Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Deej said:

So you'd rather whip out your dong in a bathroom full of nothing but dudes? Noted. 

You’re supposed to say “No Diddy” after that. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
56 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Was enjoying the “could my high school team beat the Aces” discourse and I am disappointed we got away from that. 

How soon till we name 5 Surly posters who'd whip that Aces ass?

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Frankly, since hormones drive the majority of physical differences that matter to sports, if you wanted to be more fair you'd have different classes based on hormone levels. 

Ignoring that testosterone level isn’t correlated with skill, wouldn’t leagues like the WNBA inevitably become dominated by relatively low-T men? Imagine the ratings the LTNBA would pull. I don’t see how mass, frequent, testosterone testing in order to divide humans into tiers of athletes is feasible, justifiable, or economically viable. We painfully evolved to today’s systems that works for 99% of participants. I suspect the correct way to include trans athletes is MUCH closer to what we’re currently doing than what you’re proposing, but only time will tell.

Edited by B00M
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Frankly, since hormones drive the majority of physical differences that matter to sports, if you wanted to be more fair you'd have different classes based on hormone levels. I mean, fuck, look at Lebron James in high school. Was it really fair for other high schools kids to have play against him? What does fair even fucking mean in this context? Its a sport. Its a contest. Someone is going to be better than others. It is the very nature of the thing. We add more subclasses, whether it be JV and varsity teams, weight classes in wrestling, or men's a women's teams, to allow more people to participate. We can divide it up as many times as people want. But it'll never really be fair because it can't be. 

Outside of elite athletics (which is the outlier) it actually works like this. Rec/club tennis is a perfect example. You are scored on your ability and performance and then classed based on that. It actually works damn well near perfectly except when women throw matches to stay a lower rank. 2.5/3.0/3.5/4.0/4.5/5.0/open division. There are no issues. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

2) The only evidence of this is a 7 second clip where a tall player spikes the ball into Payton's face.  As far as I can find, the opposing player has never been named and this entire story is basically contained to right wing news publications and purely based on word of mouth from Payton.

Not putting a minor on blast seems like the prudent thing for media outlets to do.  There were many witnesses to the game, and if this was a conspiracy, that would be a hundred people participating in the ruse.  Regardless of the rules, she had no intention for the incident and wouldn’t deserve to be doxxed for following the rules adults decided. 

Edited by ChickenSandwich
Posted
17 minutes ago, B00M said:

Ignoring that testosterone level isn’t correlated with skill, wouldn’t leagues like the WNBA inevitably become dominated by relatively low-T men? Imagine the ratings the LTNBA would pull. I don’t see how mass, frequent, testosterone testing in order to divide humans into tiers of athletes is feasible, justifiable, or economically viable. We painfully evolved to today’s systems that works for 99% of participants. I suspect the correct way to include trans athletes is MUCH closer to what we’re currently doing than what you’re proposing, but only time will tell.

Y'all just told me that it isnt possible to have highly skilled, but not necessarily physically strong, women can compete with men. I thought skill wasn't relevant. 

But sure, we can just do @troph's suggestion and divide people by overall skill level irrespective of gender or hormones. I'm all good with that too. 

Again, I think this search for fairness is misguided because by its very nature, sports are unfair. Lebron has an unfair physical advantage against 99.99999999% of the population. What we really care about for the most part is dividing it up so more people can participate.  That's it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Not putting a minor on blast seems like the prudent thing for media outlets to do.  There were many witnesses to the game, and if this was a conspiracy, that would be a hundred people participating in the ruse.  Regardless of the rules, she had no intention for the incident and wouldn’t deserve to be doxxed for following the rules adults decided. 

I don't think anyone doubts the game happened. There is video of it. It's just that nothing about that video indicates that anything special happened. Injuries like that happen all the time. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Y'all just told me that it isnt possible to have highly skilled, but not necessarily physically strong, women can compete with men. I thought skill wasn't relevant. 

But sure, we can just do @troph's suggestion and divide people by overall skill level irrespective of gender or hormones. I'm all good with that too. 

Again, I think this search for fairness is misguided because by its very nature, sports are unfair. Lebron has an unfair physical advantage against 99.99999999% of the population. What we really care about for the most part is dividing it up so more people can participate.  That's it. 

