT goes, view new ideas on merit and morals. I 100% support, both theoretically and practically equality of the sexes, but reject any attempt at superiority of one over the other.

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Right. We thought we were making equal pay and reproductive rights 'normal' since 1969. Now they're brand new issues again, because the generation that came along behind us grew old enough to have all the power.

No, not necessarilly because of any generation, (unless you can show evidence) but simply because of the attitudes of big business and saving a few dollars I suggest. This aspect of equal pay though should be achieved by Sunday morning in Australia, if our progressive Labor party ( of which I am a member) win our elections. The same party that gave us the best universal health care system in the world, compuslory superannuation, National Disability Scheme, and other inititives and control beneficial to society in general.

[Peterkin]

 

 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said 'stronger'. Clearly the men have stronger muscles and thus I wouldn't have bothered pointing that out.

I guess - in Premier League. Not MSL. 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

No, not necessarilly because of any generation,

Of course not. Equity issues are as old as civilization and the power keeps shifting between factions. I was specifically addressing the matter of a social change becoming "normal" over generations. These didn't.

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

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.

Aren't you projecting a monolithic viewpoint that you think women have? Again:

Quote

Men won't watch men's soccer just because the teams are composed of men

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. Note that I said "style of play" and not "men are better footballers than women". As a parallel, consider,say, pre-sixties football style was much more physical and aggressive, with balls that weighed a ton wet. Compared to them, modern footballers are frail, athletic gazelles... they wouldn't last five minutes playing  then.  

 

 

 

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Is that really true?  Has a research team attached pulse oximeters to players, or done some other measure of oxygenation?  I have been a longtime hiker, on challenging grades, and my impression is that fit women have, if anything, more stamina than men, complain less, need less hydration, and "activate...their hips" quite efficiently (sometimes distractingly).  

The same situation applies with the rugby codes of footy, (with reduced playing times for women) so I would suggest that it probably is true and follows medical advice which our NRL and WNRL stringently adhere to particularly with our system of HIA's (head injury assessments) each team must have an independent doctor watching the game, and calling players off in the event of a head knock, first assessed by a qualified trainer on field, then either agreed with or disagreed with by the side line doctor watching it on video.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. Note that I said "style of play" and not "men are better footballers than women". As a parallel, consider,say, pre-sixties football style was much more physical and aggressive, with balls that weighed a ton wet. Compared to them, modern footballers are frail, athletic gazelles... they wouldn't last five minutes playing  then.  

While today's rugby league and union players are fitter and faster due to improved training methods, the pre sixties and sixties style was most certainly more aggressive and physical. Not too sure about the fragile gazelles comparison, we still certainly have some tough bastards playing the game today.

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. 

I watch and enjoy both. I actually love two or more women playing rugby and clashing together with all the zest and force one can expect, with nothing held back.

 

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Aren't you projecting a monolithic viewpoint that you think women have?

That will be funny - all the women in one room, watching a game; all the men in another room watching a game; everybody watching for the unfair advantage that one transgendered player might have; nobody watching the turkey.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Aren't you projecting a monolithic viewpoint that you think women have?

No. I did not say EVERY woman. And based on experience, people who have had no one of their category (sex, race, gender, etc.) in an elevated position, tend to support them when they arrive. Look how blacks responded when Obama was elected President, or how elated the Sudanese were when they took their first Olympic medal, or how a grade school will all watch a sporting event together because a kid who graduated from there is favored to win a medal.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play.

Those sound like two different things; sex vs. style of play.

Are you watching the men because of their sex? For example, would you still be watching the men if their style of play was like the women, and the women's style of play was like the men's?

Because I am saying that many women will watch the women simply because of their sex. The little kids have role models, someone playing who finally looks like them. I think that is a big draw. Have you ever scanned the crowd at a game played by the US women's team? Thousands of face-painted girls and their mothers all screaming like crazy. And also a good number of men who just like competitive soccer, regardless of who plays.

