Transgender athletes

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Handicapping.

What kind of handicapping can be "fair" to both sides, and who decides on the handicap? It seems pretty obvious from today's reactions that female athletes won't consider it fair, and neither will the trans athletes, they will blame the handicap unless they win. (as Caster Semenya did) 

It's a recipe for bitterness on both sides, in any contest that's worthwhile winning.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What kind of handicapping can be "fair" to both sides, and who decides on the handicap? It seems pretty obvious from today's reactions that female athletes won't consider it fair, and neither will the trans athletes, they will blame the handicap unless they win. (as Caster Semenya did) 

It's a recipe for bitterness on both sides, in any contest that's worthwhile winning.

You've already decided that a solution is impossible and thus dismiss any ideas out of hand. As such, any further debate with you is a waste of my time as anything I say in the future has already been dismissed by you in the past.

I believe I'll limit my interactions to only include those people who are willing to entertain the ideas of others before rejecting or accepting them.

[mistermack]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

any further debate with you is a waste of my time

As soon as I ask you to put flesh on the bones, you bail out. That just confirms what I already knew. Your dream world doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

[iNow]

Or, experience shows that maybe you aren't engaging in good faith. 

[mistermack]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Or, experience shows that maybe you aren't engaging in good faith. 

Link? I thought I was.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

Link?

Sure! Here he is in Gerudo Town (it’s off limits to men, hence the garb):

 

 

[zapatos]

On the left...

Edited August 17, 2023 by zapatos

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.

I'm sorry but you mis represent me.

I have advocated throughout this thread that I support "fair inclusion for all" I have not presented a workable solution, because I don't have one. I have also stated this during the thread discussion.

I'm not transphobic by any means, which seems to be the inferred accusation when someone disagrees with the pro trans inclusion in women's sports group. 

If a system can be implemented in such a way that fairly includes trans in cis gender groups then sure I fully support it. 

You suggested "handicapping" fine, what type of handicapping do you propose which has no ill health effects and can be consistent across the board?  

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, it can be one or the other, or both. It's mainly because people identify as their mental ID firstly, over their physical ID. That's why people consider they have the wrong body, and not the wrong brain. You could conceivably put your brain in another body, and still feel that you are still yourself. But if they put another brain in your body, then "you" would be gone.

It appears that you cannot advocate that a person suffering from gender dysphoria may be suffering from a mental issue. This discussion is off limits since maybe perceived by others that the person advocating such is transphobic. 

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Oh come on, this isn't a playground; be honest and point to a post where you, or anyone else, have answered my fundamental question.

Remind me, what was your fundamental question again?

I have asked so many that have gone ignored I've lost count. 

[mistermack]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Sure! Here he is in Gerudo Town (it’s off limits to men, hence the garb):

Is that what you call engaging in good faith?  You'll have to explain it, I'm finding it hard to follow.     

 

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Remind me, what was your fundamental question again?

It's the question I've asked, in many different ways, throughout the last 10 or so pages, and always ignored; but WTF I feel lucky, why do you care what game's other people play?

"I have asked so many that have gone ignored I've lost count."

All of your questions have been answered, it's not my fault that you assume anything you don't understand, should be ignored...

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why do you care what game's other people play?

Surely it's obvious? Same reason you do.

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Surely it's obvious? Same reason you do.

Well, the reason I do is: I imagine that that person is me, then I imagine what I would feel like if I wasn't allowed to play, because of some bigoted idiot who can't accept that his hero could be beaten by, or become, a woman.

Is that the same as your reason?

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

Richard Dawkins put it so well, as usual. It's like he's been reading this thread : 

Richard Dawkins blasts 'paranoid hypersensitive' trans activists as he outlines attempts to silence him (msn.com) 

In my opinion Richard Dawkins is an arrogant dick, he basically said "anyone that thinks differently to me must be delusional", any argument derived from this is, ironically, delusional... 🙄

Edited August 17, 2023 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, the reason I do is: I imagine that that person is me, then I imagine what I would feel like if I wasn't allowed to play, because of some bigoted idiot who can't accept that his hero could be beaten by, or become, a woman.

Is that the same as your reason?

Pretty much. I put myself in the place of a female athlete who has spent most of her life trying to be the best, only to have some less talented male athlete declare himself a woman, have a bit of surgery and hormone treatment, and deny her the prize she deserved, and take records off amazing truly outstanding female athletes that had to win them as real women. 

