Transgender athletes

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on how wealthy you think you are...

As someone in the middle of a G7 member bell curve...I think I'm very fortunate.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As someone in the middle of a G7 member bell curve...I think I'm very fortunate.

OK, so how is that gender specific? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, so how is that gender specific? 

It holds regardless of any gender choice I choose to make.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It holds regardless of any gender choice I choose to make.

It should, but not it seems, if you change your mind...

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It should, but not it seems, if you change your mind...

True. There may be some gender category somewhere, that I am not aware of, that if I joined I would not be in the middle of the bell curve. Can we leave it at that? 

Edited May 23, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

iNow's suggestion of scraping the sex category may create a wider field of opportunity. But this will inevitably lead to a discriminative outcome, since, men in general, certainly at the elite level, tend to be stronger, faster and more aggressive than women. So how's that going to work out then?

I will repeat that most of the laws being passed right now focus at the level of adolescent sports in middle and high school and even college and as I’ve mentioned a few times that’s also where my primary focus exists.

Even if we include the pinnacle of sports and elite athletes, however, the details of the divisions account for this. “To play at THIS level, you must exhibit qualifications on skill 1, 2, and 3. We don’t care how you pee.”

You seem hyper focused on fairness, yet cannot see your blind spot for how unfair the current urination-based classifications are for trans kids. 
 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I want to see all sexes - female, male, trans whatever.... competing "fairly" at all levels, with equal status, equal pay and recognition.

Unless I’m misreading you, this sounds an awful lot like “separate, but equal.” It’s as if you’re proclaiming you want ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re certain that THEY use different water fountains.

So… If sports divisions and classifications are setup using skill and capability-based thresholds then there’s no need to keep them separate based simply on how they happen to pee. If a female qualifies, she can play in that league and at that level. If a trans kid qualifies, they too can play in that league and at that level.

Why again do you think this is “just a crap idea?” 
 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't want to see a 6'4" 250 pound man beat a woman to death in a boxing ring thanks.  

Then don’t watch, but if the woman or trans person qualifies at that level and meets the level of skill required to do so and wishes also to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? That’s some next level paternalism right there. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Then I'm shocked to hear that transgender men are waiting in the wings to win the "vast majority" of elite sporting competitions. Shocked I tell you!

That's nothing to the shock of discovering just how many second-rate male athletes have applied for a sex-change operation under false pretenses, just so they can beat women to death.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But they certainly don't expect themselves to share the revenues with other elite athletes outside their sport, say women's wrestling, or within their sport, say the paralympic soccer teams.

Does anyone do this?

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ultimately it will tend to be about the money, not the integrity, the women would not have signed that deal if their expected revenues were higher than the men's (nor should they have if that was the case).

What the players make and what the national team makes are separate issues, and the disconnect was a reason behind the lawsuit and negotiation for equal pay.

U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It holds regardless of any gender choice I choose to make.

There’s no gender wage gap in G7 countries?

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

[MigL]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

I will repeat that most of the laws being passed right now focus at the level of adolescent sports in middle and high school and even college and as I’ve mentioned a few times that’s also where my primary focus exists.

At this level your idea is certainly workable, and, as far as I know, is common practice in most developed countries.

I have to ask, why is the arguably most developed country in the world, the US, legislating recreational sports at the middle/hi school level ?
Why don't they concentrate on implementing proper laws, for important issues, so that the Supreme Court doesn't have to ?

Why is your bloated Government so disfunctional ?
( sorry for veering wildly off-topic )

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I have to ask, why is the arguably most developed country in the world, the US, legislating recreational sports at the middle/hi school level ?

Because left to themselves, schools were biased. Legislation was necessary in order to promote equal access, using the lever of eligibility for federal funding. That continues.

[StringJunky]

I notice the GOP likes to legislate social matters but not so much fiscal ones... hmmm.

"Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie." - Pink Floyd

Edited May 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Does anyone do this?

No. Nor does any other National team have men and women share revenues. Your point?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What the players make and what the national team makes are separate issues, and the disconnect was a reason behind the lawsuit and negotiation for equal pay.

U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years

The women generated slightly more revenue but their contract wasn't tied to that, or they automatically would have received more. They did in fact deserve more, but not based on "equal pay". They certainly would not have chosen that argument if they were underpaid in the same manner but the men's Team was earning less. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no gender wage gap in G7 countries?

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

I didn't claim there wasn't.  I said I'd still be in the middle of a G7 bell curve if I decided to change, with the caveat that I am really only aware of the two main genders. (not claiming I'm well versed in all the possible curves, but aware enough to know my statement is valid)

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I will repeat that most of the laws being passed right now focus at the level of adolescent sports in middle and high school and even college and as I’ve mentioned a few times that’s also where my primary focus exists.

 

At high school level the top XY athletes are already producing what would be World Record performances for females, and many are competing for scholarships. So the top high school level is beyond what I would consider recreational and top college well beyond that.

That of course should not exclude trans athletes from competing at recreational level past middle school or even for life. 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Even if we include the pinnacle of sports and elite athletes, however, the details of the divisions account for this. “To play at THIS level, you must exhibit qualifications on skill 1, 2, and 3. so to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? 

