Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

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

Diff'rent strokes...  I  actually meant all the different physical forms they take... with their clothes on.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

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.

What females make the male junior varsity teams? It seems to me they are male athletes that don't quite make the varsity teams.

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

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.

Then explain how it works at elite level. Barring that, how can you claim it's practical at that level.

INow has done nothing but handwave an explanation. If you are making the same claim then explain it.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

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.

I'm preventing no one from trying whatever they like. That's up to the country and society in question. Segregation in RL in my country is based on observational data and medical advice.

It is also far from being an argument from incredulity. It is an argument based on observational and medical opinion and advice, and yes, protecting females who do wish to play Rugby. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

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. 

 The segregation in sports like Rugby, is based on observational standards. With regards to transgenders within the NRL, (National Rugby League)there really hasn't been a great deal of discussion, simply because of the rarity of the situation. What I could find is the following......

https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/nrl-is-considering-the-application-of-a-transgender-athlete/211567

NRL’s Policy For Transgender Athletes

According to the National Rugby League Member Protection Policy, it was “committed to supporting participation in our sport on the basis of the gender with which a person identifies.”

 

“If issues of performance advantage arise, we will consider whether the established discrimination exceptions for participation in sport are relevant in the circumstances. Discrimination is unlawful unless an exception applies,” the policy said. 

NRL, in its policy, said that it was aware of the debate over whether male-to-female- trans athletes have any physical advantages.

“If issues of performance advantage arise, we will seek advice on the application of those laws in the particular circumstances,” the policy explained.

“The NRL is aware that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has established criteria for selection and participation in the Olympic Games. Where a transgender person intends to compete at an elite level, we will encourage them to obtain advice about the IOC’s criteria, which may differ from the position we have taken.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have no argument with their progressive, cautionary approach, based on the circumstances. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Where and how do you draw the lines for this supposed Tier 2 that formerly would have been referred to as female sport.

How many of the US women's soccer team manage to stay under the bar, and yet still just manage to make the Team?

What is this practical solution? Why is it not obvious to everyone that it is fundamentally flawed?

Do you think the US women's Team is not elite at all, but just happen to be currently accepted in the lower category?

Are some of them simply weak Tier 1 players in this new scheme?

[Intoscience]

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

Well, that makes all the difference!

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!

Then what's all the fuss about? Crack on with an unworkable idealism. 

21 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. 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.

But if you limit the criteria to only skill sets then, you will end up with a more skilled person being discriminated against because of their physicality. This is why there are weight divisions in many sports, and why there are female and male divisions, so neither is unduly discriminated against, just because of the way they pee!

A highly skilled female boxer is most likely (at the elite level) going to lose against a larger stronger less skilled male boxer. So in doing away with male and female divisions you will end up with the highest levels of sports where physicality plays a role in success, dominated by males.

Sounds like progression to you?     

21 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.

Yep pretty much,

kids come in different sizes and shapes so we need water fountains of differing sizes and shapes, else all the bigger/stronger kids will have the water, leaving non for the little ones. 

(Edited my bold)

"ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re and we are certain that THEY use  all have access to different  suitably sized water fountains".  

Edited May 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Crack on with an unworkable idealism. 

It's strange how often an ideal is dismissed as unworkable, by people who don't want it to work...

[iNow]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

With regards to transgenders within the NRL, (National Rugby League)there really hasn't been a great deal of discussion, simply because of the rarity of the situation.

The same is largely true in the US, yet state legislatures are actively legislating to exclude them… hence threads like this one. 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

INow has done nothing but handwave

This is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it.  I, of course, disagree, but YMMV.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But if you limit the criteria to only skill sets then, you will end up with a more skilled person being discriminated against because of their physicality.

Then criteria can also include thresholds based on physicality where appropriate. You’ve hardly presented an insurmountable obstacle to the approach. The intent is improvement, not perfection. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

A highly skilled female boxer is most likely (at the elite level) going to lose against a larger stronger less skilled male boxer

But if she meets the qualification standards for her division and wishes to compete, then that’s her choice to make, not ours. 

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's strange how often an ideal is dismissed as unworkable, by people who don't want it to work...

I’d go one farther… I’m not being idealistic. This is said in an attempt to dismiss and diminish me as some Pollyanna. The idea I’m putting forth addresses the exclusion of trans kids being legislated across the US while minimizing impact to existing athletes and sports structures.

That’s not idealism. It’s improvement.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is said in an attempt to dismiss and diminish me as some Pollyanna.

Been there and got the T-shirt.

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s not idealism. It’s improvement.