By the way, they are "allowed to play". Just thought I'd remind you. 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Pretty much. I put myself in the place of a female athlete who has spent most of her life trying to be the best, only to have some less talented male athlete declare himself a woman, have a bit of surgery and hormone treatment, and deny her the prize she deserved, and take records off amazing truly outstanding female athletes that had to win them as real women. 

By the way, they are "allowed to play". Just thought I'd remind you. 

LOL, nice try, but "you over nyah and me over nyah"; I'd better run it again, for the slow learner's...

 

 

 

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You suggested "handicapping" fine, what type of handicapping do you propose which has no ill health effects and can be consistent across the board?  

Adding weight to the bar for weightlifters who are trans women to achieve the same target lift as a cis woman. As I mentioned earlier.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm sorry but you mis represent me.

I don't think so. You say it will be unfair to include trans women yet you know rules to make it fair will be included. So what part is "unfair"?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not transphobic by any means, which seems to be the inferred accusation when someone disagrees with the pro trans inclusion in women's sports group. 

 

That's an internal issue you'll have to work out for yourself. I've never hinted you were transphobic.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This discussion is off limits since maybe perceived by others that the person advocating such is transphobic. 

You really are starting to seem paranoid. That or you like to play the victim.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

You'll have to explain it, I'm finding it hard to follow.

Like the separate, but equal reference?

I was just having a bit of fun. Trying to add some levity to an otherwise heavy thread. You suggested that others were being weaselly and hiding and other similar derogatory characterizations. I pointed out that perhaps they simply felt the effort of answering your question wasn't worth it. That the ROI wasn't there. That in this thread you seem to have firmly made up your mind and really don't want to openly explore other ideas.

I summarized all that by saying, "Maybe they just think you're engaging in bad faith" and basically aren't worth the time or effort.

In response? You said, "Link?"

Link to what? Link to my suggestion that maybe they have other reasons for not answering your loaded questions? There is no link to that... it's another bad faith request.

So, I shared a picture of Link from the Legend of Zelda. This is a game that's been out for decades. It's recently become more popular with a new version release, and it's everywhere in the social either lately.

I made my picture of the hero of that game (Link) more on-topic by sharing a pic of him expressing himself as a female, something he did to gain entry to an area of the kingdom where men aren't allowed.  

You know... fun? Lighthearted... levity. I'm sorry it went over your head, but I'm sure it went over the head of others, too... so thanks for the invitation and opportunity to elaborate. 

[mistermack]

 

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

I summarized all that by saying, "Maybe they just think you're engaging in bad faith" and basically aren't worth the time or effort.

No you didn't say that. You said :

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Or, experience shows that maybe you aren't engaging in good faith.

Good faith might start with quoting your own words truthfully. And not changing it to "maybe they just think", weasel words that change it from you saying it, to others thinking it. 

Anyway, I quoted you, and asked for a link (obviously meaning to where I posted not in good faith), and you pretended not to understand the bleedin obvious. More bad faith. 

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm sorry it went over your head,

And yet you expect me to believe that me quoting what you wrote, and asking for a link regarding the quote, went over your head. I don't believe that for a minute. It's just more bad faith posting. 

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That in this thread you seem to have firmly made up your mind and really don't want to openly explore other ideas.

I tried to do that with Zapatos, asking what rules could be applied, and got a one word answer, "handicapping". And when I questioned that, got a refusal to debate. Basically, from where I stand, there's a lot of handwaving going on, and not much facing of facts. I'll openly explore other ideas, but if they look wrong, I'll say so, and try to explain why I think so. 

There's nothing stopping the world from including trans women in women's sport. I wouldn't do it myself, because of principles and practicality, and I've said why. But the world is free to disagree and get on with it.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Good faith might start with quoting your own words truthfully.

I paraphrased, and apologize that I didn't provide an exact reference to a comment I made only a few hours previous. I know what my intent was, and it was not to deceive. Thank you for this additional opportunity to further align with you in a more precise way. I'm grateful that you've called it out, but dishonesty was not present in my approach. 

[mistermack]

Fair enough. I take it back. I should have said accurately. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

weasel words that change it from you saying it, to others thinking it. 

The comment that kicked this off was in response to zapatos. Did it not occur to you that iNow’s reference was to what zap might have been thinking? 

[mistermack]

This came up on MSN, looks recent. Athlete left furious after trans competitor breaks female record in competition (msn.com)

It’s just a little taste of what’s in store if trans women compete in women’s events. The athlete put it rather well :  Hutchinson criticised the decision to allow Andrew to compete, labelling the 40-year-old’s inclusion as “completely unfair”.

She added: “It’s bodies that play sports, not identities. “Remember, bodies are biology, not identities that play sports.”

