Transgender athletes

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

It matters not how someone takes a piss. We can proceed by focusing on skill, strength, capability, and desire to compete. Maleness and femaleness are rather irrelevant when setting up divisions and qualification thresholds. 

and aggression, speed, toughness, ability to take big hits etc etc. It all counts and all equally uncertain in being able to measure.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I hear the stone tablets into which they’ve been chiseled and handed down from on-high are quite lovely. 

Actually quite modernised, sensible, adequate and cautionary to boot.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not sure, but I also don't believe competition is 'fair' at the elite level anyway. For example, the US has a lot more money to train its women athletes in many other countries which gives them a clear advantage.

You forgot about talent and ability. 

Ariarne Titmus didn't just beat Katie Ledecky at the Tokyo Olympics, she beat her in the best form the iconic American has had for three years.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't find the fact that a few trans women who compete at the elite level, competing under regulations specific to them, are a major threat to women's sports at the elite level. 

Who said they were??? They will be adjuducated and ruled on as per medical advice.

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I'm wrong, then this will be an experiment that fails eventually. But at least we will have tried, which I think is important.

What experiment is that? Our NRL already has rules and conditions based on scientifcally devised medical advice. Talk about a storm in a teacup! 😅 

Quite pretty all those shades of red! 😄

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

and aggression, speed, toughness, ability to take big hits etc etc. It all counts

Totally fair. Being male or being female, however, aren’t prerequisite for those characteristics and qualities. 

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

You forgot about talent and ability. 

Quite the contrary. I’m suggesting we focus there instead of whether someone stands or sits whilst taking a piss. 

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Our NRL already has rules and conditions

And? You act like they’re the pope. 

[zapatos]

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

Who said they were???

No one. J.C. asked if I was sure this was not a threat to women who complete at the elite level, and I answered that I was not.

Try to pay attention.

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

You forgot about talent and ability.

"Talent and ability" are neither unfair at the elite level, nor do American women have a clear advantage due to talent and ability. I have no idea what you are talking about.

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

What experiment is that?

Um, are you following any of the conversations at all?

Edited May 26, 2022 by zapatos

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one. J.C. asked if I was sure this was not a threat to women who complete at the elite level, and I answered that I was not.

Try to pay attention.

Sure, I was though distracted by your obtuseness and smart arsery answers. But yeah, again, at least in rugby league,they will be adjudicated and ruled on as per medical advice.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

"Talent and ability" are neither unfair at the elite level, nor do American women have a clear advantage due to talent and ability. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Talent and ability are both enhanced by training methods, and of course, what would never be fair, is any wholesale implementation of this "no sex segregation" that is being pushed valiantly but just as hopelessly. It won't happen, at least not in the hard hitting body contact sports and others. Sorry about your comprehension problem.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Um, are you following any of the conversations at all?

The experiment that will never, thankfully eventuate.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Totally fair. Being male or being female, however, aren’t prerequisite for those characteristics and qualities. 

In general they are. Males are generally far more aggressive, heavier, tougher, stronger and able to take and absorb the big hits in the rugby codes.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Quite the contrary. I’m suggesting we focus there instead of whether someone stands or sits whilst taking a piss. 

No, actually in addition to, the toughness, speed, aggression, ability to take big hits, heavier etc. They all matter and some are difficult, if not impossible to measure.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And? You act like they’re the pope. 

 😁 Actually the ruling body of rugby league in Australia, and that's what matters. The same body that makes the rules, based on professional, scientifically oriented medical advice. The same rules that are changing all the time, in line with progression, sensibility and cautionary requirements. The same scientific rules and medical advice that many here are doing their best to ignore, in favour of the extreme, pretentious PC nonsense instead.

Edited May 26, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

In general they are. Males are generally far more aggressive, heavier, tougher, stronger and able to take and absorb the big hits

Being male is not prerequisite to possessing those qualities. Your position is poor and your argument repetitive, weak, and unconvincing. 

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, actually in addition to, the toughness, speed, aggression, ability to take big hits, heavier etc. They all matter and some are difficult, if not impossible to measure.

So what? You seem to be suggesting they CAN be measured, but only based on being male or being female. That’s rather obviously bollocks. 

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

in favour of the extreme, pretentious PC nonsense instead.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

It’s clear you’re not even trying at this point. I’d encourage you to salvage some dignity and either do better or stop posting. 

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sorry about your comprehension problem.

Perhaps you’re just drunk? Trying to find a way to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you’re not making it easy. 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Being male is not prerequisite to possessing those qualities. Your position is poor and your argument repetitive, weak, and unconvincing. 