Indeed, it's an idea of how to improve; the ism is a hammer they use, instead of screwdriver... 

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

The intent is improvement, not perfection. 

That’s not idealism. It’s improvement.

They need to stop thinking in binary. Rome wasn't built in day. For the large part, it will probably be the children born now that should start experiencing the benefits of these policy changes with lower levels of prejudice that prevail today. Evolution, not revolution is the pace in human terms of time.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Crack on with an unworkable idealism. 

If you are going to criticize me at least first read what I post. I've only ever promoted the idea of trying to develop some workable solution, rather than simply dismissing it is "unworkable idealism".

Edited May 24, 2022 by zapatos

[iNow]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

They need to stop thinking in binary.

So you're saying the transgender situation is non-binary? Go figure!  

[TheVat]

This issue would be much less of a bother if we just made billiards, frisbee golf, and croquet the primary sports of our nations.  And think of the medical resources that would be freed up.  

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's strange how often an ideal is dismissed as unworkable, by people who don't want it to work...

All you need show us is an example of professional women, competing on a level footing against professional men and holding their own or winning. I won't hold my breath.

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

The same is largely true in the US, yet state legislatures are actively legislating to exclude them… hence threads like this one. 

You failed to comment on the progressive reasonable NRL situation. 

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to criticize me at least first read what I post. I've only ever promoted the idea of trying to develop some workable solution, rather than simply dismissing it is "unworkable idealism".

And some people believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This issue would be much less of a bother if we just made billiards, frisbee golf, and croquet the primary sports of our nations.  And think of the medical resources that would be freed up.  

Except sport is defined as a test of skills, endurance, speed, physical ability, athleticism, dexterity,  toughness, both mental and physical and the pursuit of excellence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

Sport is usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner. 

Sportsmanship is an attitude that strives for fair play, courtesy toward teammates and opponents, ethical behaviour and integrity, and grace in victory or defeat

[geordief]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

This issue would be much less of a bother if we just made billiards, frisbee golf, and crochet the primary sports of our nations.  And think of the medical resources that would be freed up.  

I think the French would have a "head start" if there were international crochet competitions

https://lisawallerrogers.com/2018/11/03/the-tricoteuses-of-the-french-revolution/

Edited May 24, 2022 by geordief

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

All you need show us is an example of professional women, competing on a level footing against professional men and holding their own or winning. I won't hold my breath.

Pam Reed.

Lynn Hill.

Gertrude Ederle.

Danica Patrick.

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

Except sport is defined as a test of skills, endurance, speed, physical ability, athleticism, dexterity,  toughness, both mental and physical and the pursuit of excellence.

You need to remove dexterity and endurance from this list as prejudices. Women are either more dexterous than men or their equal (depending on whether you adjust for finger thickness) on most tests for this quality. Wrt endurance and stamina, women are the clear winners.

[beecee]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Pam Reed.

Lynn Hill.

Gertrude Ederle.

Danica Patrick.

Great champions certainly, but my argument as I have stated many times, concerns physical body contact sports, like the rugby codes of football. Your first Pam Reed seems to fit the bill in some of the physicality skills having won overall, the others are sports where I certainly agree with mixed competition. Certainly a grueling race I was unaware of before today. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You need to remove dexterity and endurance from this list as prejudices. Women are either more dexterous than men or their equal (depending on whether you adjust for finger thickness) on most tests for this quality. Wrt endurance and stamina, women are the clear winners.

I'll gladly remove dexterity. Stamina is debatable, and I am reminded of the medical and scientific advice given to the NRL and how the women RL competition, are 5 minutes per half shorter then the men's. Of course we need to also consider the increased and additional physicality of this sport. 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by beecee

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Great champions certainly, but my argument as I have stated many times, concerns physical body contact sports, like the rugby codes of football. Your first Pam Reed seems to fit the bill in some of the physicality skills having won overall, the others are sports where I certainly agree with mixed competition. Certainly a grueling race I was unaware of before today. 

But your argument was:

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

All you need show us is an example of professional women, competing on a level footing against professional men and holding their own or winning. I won't hold my breath.

So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. It's a version of No True Scotsman, really. No example will truly suffice, because you'll keep bringing up more extreme examples. "No woman could ever compete with the top Whitewater Apple Bobbers!"

 

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But your argument was:

So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. It's a version of No True Scotsman, really. No example will truly suffice, because you'll keep bringing up more extreme examples. "No woman could ever compete with the top Whitewater Apple Bobbers!"

