Transgender athletes

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, koti said:

So this someone took offence that you did not take offence to someone not offending you? Thats some next level stuff.

Plus one, and LoL.  I think there is a segment of any population that deals with their insecurities by overreacting and showing the world how righteous they are and how depraved others are.  

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC

Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. 

Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee.

Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Nobody said they are...

Well, except that you did say they are. 

 

On 5/19/2022 at 12:31 AM, StringJunky said:

Why, are they going to win all the competitions?

 

On 5/19/2022 at 3:23 AM, Intoscience said:

The vast majority at the elite level, yes.

 

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

Because you phrase it just like this, but it gets heard as "I want women to get hurt" or "it's more entertaining when average people can compete" or "any woman can compete against the top elite men in all sports". And I don't see those supporting transgendered athletes misinterpreting the opposite stance in the same way. The pushback I've been getting seems mostly arguments from incredulity and don't be a snowflake and we already have categories.

[Peterkin]

As Zapatos humourously pointed out: there are not so many transgendered athletes at the "top, elite levels" to destroy an entire sport, or shut out all top level elite female athletes, or be trounced by all the top level elite male athletes. Since top level elite professional sport is all that some fans care about, they might, in fact, be better entertained if one of these rare non-birth-defined contenders staged an upset victory or carried off a grand trophy once in a while.

(I really can't imagine a long queue of male athletes lining up for sex-change operations just for a advantage in their chosen sport.)

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

As Zapatos humourously pointed out: there are not so many transgendered athletes at the "top, elite levels" to destroy an entire sport, or shut out all top level elite female athletes, or be trounced by all the top level elite male athletes.

I don’t know. All 6 of them are pretty incredible. 
 

(that one’s for you, MigL)

[koti]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. 

Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee.

Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

Last Saturday we went to a barbeque at my buddies house, lots of old faces from highschool/college there and some new ones. Me and my partner ended up talking to new wife of my firend, shes 33 hes 48. After a while she opened up when she heard I knew her husband since 1990, apparently her step daughter and his daughter is now "Ariel" (17) who sued "his" parents (unfortunately this is the ridiculous law here) in order to transition from a she into a him. The 33 year old step Mom was telling us stories which are really hard to repeat - mind games, emails sent to her and lawyers on CC, extreme manipulation in order to get attention and gain financial and/or emotional gains. The transition according to this 33 year old step Mom is a complete hoax and it is brining extreme pain both emotionally and financially to at least 3 families and this step Mom, my friends new wife is on the verge of calling it quits. So who do we believe iNow, a 33 year old woman on a virge of mental breakdown needing therapy on a daily basis or a 17 year old spoilt, manipulative brat? I think I remember you said in one of the threads few years back that we should believe all women.

[TheVat]

@koti Given how incomplete our information is on all these people, I think it would be impossible to say who to believe.  Family fights are often ugly and loaded with manipulation.  There is a reason that some things end up in a courtroom - just accepting a bunch of "he said" and "she said" statements as a full account in hardly enough to make a rational decision.

Also, as someone who has done counseling, I know that people may be "manipulative" because they have very little power over their own lives and can find no other leverage to make their needs known.  It's entirely possible that the parents, if they had listened more and been more receptive to Ariel's feelings, would not have triggered quite so much manipulation.  

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by TheVat

[zapatos]

50 minutes ago, koti said:

So who do we believe

Who do you believe, and why?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, koti said:

according to this 33 year old step Mom is a complete hoax and it is brining extreme pain both emotionally and financially to at least 3 families and this step Mom, my friends new wife is on the verge of calling it quits. So who do we believe iNow, a 33 year old woman on a virge of mental breakdown needing therapy on a daily basis or a 17 year old spoilt, manipulative brat?

I recommend you believe me, specifically here now when I point out that this fun little anecdote of yours has literally Jack and his other brother Shit to do with the point I've been making about how better to setup sports divisions for improved and more inclusive outcomes.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Winning games, perhaps? The US women have won World cups and Olympic gold. The men haven’t had anywhere close to the same success. They didn’t even qualify for the WC in 2018, and their highest finish since 2002 was 8th.

Of course. But that isn't what was being suggested. They are obviously the best in their category of women's soccer. We were making the "unfair" comparisons between women and men in certain  sports.

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

We were making the "unfair" comparisons between women and men in certain  sports.

Yes. And then, later, in a related sidebar, we were comparing the merits of North American men's and women's soccer teams, with regard to pay equity.  

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. And then, later, in a related sidebar, we were comparing the merits of North American men's and women's soccer teams, with regard to pay equity.  

