Transgender athletes

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There's a danger in this though. Does he get to use hateful/hurtful words when he takes the piss just because he's making jokes about everybody? Is it OK for him to mimic someone who stutters, as long as he mimics the way everybody else speaks? Is it fair for anybody to be ridiculed as long as it's done to everybody? Isn't that just a great excuse to ridicule everybody? 

I can appreciate not discriminating against people, but I don't think this is always a sound approach. 

 

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There seems to be a fine line between barely acceptable and definitely not where potential comedy resides.

I think with comedy it highly depends on the craft and also we (as we the society) have also deal with the fact that things are not easily forgotten as they used to. 

Fundamentally comedy is all about context, and context changes. Comedians often try to walk right up to the edge, but where the edge is, will change over time. This used to be much less of an issue when shows where either not widely broadcasted and/or were discussed about but then forgotten again within a few years. With the internet and social media, all utterances are there forever (or close to it). A related issue which folks increasingly have difficulty with to separate the art from the artist.

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Comedians who write offensive jokes and deride those who object remind me of pro athletes who don't want to be role models for children. You can't justify being a cunt by claiming your motives are pure and you're just in it for the laughs/competition. 

Again, I think the offensive part is highly dependent on how well the joke is constructed. However, I agree that deriding those disagreeing is a bit weak. After all, jokes are not universal and they may bomb with different audiences. As comedian they have the choice to try to appeal to a more specific group and/or adjust for broader consumption. 

But complaining that their jokes do not have mass appeal or that there are folks who just don't get it, does not show a lot of craftsmanship, in my mind. It is of course more annoying if folks take things out of context, but then they are unlikely to be the target audience, anyway.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There's a danger in this though. Does he get to use hateful/hurtful words when he takes the piss just because he's making jokes about everybody? Is it OK for him to mimic someone who stutters, as long as he mimics the way everybody else speaks? Is it fair for anybody to be ridiculed as long as it's done to everybody? Isn't that just a great excuse to ridicule everybody? 

I can appreciate not discriminating against people, but I don't think this is always a sound approach. 

Stand up humour is nearly always at the expense of someone or some group. I don't class his humour as unduly nasty. 

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Again, I think the offensive part is highly dependent on how well the joke is constructed. However, I agree that deriding those disagreeing is a bit weak. After all, jokes are not universal and they may bomb with different audiences. As comedian they have the choice to try to appeal to a more specific group and/or adjust for broader consumption. 

But complaining that their jokes do not have mass appeal or that there are folks who just don't get it, does not show a lot of craftsmanship, in my mind. It is of course more annoying if folks take things out of context, but then they are unlikely to be the target audience, anyway.

In this case RG was aiming the joke's at the raving trumpist, the very people who stand up and applaud, whooping and whistling, but not laughing...

[dimreepr]

On 6/15/2022 at 12:50 PM, dimreepr said:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/may/25/ricky-gervais-netflix-special-condemned-by-lgbtq-groups-for-anti-trans-rants-masquerading-as-jokes

I've watched this lecture ("and it is a lecture" - Ricky) twice (because it's very funny and philosophically sound, I highly recommend it), at the beginning he said something like "a lot of people won't get the irony of my lecture" as exemplified by a friend (who's a raving trumpist), who commented on the article "Bloody snowflakes, he's exactly right" and some people in the LGBTQ community (who are raving 'snowflakes')...

Indeed, but it does mean that segregation is entirely arbitrary, because women and men are clearly able to play with each other (pun intended 😁).

Actually tennis is a prime example of how it could work, every professional tennis player gets paid despite their gender; with that as a given, every player is paid due to their presence in the sport; with that as a given, it's perfectly possible, for a woman who breaks into the top 100 to be paid more than the number 1; sport is just entertainment, it's like an improvised play/soap opera.

Why would anyone get angry/threaten to harm/kill 'Dirty Den', he just wants to do what he's good at and get paid enough to live...

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why would anyone get angry/threaten to harm/kill 'Dirty Den', he just wants to do what he's good at and get paid enough to live...

Women are generally better at acting 'all innocent' grrr 😒

[TheVat]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

RG isn't anti-any minority. It's important to him to not discriminate, so every group gets it whenever his humour takes him there... he is equal in his piss-taking. I think that's fair. We need humour and astutely observed  ridicule is part of it.

We Yanks are limited to "humor" due to our impatience in typing words.  And also limited in our meaning of "piss-taking," though we do it more frequently as we age.  Anyway, I agree on the value of astutely observed ridicule.  And I recognize that comedians will often approach the line of transgression, and ease a toe across, to deliver it.  My impression is that RG does this by poking fun, not at trans people, but at some forms of trans activism and ideology.  My sense of things is that the latter is fair game for almost any group.