You used the word "prerequisite". I used the word "generally". Get things straight before you start accusing others. At best, the position you hold is debatable, not correct. I totally though reject it.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

So what? You seem to be suggesting they CAN be measured, but only based on being male or being female. That’s rather obviously bollocks. 

To the contrary. I'm suggesting they are difficult to measure and hence your idea falls apart even before acceptance...or if you like, its obviously bollocks..

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

I know what it means matey, and you know I know what it means. Isn't that an example of being obtuse? And the fact that your idea remains in the wilderness, is evident to its extreme PC nature, and will almost certainly stay that way.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever. 

I chuckled upon reading this ...
That would have been good advice to give J Biden when making his Supreme Court selection criteria announcement.

Oh wait ... you were all for selection based on how people urinate in that case.
And even the color of their genitals.

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever. 

Why even use gender? If we are going to be truly open for category 2, anyone that can demonstrate the right lack of attributes in that sport should be eligible...do we even have the right to question how they might prefer to identify?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why even use gender? If we are going to be truly open for category 2, anyone that can demonstrate the right lack of attributes in that sport should be eligible...do we even have the right to question how they might prefer to identify?

Why even use gender, indeed. If someone demonstrates the ability to compete, why indeed do we bother questioning how they identify. That's exactly right. 

Dear competitor. You qualify. I don't care about your sexuality. Good luck and enjoy the game.

It shocks me a bit this is so controversial to so very many of you. 

 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Oh wait ... you were all for selection based on how people urinate in that case.

Cute jab, but no. Perhaps others were, but you didn't quote others here. You quoted me, and my stance in that thread was to push back on the hypocrisy and complete dismissal of decades of US presidential precedent by calling out Biden for his choice (actually for "pre-announcing" it... a distinction without a difference, IMO). I didn't say he had to choose based on boy/girl/other status or skin color, but that's obviously neither here nor there.

Happy to elaborate in that other thread if you wish to continue making this personal with me instead of finding holes in my entirely reasonable position in THIS thread that sports rules are themselves arbitrary and solutions exist / are not terribly onerous to implement if we choose to stop legislating against and excluding trans kids and start finding ways to move beyond our blinders. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by iNow

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Dear competitor. You qualify. I don't care about your sexuality. Good luck and enjoy the game.

It shocks me a bit this is so controversial to so very many of you. 

For one or two it's about a slight pay cut, for the rest I can only imagine it's their ego's; the bias I've been taught, is that women are the weaker sex; so I'll be humiliated, in front of all my peers, if I step into the ring and get my arse kicked, by a lady; that's unthinkable and therefore, via dubious logic, it's unworkable...

[MigL]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Happy to elaborate in that other thread if you wish to continue making this personal with me instead of finding holes in my entirely reasonable position in THIS thread that sports rules are themselves arbitrary and solutions exist / are not terribly onerous to implement if we choose to stop legislating against and excluding trans kids and start finding ways to move beyond our blinders. 

The legislation of recreational sports for kids seems to be a problem with your elected officials; choose better Governments, and when you do, make sure they enact proper/appropriate laws.
As for professional/hi-level sports, you and others are forgetting that these are largely spectator events, and people will choose to see what they want to watch. IOW if the national women's soccer team does not draw any spectators, or TV rights ( although that is certainly not the case ), they should have no claims for equal pay ( actually for the US, the men should be paid less, as they are the lesser draw )

And why do you claim thatwhen your, or a viewpoint you supported, is contradicted, and others point it out, that it's a personal attack ?
My apologies if you wern't one of the ones who claimed J Biden had every right to call for a 'black woman' SCJ, after years of old white males, but you did not raise any objections in that case as you are in this one.

In the case of skills, such as ability to interpret the Constitution or ride a horse,gender need not, and should not, be considered, but in the case of physical prowess, like ditch digging or Am. football at a professional level, my opinion ( for what it's worth ) is that gender should remain a consideration.
( IIRC, women's football was not much of a spectator/TV draw, even when the ladies were playing in lingere )

[swansont]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

your preferred extreme PC

Not a fan of this style.

It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling.

It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held.  

"Particularly and sadly on a science forum."  Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

And why do you claim thatwhen your, or a viewpoint you supported, is contradicted, and others point it out, that it's a personal attack ?

Likely bc your post directed explicitly at me had literally fuck all to do with what I've been posting in THIS thread. 

[MigL]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've been taught, is that women are the weaker sex; so I'll be humiliated, in front of all my peers, if I step into the ring and get my arse kicked, by a lady

Or maybe, you just want to beat up on women  🙂 .