My argument throughout this thread has been women competing on an equal footing with men in the body contact sports like rugby union and league. Perhaps I neglected to mention that in the statement you refer to, but I'm sure you'll see what my argument is with regards to all my posts to this thread. Women, are unable to compete with men at the professional level, nor the amateur level above a certain age in the body contact sports I have been speaking of. No shifitng of goal posts. My point is absolutely clear.

If we chose to be honest, men in general are taller, stronger, heavier, and yes, quicker then women. .. I am a relatively short arse, and many women are taller then me. But generally speaking, men are taller, stronger and heavier and as such, segregation is necessary for fair competition in "certain" sports, namely body contact sports.

Ice skating is a beautiful sport where men and women are paired. In that sport, we do not often see the women throwing the man into the air and catching him before he hits the ground. 

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

My argument throughout this thread has been women competing on an equal footing with men in the body contact sports like rugby union and league. Perhaps I neglected to mention that in the statement you refer to, but I'm sure you'll see what my argument is with regards to all my posts to this thread. Women, are unable to compete with men at the professional level, nor the amateur level above a certain age in the body contact sports I have been speaking of. No shifitng of goal posts. My point is absolutely clear.

 

10 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. 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.

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm preventing no one from trying whatever they like. That's up to the country and society in question. Segregation in RL in my country is based on observational data and medical advice.

It is also far from being an argument from incredulity. It is an argument based on observational and medical opinion and advice, and yes, protecting females who do wish to play Rugby. 

 The segregation in sports like Rugby, is based on observational standards. With regards to transgenders within the NRL, (National Rugby League)there really hasn't been a great deal of discussion, simply because of the rarity of the situation. What I could find is the following......

And many more over a few pages. No amount of red negs or positive greens will change that. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But your argument was:

So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. 

No, its an example of me not absolutely clarifying the statement you refer to, and sadly I see that as less then an honest approach, considering my other posts, which I suggest you were aware of. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by beecee

[TheVat]

 

My billiards comment was in jest.  Just a way to express topic fatigue in a light way.  LoL the conversion of croquet to crochet, btw.  Thanks, @geordief

[beecee]

On 5/21/2022 at 6:24 AM, beecee said:

As nice as those sentiments are, the facts are it would never work in certain sports. Men and women, (thankfully) are built different. The sport's specific thresholds and standards are very rarely ever going to compare equally...Men would generally align with one threshold, and women with another.

Let me spell it out again. What I am saying is that in many sports, particularly all football codes, a professional men's side would be faster, stronger, and more aggressive then any professional woman's side. That's why we have sports segregation in those sports. So that is a furphy. 

Another post illustrating what my claim has been.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, no matter how much it disturbs the extreme PC brigade......Professional rugby players, or professionals in other body contact sports, will always be segregated for obvious reasons.  That will not change anytime soon. That stance is supported by medical and expert advice, based on the physical differences and biology between men and women. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

...no matter how much it disturbs the extreme PC brigade...

"I resemble that remark."

[iNow]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

no matter how much it disturbs the extreme PC brigade

I said it 5 days ago and 4 days before that, and probably a few other times throughout this thread before then, but…

 

On 5/20/2022 at 3:36 PM, iNow said:

Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

 

[StringJunky]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

I said it 5 days ago and 4 days before that, and probably a few other times throughout this thread before then, but…

 

 

Cuz history.

[MigL]

Many participants in this thread have repeated themselves, as is likely to happen after 40 odd pages; to single out one person as repetitive is hypocritical.
And some in this, and similar threads, have been called way worse than 'Social Justice  Warrior', or 'PC Brigade'.

Just sayin'.

[Intoscience]

Ever feel like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place...

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to criticize me at least first read what I post. I've only ever promoted the idea of trying to develop some workable solution, rather than simply dismissing it is "unworkable idealism".

Apologies, I appreciate your position. 

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

They need to stop thinking in binary. Rome wasn't built in day. For the large part, it will probably be the children born now that should start experiencing the benefits of these policy changes with lower levels of prejudice that prevail today. Evolution, not revolution is the pace in human terms of time.

I was reminded earlier in this thread that the evolution of modern humans plays little part, since there has not been time long enough. So unless we start seeing females physically enhanced by genetic manipulation then we aint going to see females (in general) as big and strong as males (in general) any time soon. 

I'm all for removing prejudice, but not by shifting the problem around. I don't see how categorising (equally) persons by gender is such a big deal? Why should a person not feel proud to be who they are and applaud the category they find themselves in?

16 hours ago, iNow said:

But if she meets the qualification standards for her division and wishes to compete, then that’s her choice to make, not ours.

So what qualification standards do you suggest would be suitable and fair?  Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter.