Transgender athletes

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Could this be a symptom of rising fascism? I'm struck by the similarities in the percentage of population between transgender people in the US and Jews in Germany prior to WWII. A good bogeyman should be a small, marginalized group that people distrust already through misunderstanding and fear.

Well, culture wars and scapegoating have been the go-to for authoritarian regimes for a long time and they are making many successful revivals in recent times.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, culture wars and scapegoating have been the go-to for authoritarian regimes for a long time and they are making many successful revivals in recent times.

Democracies of course aren't immune to it either. One of the problems with democracies is that they can vote an authoritarian regime in, but can't necessarily then vote it out. Future elections can become a facade.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Democracies of course aren't immune to it either. One of the problems with democracies is that they can vote an authoritarian regime in, but can't necessarily then vote it out. Future elections can become a facade.

True, the issue is that in essence they are appeals to base emotions (mostly fear and aversion) and those are quite resilient to facts. This can be easily weaponized in order to introduce authoritarian viewpoints (i.e. by saying that only a strong man can save us) and from then on, an erosion of liberties and rights can follow (Hungary, Poland and Israel are well on the way to the next stage there, for example).

[iNow]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

True, the issue is that in essence they are appeals to base emotions (mostly fear and aversion) and those are quite resilient to facts. This can be easily weaponized in order to introduce authoritarian viewpoints (i.e. by saying that only a strong man can save us) …

Or that the evil woke libtards are trying to force your children to be trans and worse!! they’re doing it to gain unfair competitive advantages in sports… Gasp!!

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Or that the evil woke libtards are trying to force your children to be trans and worse!! they’re doing it to gain unfair competitive advantages in sports… Gasp!!

Dammit !!

I KNEW there was something about those Williams sisters ! 

[iNow]

There’s certainly an ugliness on display here, but it’s not those talemted women who have fought their entire lives to become as globally elite as they are.

[mistermack]

Yeh, it would be a shame if some less talented man came along, with a snip here and a pill there, and deprived them of their trophies.

[Intoscience]

On 7/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, StringJunky said:

Repeating doesn't make so. The subject is not amenable to Twitter-length responses.

Nope because, for some reason there is a small minority of biological men that want to change the mainstream definition of what a  woman is to fit their personal ideological reasons. I.e they feel they were born in the wrong body and can't do a thing about it, so in order to make them feel better about themselves they choose to be identified as a woman, fine.  But this is not good enough. They now want the definition of a woman to be changed so that it fits in with their own personal definitions, and worse still that definition can be fluid to suit each individual. 

It's and I feel a step too far. I suspect that the vast majority of cis-gender women would also agree.  

On 7/27/2023 at 12:00 PM, dimreepr said:

In what way?

Why would i refute that statement, it's a correct definition for loads of women; but what about the women born without a womb or some other needed single part?

Or the people who want to be bald?

Besides that still doesn't answer my question, it's yet another excuse to avoid it, which is quite telling... 🤒

You're going to have to back that up...

Link please... 

There is plenty of media attention around Lia Thomas, maybe he/she got what he really craved which was media attention. No point in posting links. no matter what I post or what links I post you will refute them anyway.

I have stated the basic mainstream definition of what a woman is! It is you and many others who are avoiding refuting it. You are just supporting or spouting this crap about extending the definition so much so that it just becomes a diluted mess that is incomprehensible.  

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I have stated the basic mainstream definition of what a woman is!

About as accurate and detailed as Bohr's model of the atom. The Standard Model is now somewhat more complex..

Edited July 29, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

On 7/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, iNow said:

Separate but equal isn’t equal at all

How can you categorise without separation?

You either have one open field, which gives equal opportunity, fine. But you will eventually end up with a handful of cis males dominating the vast majority of disciplines. In which case the remainder (vast majority of competitors will soon realise there is no point of competing since they have no chance. All of a sudden you end up with a minority of competitors where there is little inclusion.  

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

About as accurate and detailed as Bohr's model of the atom.

The difference is though that what I stated is accurate though maybe not detailed.

So, answer the question in detail then, then apply that definition to competitive sports. All I'm asking is how do we categorise events in an all inclusive fair opportunistic manner? 

 

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

I know you're not in this camp, but I'd wager it comprises 99.99% of the athletes impacted by this issue. I'm not as interested as you seem to be in focusing on the marginal remaining 0.01% of the challenge

Ah so now you are ignoring the elite, but using the general hobbiest as your argument for the elite. We have established that at the lower level where may I add dreams, money, careers, jobs are mostly unaffected, it doesn't matter much that some lad who identifies as a girl comes along and blitzes the girl's events. So what, who cares, maybe the parents of all the girls competing that day, but hey, get over it it's just a bit of fun, stop being bigots.

At the elite level tiny differences in performance make huge differences in success. people at this level build careers, live out their dreams, there is big revenue and lots of jobs rely on it. So its important to make sure to try and set a fair as possible playing field, both for the competitors and the fans.   

Edited July 29, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

How can you categorise without separation?

You either have one open field, which gives equal opportunity, fine. But you will eventually end up with a handful of cis males dominating the vast majority of disciplines.

Now  we are being an A-Hole are we... what happened to 'transgender'? You username is very much an inaccurate misnomer. You are no more scientific than I am Taylor Swift.