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

in the case of physical prowess, like ditch digging or Am. football at a professional level, my opinion ( for what it's worth ) is that gender should remain a consideration.

Why, though... if they meet ALL other criteria and show the same prowess on those other metrics?

[Peterkin]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I wonder if we might be able to agree that elite sports right now aren’t the ones being targeted by legislation making it illegal for trans kids to compete.

I wonder if we can proceed agreeing that these ideas need first to be tried in elementary school, middle school, and high school where states are currently excluding these kids who already feel excluded, then perhaps address these valid concerns at the elite level a bit later once we’ve had more practice getting things right. 

That simple, straightforward, perfectly reasonable idea is the wrong shape for some people to grasp.

Maybe their hands are just too small.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Or maybe, you just want to beat up on women  🙂 .

Believe me I've been tempted, but it wasn't a fair fight... 😉

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

You used the word "prerequisite". I used the word "generally". Get things straight before you start accusing others.

So you're saying, "Being male is not generally to possessing those qualities" is straight? I'm accusing you of being grammatically wrong.

But I also think you've got a LOT of emotional investment in this issue, because you keep repeating the same arguments, even though lots of folks have peeled them apart fairly reasonably. And instead of then addressing THOSE points, you just double down, copy/paste something you've already said, and insist that any rebuttal is some kind of overactive political correctness, even though the positions have been thoroughly explained to you.

Quote

At best, the position you hold is debatable, not correct. I totally though reject it.

If it's debatable, why do you keep copy/pasting the same things? And is thorough rejection a competent scientific stance? What's happened to your objectivity? Nobody is saying you have to agree, but it would help, if you're going to continue to discuss this, if you would at least keep moving forward instead of staying mired in your complete rejection. 

[MigL]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

had literally fuck all to do with what I've been posting in THIS thread

You''re gonna have to explain that one better, because in this thread you are opposing those who claim that urinary/sexual plumbing has nothing to do with performance, while in the other, you did not raise any such objections to those who did.
You should strive to be more consistant.

 

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling.
It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held.  
"Particularly and sadly on a science forum."  Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

Would you mind if I quoted that next time the shoe is on the other foot, and some of us are the recipients of nasty labelling, direct or implied ?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

You should strive to be more consistant.

*Consistent 

But... totally agree. I am sometimes inconsistent, as are we all. I personally seek to always be better today than I was yesterday. I often fail, but sometimes succeed, and your feedback is duly noted.

Now, as for the thread-relevant on-topic suggestion that relatively simple updates to qualifications and sports divisions might help here...  You seemed to accept my proposal at the level of younger athletes in schools, so let's try building on that consensus we've reached and see where it leads. 

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

in the case of physical prowess, like ditch digging or Am. football at a professional level, my opinion ( for what it's worth ) is that gender should remain a consideration.

Why, though... if they meet ALL other criteria and show the same prowess on those other metrics?

Well for ditch digging it'smoot, because even though I may have that opinion, there are laws that prevent that kind of discrimination ( and I am a law abiding citizen ).
As for competitive spectator sports, it is market driven. IOW, if nobody wants to watch, you have no expectation of equal pay, or even participation.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

As for competitive spectator sports, it is market driven. IOW, if nobody wants to watch, you have no expectation of equal pay, or even participation.

And what of sports at the younger levels like schools? Elementary school age... Middle school age... high school age... junior varsity, even varsity?

There's no market there, no viewership metric that's relevant... so what then?

[MigL]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seemed to accept my proposal at the level of younger athletes in schools, so let's try building on that consensus we've reached and see where it leads. 

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way Beecee was getting treated.
I would like to see trans kids participate in recreational sports and be accepted.
I also want to see them participate professionally, but balk at the idea of setting cis women's participation back 100 years; that was my original objection.
 

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Believe me I've been tempted, but it wasn't a fair fight... 😉

I would think you've had your ass kicked by women quite a few times 😄 .

Edited May 26, 2022 by MigL

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way Beecee was getting treated.

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way beecee was treating rebuttals with lazy arguments, copy/pasting his own words, and dismissing concern for underrepresented folks as overactive PC measures.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would like to see trans kids participate in recreational sports and be accepted.
I also want to see them participate professionally, but balk at the idea of setting cis women's participation back 100 years; that was my original objection.

And how has your original objection changed as a result of being exposed to other perspectives through disccussion? Do you still think the suggestions that have been made will harm cis women's participation in sports?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way Beecee was getting treated.

I'm sure @beecee would profit from treatment/learning/teaching, even if he doesn't like it...