[iNow]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The comment that kicked this off was in response to zapatos. Did it not occur to you that iNow’s reference was to what zap might have been thinking? 

It was apparently easier to evade and ignore your question then deflect with a random anecdote from a random uninformed athlete somewhere mad that they lost and lashing out in response. 

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

Adding weight to the bar for weightlifters who are trans women to achieve the same target lift as a cis woman. As I mentioned earlier.

I don't think so. You say it will be unfair to include trans women yet you know rules to make it fair will be included. So what part is "unfair"?

That's an internal issue you'll have to work out for yourself. I've never hinted you were transphobic.

You really are starting to seem paranoid. That or you like to play the victim.

I don't see any sporting body introducing handicaps, other than testing for testosterone. I'm not adverse to your idea, in fact i'd support such if it proved workable and fair. But i'm sure such a system will be regarded negative discrimination.

It will always be unfair to include trans women in cis women categories until a consistent and "handicapping" system is introduced. In order to do this one first has to define the advantages a biological male has over a biological female.  In order to do this one must define what a biological male & female are. Since the argument is that there is no clear difference and that biological sex is a spectrum how do you suggest handicapping a biological male fairly? 

Paranoid? I'm told that a person who is born a certain biological way "feels/believes" they are something different is not a mental issue. I was pointing out since this is the case then discussion down that route is a no no. 

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's the question I've asked, in many different ways, throughout the last 10 or so pages, and always ignored; but WTF I feel lucky, why do you care what game's other people play?

I don't in particular,  is my answer. I'm sure I said such earlier in the thread but hey ho...

I just have a strong sense of moral fairness. I particularly believe that trans inclusion without workable rules is a non starter for all parties involved. 

The cis women lose out on opportunities and the trans women lose further support and are negatively exposed to the public, just enforcing further bigotry.

I support the rights of all people but not at the cost of others. Society should always endeavour to find solutions which bring harmony, not promote further divide.

Does this answer your question?

  

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Like the separate, but equal reference?

I was just having a bit of fun. Trying to add some levity to an otherwise heavy thread. You suggested that others were being weaselly and hiding and other similar derogatory characterizations. I pointed out that perhaps they simply felt the effort of answering your question wasn't worth it. That the ROI wasn't there. That in this thread you seem to have firmly made up your mind and really don't want to openly explore other ideas.

I summarized all that by saying, "Maybe they just think you're engaging in bad faith" and basically aren't worth the time or effort.

In response? You said, "Link?"

Link to what? Link to my suggestion that maybe they have other reasons for not answering your loaded questions? There is no link to that... it's another bad faith request.

So, I shared a picture of Link from the Legend of Zelda. This is a game that's been out for decades. It's recently become more popular with a new version release, and it's everywhere in the social either lately.

I made my picture of the hero of that game (Link) more on-topic by sharing a pic of him expressing himself as a female, something he did to gain entry to an area of the kingdom where men aren't allowed.  

You know... fun? Lighthearted... levity. I'm sorry it went over your head, but I'm sure it went over the head of others, too... so thanks for the invitation and opportunity to elaborate. 

I for one appreciate you explaining your motives and elaborating. We can all get frustrated, exasperated and sometimes angry especially so if the subject matter strikes a cord. 

i can sometimes get sucked into arguing in anger rather than stepping back and trying to explain my position in a polite and logical manner (I often fail).

I think believe that everyone posting on this thread in essence wants the same - fair inclusion for all. we just have differing views/opinions on what is fair. 

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

a random anecdote from a random uninformed athlete somewhere mad that they lost and lashing out in response. 

Even the chess world is now moving away from allowing former men to compete as women in women's championships : Chess body bans transgender players from women's events (rte.ie)

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't in particular,  is my answer. I'm sure I said such earlier in the thread but hey ho...

I just have a strong sense of moral fairness. I particularly believe that trans inclusion without workable rules is a non starter for all parties involved. 

The cis women lose out on opportunities and the trans women lose further support and are negatively exposed to the public, just enforcing further bigotry.

I support the rights of all people but not at the cost of others. Society should always endeavour to find solutions which bring harmony, not promote further divide.

Does this answer your question?

Of course not, its a series of excuses designed to justify your desire to exclude some people you haven't met and deny them the chance of, whatever you don't like.

Besides, what game doesn't have a workable set of rules for all parties involved?

 

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Even the chess world is now moving away from allowing former men to compete as women in women's championships : Chess body bans transgender players from women's events (rte.ie)

Well of course they have, it was bad enough when a machine rocked up and beat them, if a girl turns up and does the same, I can only image the devastation... 😲