I have never argued against equal pay for men and women in any endeavour whatsoever. It's part of the policy of our Labor party in today's elections, that I am voting for. 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. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have never argued against equal pay for men and women in any endeavour whatsoever.

Commendable!

[beecee]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee.

Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

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. Transgenders though is one category I havn't thought about much, other then if the inclusion of transgenders are shown to have no meaningful advantages, then I have no real objection. And therein lies the main point. How many scientific studies have been done with transgener athletes?

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Commendable!

No not commendable, just a moral stance, devoid of any silly extreme PC I have always upheld and personaly fought for more then 20 years ago, at least with women and men employment. I hope you weren't being facetious or sarcastic.

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. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, 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.

Why does the importance of these alleged differences in their “builds” supersede letting anyone qualify based on merit and skill based thresholds regardless of who they are and how they urinate?

You keep repeating this point. I find it irrelevant and peripheral to the position I’m advocating. Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

Men would generally align with one threshold, and women with another.

I tend to agree, but it’s the threshold that matters, not their maleness or femaleness or anything in between. 

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

Transgenders though is one category I havn't thought about much, other then if the inclusion of transgenders are shown to have no meaningful advantages, then I have no real objection.

What would their advantages matter if divisions were setup based on skill and competence instead of assigned sex at birth?

Edited May 20, 2022 by iNow

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

And therein lies the main point. How many scientific studies have been done with transgener athletes?

That was the point quite early on in this thread (i.e. more studies are needed). So far we only know that transition does change the physiology and but some data suggests that certain proxy measures (such as testosterone levels) might not be enough to ascertain whether certain transgender athletes maintain categorical advantages.

Thus, the idea that was circulated in this thread is whether one could try to devise a panel of physiological parameters (in addition or instead of testosterone) that could be used to separate athletes in different competition groups. After all, the argument is that men have a different physiology that affects certain athletic performances, therefore physiological parameters should be measurable. After all, chromosomes and genitals are also also just used as proxies (like testosterone levels) for certain physiological and performance differences.

Another, likely easier method is to measure performance. Again, the base argument is that men and women have different base performance. Hence, an athlete that is closer to a given distribution might be sorted into the one or the other group. 

Finally, there is also the notion of fairness. The example of horse riding is a case where sex or gender has not shown to have a clear advantage in terms of performance, yet the system clearly favours one.

[MigL]

I have just one question ...

What the H is a furphy ?

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

I hope you weren't being facetious or sarcastic.

Of course he was being facetious.

And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

(Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course he was being facetious.

And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

(Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)

I am totally open-minded,  and there is nothing you can say to change that. 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why does the importance of these alleged differences in their “builds” supersede letting anyone qualify based on merit and skill based thresholds regardless of who they are and how they urinate?

You keep repeating this point. I find it irrelevant and peripheral to the position I’m advocating. Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

As has already been pointed out, not too many scientific studies have been done. Again, all else aside, I'm saying that if your proposal was the status quo, then not much would actually change. The merit and skill based thresholds would see men against men, and women against women in certain professional sports. If that's repeating myself, then it is worth repeating.

PS: I have nothing against any PC social justice warrior, only the few occasions where that so called socail justice goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. An example of PC going from the sublime to the ridiculous occurred in Sydney a couple of Xmas's ago. A certain council came down with an edict that It is now  politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas because you might insult non Christians and atheists. We are told that the correct greeting is now Happy Holidays. It of course was laughed out of existence, as well as that council and its so called progressives.

 

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course he was being facetious.

And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

(Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)

Facetiousness, sarcasm or otherwise, I'm pretty sure that the status quo and men and women sports segregations, will remain as is. Why? because it is the morally correct thing to do. 😁 FACT:

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No not commendable, just a moral stance, devoid of any silly extreme PC I have always upheld and personaly fought for more then 20 years ago, at least with women and men employment. I hope you weren't being facetious or sarcastic.

Certainly not. If you don't consider it commendable, I withdraw my commendation, even though I continue to approve of your moral stance.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Certainly not. If you don't consider it commendable, I withdraw my commendation, even though I continue to approve of your moral stance.

Obviously your original reply was facetious rather then funny. Hence my reply regarding moral stance. Appears to be par for the course for poor philsophers.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I am totally open-minded,  and there is nothing you can say to change that. 

No one ever has their mind changed by what other people post on the Internet.  I doubted the truth of that until I read a very persuasive proof on a message board.

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously your original reply was facetious rather then funny.

Neither. Merely brief.

In an effort to minimize misconstruction. Evidently futile.