Edited July 29, 2023 by StringJunky

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

have stated the basic mainstream definition of what a woman is

Your definition excluded postmenopausal, prepubescent, and all the others with non-binary chromosomes. It was so remedial it failed to capture multiple categories and thus was rejected.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is plenty of media attention around Lia Thomas, maybe he/she got what he really craved which was media attention.

It’s just “she.” Not he, not he/she… just she. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All I'm asking is how do we categorise events in an all inclusive fair opportunistic manner? 

It depends on the sport and on the level. There is no one size fits all here. The ask is mainly that we seek those categories with the starting premise that trans individuals not face a blanket exclusion. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ah so now you are ignoring the elite

Saying I tend to focus more on the 99.99% of this problem shouldn’t be conflated with ignoring the 0.01%. My words are right there. I simply don’t tend to focus on the marginal extreme categories since the others impact so many more thousands of lives. 

That’s not “ignoring them.”

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

stop being bigots.

Yes. This. 

You can begin with the easy stuff like simply using the pronouns they’ve asked others to use. Right now, it’s like they’re telling you their name is Kunta Kinte and you keep calling them Toby. 

[dimreepr]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:18 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

We can all play. We just don't get to demand inclusion in elite sports,

No one gets to demand inclusion in any sport, whatever the level; I'd get some very strange looks if I demanded to be allowed to play with 12 YO girls.

Quote

even if in theory a level could be found that might include everyone by correctly estimating N, and correct;y compensating with T.

This is what I've been talking about, your bias is obvious, they're not allowed to play, whatever empirical evidence or logical reasoning is presented; basically what you're saying is, "we can all play, but not them against them, according to the book of me".

So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play?

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is plenty of media attention around Lia Thomas, maybe he/she got what he really craved which was media attention. No point in posting links. no matter what I post or what links I post you will refute them anyway.

I have stated the basic mainstream definition of what a woman is! It is you and many others who are avoiding refuting it. You are just supporting or spouting this crap about extending the definition so much so that it just becomes a diluted mess that is incomprehensible. 

The difference is, our rebuttals aren't just plucked from our swimsuit area... 🧐

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play?

There’s a critical mass required, in any competitive sport.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

There’s a critical mass required, in any competitive sport.

What do you mean?

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play?

You constantly misrepresent the question being debated. It's about athletes, playing other athletes in competition, not friendly games. Your question has been answered, and the answer is bleedin obvious. If people just want to play each other, nothing's stopping them. 

I had a girlfriend who was a good squash player, and I was a novice. We played many times, and she would slaughter me. As I improved, I started playing some men, who were good players, and eventually I ended up beating my girlfriend easily. She mysteriously lost interest in playing me, and I preferred playing better male players in the end. 

There was nothing stopping us playing each other, but it became too uneven. 

Anyone can play anyone they like, but when it comes to competition, people prefer to pit like against like. And that's why there is a women's category, not a "women's level" category. 

[swansont]

Just now, dimreepr said:

What do you mean?

You need e.g. a minimum of 22 people to have a soccer/football game. You need many times that to have a league. One-on-one is not really compelling.

 

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need e.g. a minimum of 22 people to have a soccer/football game. You need many times that to have a league. One-on-one is not really compelling.

 

I see, I think you might be missing some recent context (in this thread) to the question you quoted, unless you've swapped side's. 

30 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You constantly misrepresent the question being debated. It's about athletes, playing other athletes in competition, not friendly games.

My question isn't level dependent:

It's, why don't YOU want that athlete/person (that's not you) to play that athlete/person (that's also not you) in a game you're not part of (other than in a voyeuristic/dogging sense)?

Edited July 29, 2023 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

This is what I've been talking about, your bias is obvious...

Thank you. I try to explain myself as best I can, and hope to make my biases clear to see.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play?

 

They are welcome to play against each other. No one is stopping them (safety reasons in a small minority of situations that might arise aside)

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's, why don't YOU want that athlete/person (that's not you) to play that athlete/person (that's also not you) in a game you're not part of (other than in a voyeuristic/dogging sense)?

As has been said, if people want to play each other, they can. 

In competition, what you want doesn't come into it. You have to play who is next in line. For women, in a women's competition, that should be other women.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As has been said, if people want to play each other, they can. 

In competition, what you want doesn't come into it. You have to play who is next in line. For women, in a women's competition, that should be other women.

The only thing I can possibly disagree with in this statement is, that you get to decide... 🙄

[mistermack]

Just now, dimreepr said:

The only thing I can possibly disagree with in this statement is, that you get to decide... 🙄

I get to decide what I think. And what I type. You have the same powers. 

On the ground, if transgender M/F athletes were widely allowed to compete against women, I'm pretty sure that a new organisation for women's sport would appear, hosting XX only competition, and it would become the dominant force in women's sport. That's why the major organisations are rowing back from allowing TG participation in women's events. They don't want to be left holding empty events.

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They are welcome to play against each other. No one is stopping them (safety reasons in a small minority of situations that might arise aside)

I agree, they have to play before a situation can arise... 😉 

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

I get to decide what I think. And what I type. You have the same powers.

Indeed, but only one of us is right... 🧐

Sorry, that's a bit too binary; it should read "but one of us is more right, you know, given the evidence!!!"

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but only one of us is right... 🧐

Sorry, that's a bit too binary; it should read "but one of us is more right, you know, given the evidence!!!"

I'm going to go out on a limb here...and guess that you think it's you...

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I see, I think you might be missing some recent context (in this thread) to the question you quoted, unless you've swapped side's. 

Does everyone need to be on a side?