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. I did not say EVERY woman. And based on experience, people who have had no one of their category (sex, race, gender, etc.) in an elevated position, tend to support them when they arrive. Look how blacks responded when Obama was elected President, or how elated the Sudanese were when they took their first Olympic medal, or how a grade school will all watch a sporting event together because a kid who graduated from there is favored to win a medal.

Those sound like two different things; sex vs. style of play.

Are you watching the men because of their sex? For example, would you still be watching the men if their style of play was like the women, and the women's style of play was like the men's?

Because I am saying that many women will watch the women simply because of their sex. The little kids have role models, someone playing who finally looks like them. I think that is a big draw. Have you ever scanned the crowd at a game played by the US women's team? Thousands of face-painted girls and their mothers all screaming like crazy. And also a good number of men who just like competitive soccer, regardless of who plays.

If it was reversed, I would probably be watching the women's game. I can't exclude the fact that I'm my age group and it's all I know.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That will be funny - all the women in one room, watching a game; all the men in another room watching a game; everybody watching for the unfair advantage that one transgendered player might have; nobody watching the turkey.

LOL (literally) +1 I'm still laughing at this whole post.

Edited May 20, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

Soccer is about the only sport I watch, these days.
I do enjoy watching women's soccer also, and am very proud of our Canadian national team. Also our men have qualified for a World Cup position this year, and expect to be able to see a few WC games when North America hosts in 2026.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I said better. As in more accurate, better co-ordinated, more effective plays, less fouling, far, far less histrionics and time-wasting.

Have you ever watched the Spanish national team play ?
They usually have 75 % possession because their co-ordinated 'tic-tac' style of play, and their passing is extremely accurate.
A good soccer game is akin to chess; a lot of strategic setting up, and only shots on net that count. Yet to North Americans, used to hocky, basketball or football, that seems boring.
Women's soccer is not there yet in the sense of strategic play, but it is, nonetheless enjoyable to watch.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Are you watching the men because of their sex?

I watch women's beach volleyball for that.

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

A good soccer game is akin to chess; a lot of strategic setting up

Similar analogy between cricket and baseball....cricket akin to chess...baseball akin to draughts. Sorry my North American friends. 😄

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Have you ever watched the Spanish national team play ?

Yes. Histrionic, but effective. Maybe someday the North American teams will develop field skills.... but I hope not the self-dramatizing and halleluyahs.

And I'm the only person in my extended family who doesn't find baseball boring. It's not fast, but it's subtle and cerebral. Smart isn't boring!

Edited May 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do enjoy watching women's soccer also, nonetheless enjoyable to watch.

I watch women's beach volleyball for that.

While in rugby the men's game is certainly faster, harder, tougher and with far more aggression, as a spectator, looking at 26 pairs of hairy legs is sometimes off putting.

With the NRLW or the womens game, we have no such putting off.

😉

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

With the NRLW or the womens game, we have no such putting off.

They do look warm and cuddly!

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They do look warm and cuddly!

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a those girls ever got the chance, they'd overrun you and everyone you care about!

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They do look warm and cuddly!

 

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a those girls ever got the chance, they'd overrun you and everyone you care about!

The female referee in that game, Belinda Sharpe, also has refereed and been a touch judge in many male NRL games, and handled it well. 

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If a those girls ever got the chance, they'd overrun you and everyone you care about!

Diff'rent strokes....

[Intoscience]

16 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. 

Ok, 

In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy.

But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people.

   

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

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.

Ha ha,

Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place.

How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? 

Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society.  

Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. 

I had a discussion at work yesterday,

I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves.

My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.  

[koti]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, 

In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy.

But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people.

   

Ha ha,

Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place.

How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? 

Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society.  

Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. 

I had a discussion at work yesterday,

I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves.

My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.  

So this someone took offence that you did not take offence to someone not offending you? Thats some next level stuff.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Define better.

Winning games, perhaps? The US women have won World cups and Olympic gold. The men haven’t had anywhere close to the same success. They didn’t even qualify for the WC in 2018, and their highest finish since 2002 was 8th.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I had a discussion at work yesterday,

I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves.

My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC. 

There's a difference between being (politically) correct and being righteously indignant...