And then there is wordplay:

It takes real balls to have an orchiectomy.

 

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It takes real balls to have an orchiectomy.

 

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous."  -Yogi Berra

[mistermack]

There's a time and a place for humour.

And scienceforums is not it. 😒

[J.C.MacSwell]

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There's a time and a place for humour.

And scienceforums is not it. 😒

Maybe. In the spirit of science we should give it a couple of test tickles.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe. In the spirit of science we should give it a couple of test tickles.

It's odds on that the test will produce a negative reaction, unless your material is neutral.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe. In the spirit of science we should give it a couple of test tickles.

I'm sure Balzac would have some input, if he were alive.

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm sure Balzac would have some input, if he were alive.

I laughed out loud...but it helped that I googled Balzac before I actually got it.

So I connected the comedy angle first.

Sometimes it helps being slow...

[AIkonoklazt]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:19 AM, iNow said:

Except when it's not. 

Except tennis always is.

If it's not, then there's no term such as "mixed doubles" because there would just be "doubles." Think about it. Mixed pairs never play with male pairs or female pairs, and are excluded from pro tours. There aren't any official man versus woman singles matches.

Completely segregated by sex.

On 6/15/2022 at 4:50 AM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but it does mean that segregation is entirely arbitrary, because women and men are clearly able to play with each other (pun intended 😁).

Segregation in tennis is not arbitrary. Per my opening response, The #1 Williams Sisters were beaten by a man outside the top 200 men's ranking in an exhibition match. If WTP was disbanded and every player go ATP, then women would be relegated to the side courts in every pro tournament and majors.

Edited June 17, 2022 by AIkonoklazt
mixed excluded from pro tours

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Actually tennis is a prime example of how it could work, every professional tennis player gets paid despite their gender; with that as a given, every player is paid due to their presence in the sport; with that as a given, it's perfectly possible, for a woman who breaks into the top 100 to be paid more than the number 1; sport is just entertainment, it's like an improvised play/soap opera

Though the audience, and indeed the sponsors who pay the professionals, are not that interested in the 100th ranked. The majority want to watch the potential winners.

This stinks of the modern culture of "its the taking part that matters, not the winning" well if that's the case then why have "competitions" in the first place? Why strive to achieve success? Competition is healthy and fundamental to development its the wanting to win that drives people to success. Take that away then there's no point to it all is there? 

If tennis and many other similar sports where "open" then all you will achieve is a discriminative outcome. Its a backwards step in my humble opinion. 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Segregation in tennis is not arbitrary. Per my opening response, The #1 Williams Sisters were beaten by a man outside the top 200 men's ranking in an exhibition match. If WTP was disbanded and every player go ATP, then women would be relegated to the side courts in every pro tournament and majors.

All sports are run by arbitrary rules/line of demarcation, besides this is getting way off topic; my point is no one complained about a trans man playing with men, let alone threaten to kneecap them for wanting to play.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This stinks of the modern culture of "its the taking part that matters, not the winning" well if that's the case then why have "competitions" in the first place?

I can't see why, all that's been suggested in this pregnant and well overdue thread is, lets find an arbitrary line/rule that let's anyone who wants to play, a chance to win and be cheered appropriately; like you would want if you ever find yourself in a similar pair of shoe's.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why strive to achieve success? Competition is healthy and fundamental to development its the wanting to win that drives people to success. Take that away then there's no point to it all is there? 

Exactly... 😉

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

There's a time and a place for humour.

And scienceforums is not it. 😒

Even if it's spherical and in a vacuum? 

Edited June 17, 2022 by dimreepr

[iNow]

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Completely segregated by sex.

Again, except when it's not. Nor is the fact that it's MOSTLY segregated today supportive of the idea that it MUST be segregated tomorrow. 

Sports are literally an arbitrary set of rules that WE have defined. Those arbitrary rules can be changed at any time.

Why is this so confusing to so many people? It's almost like you're emotionally invested in excluding people who are different from you. 

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why is this so confusing to so many people? It's almost like you're emotionally invested in excluding people who are different from you. 

The reality is that things don't change significantly until the next fresh generation takes it on board without resistance. The vociferous old naysayers from the pioneering days by then are putting their teeth in a glass or are compost. Civil unions didn't start in the UK until 2005. It took 38 years from homosexuality not being illegal i.e. tolerated, to them being  allowed to be in a recognised partnership.