How do you ascertain that someone capable of skill level 1, is only willing to demonstrate skill level 2? (Just asking on behalf of former East German coaches hoping to revive their careers, and many current Russian ones)

People cheat. What you are suggesting are criteria incentivized to stay under. Sandbagging is well known in recreational level sports where the stakes are low. What makes you think it won't be used when the stakes are high?

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 Unless I’m misreading you, this sounds an awful lot like “separate, but equal.” It’s as if you’re proclaiming you want ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re certain that THEY use different water fountains.

What if this argument had been used, and given weight, when women were trying to gain access to sports of their own? We'd still be back in the 1920's (okay, maybe no one would have known what you were on about back then)inviting females to watch from the sidelines.

The pee thing you keep going on about:

There's good reasons men tend to pee standing up and women tend to pee sitting down. The Good Lord (read evolution) chose to hand most of the burden for the proliferation of our species on women. This doesn't mean that they are inferior athletes. It means that you can't measure it in the same way when some carry that well known burden and others do not.

 

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. Nor does any other National team have men and women share revenues. Your point?

Why bring it up as a discussion point if nobody does it? 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The women generated slightly more revenue but their contract wasn't tied to that, or they automatically would have received more. They did in fact deserve more, but not based on "equal pay". They certainly would not have chosen that argument if they were underpaid in the same manner but the men's Team was earning less. 

If things were different, they’d be different. I was citing the facts of the matter, which includes their fight to get equal pay, which is what they sued and negotiated for. 

 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I didn't claim there wasn't.  I said I'd still be in the middle of a G7 bell curve if I decided to change, with the caveat that I am really only aware of the two main genders. (not claiming I'm well versed in all the possible curves, but aware enough to know my statement is valid)

You said you’d be in the middle no matter what gender you chose, which isn’t the case when one gender makes 20% more than the other. The middle of the curve for one is not the middle for the other.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why bring it up as a discussion point if nobody does it? 

"Nobody does it" is your objection so you can't get past that and see the point?

Why consider equal pay if nobody does it? No country has so far paid equally to their men's and women's soccer teams.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

If things were different, they’d be different. I was citing the facts of the matter, which includes their fight to get equal pay, which is what they sued and negotiated for. 

...and if you can follow the argument, equal pay just happened to be very close to what was deserved based on gate receipts and similar revenues. Do you not think they would have asked for more if they could have? You think they would have fought for the right to share with the men if the men's revenues were significantly lower? 

They happened to be in a very unique situation in the world of soccer. Other countries are extremely unlikely to follow their lead.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

 

You said you’d be in the middle no matter what gender you chose, which isn’t the case when one gender makes 20% more than the other. The middle of the curve for one is not the middle for the other.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb without looking and guess that of the 14 different G7 bell curves based on gender, there's probably a middle of a male one that's pretty damn close to a female one (and yes, I thought of that prior to replying to Dim, and no I wasn't trying to suggest an exact midpoint)

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

They happened to be in a very unique situation in the world of soccer. Other countries are extremely unlikely to follow their lead.

 

Canada maybe. We have more women, Christine Sinclair in particular, that are household names than that of our male soccer players. Not sure if that generates enough revenue to make a difference but we are certainly one of the rare countries where it could.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Nobody does it" is your objection so you can't get past that and see the point?

Why consider equal pay if nobody does it? No country has so far paid equally to their men's and women's soccer teams.

“nobody does it” is a pretty lame excuse. Passing the buck. Not giving your income to people outside you group is also an applles-to-oranges situation, so it ends up just being a distraction; an irrelevant argument. Nobody has a huge bonfire with the cash they earn as celebration, either. Who cares? It has nothing to do with the situation 

In the US equal pay for equal work is the law, which is why they were able to sue and force a settlement. 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and if you can follow the argument, equal pay just happened to be very close to what was deserved based on gate receipts and similar revenues. Do you not think they would have asked for more if they could have? You think they would have fought for the right to share with the men if the men's revenues were significantly lower? 

Can you prove they couldn’t have gotten more? You haven’t backed any of your arguments up yet. This is just so much bloviating

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They happened to be in a very unique situation in the world of soccer. Other countries are extremely unlikely to follow their lead.

So what? We were discussing US soccer, not other countries.

 

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

If a female qualifies, she can play in that league and at that level. If a trans kid qualifies, they too can play in that league and at that level. 
if the woman or trans person qualifies at that level and meets the level of skill required to do so and wishes also to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? 

The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer. Even in our own domestic rugby competitions (which I love watching) the time women play is less then the men, for reasons medically and scientifically based. 

Like I said, I watch both men and women rugby league matches, and while both certainly entertaining and skillful, it would be a weird or dishonest person that did not recognise the increased aggression, skill, hardness of the big hits, in the mens competition. The clash of bodies in some of those "big hits"can be heard at the back of the grandstands. 

NOTE: Irrespective of that increased skill level and toughness in the mens competititon, and irrespective of the fact that no women could match or qualify at that level, I still support equal pay. That's simply how it is.