Edited June 17, 2022 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

If I win with a lucky shot, it's down to my dedication (the more I practice the luckier I get); if you win with a lucky shot, you took an advantage (and that's not fair)...

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The reality is that things don't change significantly until the next fresh generation takes it on board without resistance. The vociferous old naysayers from the pioneering days by then are putting their teeth in a glass or are compost. Civil unions didn't start in the UK until 2005. It took 38 years from homosexuality not being illegal i.e. tolerated, to them being  allowed to be in a recognised partnership.

I thin you are right. Kids are seeming less confused about that then us older folks. I suspect that this is why in the USA there is this huge homophobic and transphobic backlash in terms books with LGBTQ themes or even characters at school.

[MigL]

Wow ... still ?

People need to wrap their heads around a simple fact.
Professional sports are spectator and TV rights driven.
That is what pays the bills, provides the salaries/sponsorships, and the fan 'adoration'.
And people will watch what they want to watch, no matter what rules you impose, until they perceive unfairness, or a rigging of results ( and sometimes not if it's the WWE ).
Nobody will watch chicken races because horses get abused by the jockeys in horse racing; if there was a market they would have done it already.
Similarly, more people watch the women's American national soccer team than the men's; that is the market deciding.
Tiger Woods is still one of the most watched golfers in the world; what has he won lately ?

You can make 'inclusive' rules for trans women to compete with cis women, but I get the impression that people ( society ) perceive it as unfair, and will choose not to watch. That is not an age thing; a lot of people in the next couple of generations also perceive the unfairness to cis women.
And what happens to those women's sports ( like weightlifting, swimming, track, etc ) then ?

Knock yourselves out; make all the rules you want.
People will vote their approval/disapproval with tticket buys, their TV remote, or their mouse/touchpad.

Edited June 17, 2022 by MigL

[Area54]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Nobody will watch chicken races because horses get abused by the jockeys in horse racing

I heard that in Central Asia it is popular to race chickens against cattle, but it turned out to be cock and bull story.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I heard that in Central Asia it is popular to race chickens against cattle, but it turned out to be cock and bull story.

I heard cattle playing baseball against chickens was finally segregated by sex because the cows kept hitting fowl balls.

[AIkonoklazt]

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

All sports are run by arbitrary rules/line of demarcation, besides this is getting way off topic; my point is no one complained about a trans man playing with men, let alone threaten to kneecap them for wanting to play.

 

My point was that there'd be no women ranked in the top 200 should the sport of tennis not be segregated. How is that in any way conducive to anything?

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Again, except when it's not. Nor is the fact that it's MOSTLY segregated today supportive of the idea that it MUST be segregated tomorrow. 

Sports are literally an arbitrary set of rules that WE have defined. Those arbitrary rules can be changed at any time.

Why is this so confusing to so many people? It's almost like you're emotionally invested in excluding people who are different from you. 

Why don't you get it? How is having no women ranked in the top 200 be conducive to the sport of tennis at all? Did the point regarding the Williams Sister completely flew over your head?

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

My point was that there'd be no women ranked in the top 200 should the sport of tennis not be segregated. How is that in any way conducive to anything?

Why don't you get it? How is having no women ranked in the top 200 be conducive to the sport of tennis at all?

Because women want to play and people want to watch.

It's you that doesn't seem to get it, sport is a story and jeopardy is what pays the bill's; the FA cup for instance is open to every team in the country (ignore the gender), a non league (semi-professional) club will occasionally (by which I mean every year) win against a club 100's of place's above them, sometimes they do it twice (by which I mean nearly every year); the press descend and suddenly everyone is more interested in them than they are in Liverpool or Manchester united, the best pay day in Forest Green Rover's history and as a fan, I remember that year; I can't remember who won the cup though...

[J.C.MacSwell]

Fairness in the top 200...no problemo.

For mens play:

Those with no Y chromosomes play on the usual markings on their side of the court, but get to use the doubles markings on the other side if a Y chromosome individual is playing them.

Markings can be adjusted until there are as many trans men in the top 200 as cisgender men.

For womens play:

Those with any Y chromosomes must use a smaller racket.

Racket size can be adjusted until there are as many cisgender women in the top 200 as trans women.

Easy-Peasy.

Other associations may form to try to keep the balance differently, and possibly there might also be a  Non-gender league that forms where only those with no Y chromosomes play in one division and those with one in another.

Win for everyone as they can all choose what league they might wish to play in. Compensation and prize money to be determined by each association based on costs and revenues.

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Win for everyone as they can all choose what league they might wish to play in.

If everyone wins, what's the point of playing...