Edited May 23, 2022 by beecee

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer.

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

Physical skill is a brain and muscle memory thing, so there's no biological reason women can't have it with the same frequency and competence level as men.

Edited May 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

OK, point taken. While my knowledge of American football is scant, unlike the rugby codes where any player must be able to attack and defend, including the nominated goal kicker in the side, who must be on the field at that time already. Your game,( correct me if I am wrong) can have your nominated goal kicker, (Becca) sitting on the side line, waiting for a kicking opportunity, brought on for that kick, and then back to the reserve bench, correct? The rugby codes are two 40 minute halves of 13 on field players, with four reserves waiting in case of injury or at the coaches discretion. Unlike American football, it is basically 80 minutes of non stop action.

Mixed rugby league is played at the junior level, until the age of 12, and then separated into men's and women's competitions, for obvious reasons.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by beecee

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

“nobody does it” is a pretty lame excuse. Passing the buck. Not giving your income to people outside you group is also an applles-to-oranges situation, so it ends up just being a distraction; an irrelevant argument. Nobody has a huge bonfire with the cash they earn as celebration, either. Who cares? It has nothing to do with the situation 

How are they the same group, and the US Womens and mens hockey teams are not?

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In the US equal pay for equal work is the law, which is why they were able to sue and force a settlement. 

No. As you pointed out, the women brought in similar revenues to the men. Close enough that the men felt compelled to support your World champion team, and to proceed to work together to grow the shared revenue. The Law did not support them in getting equal pay with the men. (though the Law certainly should have, and no doubt would have, supported that they deserved more than they were getting, including based on what the men were getting) 

If the law supported them for equal pay, they would have had to prove equal work.

Their deal will set no precedent in Law for other sports, or even in their own when they negotiate the next contract.

They simply settled on a win-win deal with the men, and possibly/possibly not also a win-win-win with US Soccer, for a set term. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So what? We were discussing US soccer, not other countries.

We were discussing the effect of incentivizing womens sports for transgenders, as per how it reflects on the thread topic.

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Physical skill is a brain and muscle memory thing, so there's no biological reason women can't have it with the same frequency and competence level as men.

+1...and they deserve to challenge that potential brain and muscle memory just as men do.

Citius, altius, fortius...not watchus from the sideus...

[iNow]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

At this level your idea is certainly workable, and, as far as I know, is common practice in most developed countries.

I have to ask, why is the arguably most developed country in the world, the US, legislating recreational sports at the middle/hi school level ?

Something about it being easier to motivate base voters by pointing at who they should hate instead of offering popular policies that could meaningfully improve their lives.

People are often unfamiliar with and even scared of trans kids being around their own kids, so politicians feed that ignorance by passing laws preventing trans kids from using the bathroom of their identity or playing sports… bc they’re all big bruising hulks who are gonna rip poor little Sally’s arms off at their sockets, etc.  

They appeal the basest instincts of the base, fire them up, win their votes, gain more power, and the cycle continues as more hateful and more needlessly discriminatory laws get passed. See also: Don’t say gay legislation in Florida. 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer.

And they don’t need you preventing them from trying. This is an argument from incredulity… Nobody cares that you personally can’t envision non-XY chromosomal people being able to demonstrate certain abilities or surpass various skill levels. Let them try and prove you right or wrong.

Just set the standards and move forward. Those who qualify get to play. Those who don’t qualify can’t play. If the standards need review or future adjustment, that can be done without wondering how best to keep trans kids separate and rejected, or boys and girls in separate divisions. 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How do you ascertain that someone capable of skill level 1, is only willing to demonstrate skill level 2?

The same way kids get assigned to the varsity team versus the junior varsity team, or T-ball versus Little League. You’re not being asked to solve world hunger or find a rational number = the square root of 2.

[StringJunky]

I think there might be too much emphasis on testosterone by trans-opponents because they persistently visualize the classic masculine proportions in a drag-like feminine presentation , but not all gender-dysphorics are like that. This person below is the other extreme, and then there's all the gender-dysphorics inbetween. There is as much diversity in this group as there is in cis-genders. Just as with them, you can't monolithically describe gender-dysphorics. The only way to judge eligibility with fairness is by what a person can do and their physical ability put into the appropriate sporting class.

Picture this person thrashing sporting  cis-women at 100m because they were a cis-man. Not likely, is it? I think people need to go out there, and the internet is a good resource for this, and actually look at trans-people.... the whole gamut.

It's pretty obvious to me that human gender is not binary and people  can be born with mismatched personal identities to which they sense they belong. Then there's those individuals who identify with neither... they are in a state of gender equilibrium.

As iNow has already suggested the solution, it's a practical method  to properly accomodate this diversity in a fair and equitable way in sporting competition.

Edited May 24, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

Suddenly I get M. Butterfly.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I think people need to go out there, and the internet is a good resource for this, and actually look at trans-people.... the whole gamut.

No way !
Then someone sees your history and you get accused of looking at weird porn.
( Just kidding 😄 )