I’m suggesting for rec sports for us non-elite athletes that it stays segregated and you have different classes based on skill and result. It makes policing bodies irrelevant. 
 

for youth sports pre-puberty until at least say 10-11 it also probably doesn’t matter and should be based on skill levels segregated by gender allowing trans kids to participate. 
 

middle school and non-varsity high school is probably fine but I can see some arguments for regulation HOWEVER if you let trans kids transition then it’s a non-issue. 

high school varsity, college and pro is where you get to the elite levels and we should have regulations for post-puberty transitioners. 
 

there is a path forward but it takes good faith on both sides and I just don’t believe that exists with enough people to make it work.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone doubts the game happened. There is video of it. It's just that nothing about that video indicates that anything special happened. Injuries like that happen all the time. 

That’s the thing it’s always the trans. Win it’s the trans, lose well you just suck, injury it’s the trans, even when it’s not. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, troph said:

HOWEVER if you let trans kids transition then it’s a non-issue

But this is what scares them the most. These stupid fucks actually think the kids are being brainwashed. And the radical right politicians are preying on their fears. 

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, B00M said:

Ignoring that testosterone level isn’t correlated with skill, wouldn’t leagues like the WNBA inevitably become dominated by relatively low-T men? Imagine the ratings the LTNBA would pull. I don’t see how mass, frequent, testosterone testing in order to divide humans into tiers of athletes is feasible, justifiable, or economically viable. We painfully evolved to today’s systems that works for 99% of participants. I suspect the correct way to include trans athletes is MUCH closer to what we’re currently doing than what you’re proposing, but only time will tell.

His is a loony proposal. 

In professional cycling there already is a ton of biological testing.

The goal was to detect anomalous measures as evidence of cheating, so they set *arbitrary* round numbers as threshold such as 50%+ hematocrit. That threshold was controversial, debated, and I think even abandoned.

The problem is of course theres no single defensible limit, and theres different measures with different distributions that also affect performance.

If you take a bunch of peoples measurements — like VO2max — and sort them into classes, it is no longer sporting. You’re not setting up a bicycle race. Youre setting up a laboratory bench racing competition to see which 90ml/kg/min bodybag processes 92 for the day. 

In bike racing there have been multiple transgender females winning female competitions. There have been zero known cases of transgender males winning males competition. The (obvious) implication is that those who are born male, in aggregate, are superior athletes than those born female. (As if we didnt already know from the billion other empirical data points).

“Why do you care, it doesnt affect you?”. Based on the above, it definitely affects female competitors.

“Why do you want to exclude marginalized people from sports you big meanie”. In professional bike racing, the mens category is officially an open category. Any person identifying as any gender is eligible to participate.

“What about people who are truly biologically dimorphic or socially nonbinary/trans in completely earnest manner and genuinely arent trying to cheat”. Compete in the open category. If your condition represents 1% of the population you should not get to supercede 50% of the population. Nothing against you in any other respect.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

I'd be fine if the only professional women sport was women's beach volleyball. Even a cougar league would be entertaining. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

His is a loony proposal. 

In professional cycling there already is a ton of biological testing.

The goal was to detect anomalous measures as evidence of cheating, so they set *arbitrary* round numbers as threshold such as 50%+ hematocrit. That threshold was controversial, debated, and I think even abandoned.

The problem is of course theres no single defensible limit, and theres different measures with different distributions that also affect performance.

If you take a bunch of peoples measurements — like VO2max — and sort them into classes, it is no longer sporting. You’re not setting up a bicycle race. Youre setting up a laboratory bench racing competition to see which 90ml/kg/min bodybag processes 92 for the day. 

In bike racing there have been multiple transgender females winning female competitions. There have been zero known cases of transgender males winning males competition. The (obvious) implication is that those who are born male, in aggregate, are superior athletes than those born female. (As if we didnt already know from the billion other empirical data points).

“Why do you care, it doesnt affect you?”. Based on the above, it definitely affects female competitors.

“Why do you want to exclude marginalized people from sports you big meanie”. In professional bike racing, the mens category is officially an open category. Any person identifying as any gender is eligible to participate.

“What about people who are truly biologically dimorphic or socially nonbinary/trans in completely earnest manner and genuinely arent trying to cheat”. Compete in the open category. If your condition represents 1% of the population you should not get to supercede 50% of the population. Nothing against you in any other respect.

It wasn't a real proposal ya loon. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

It wasn't a real proposal ya loon. 

Its not any less loony as a hypothetical. 

And if youre not discussing in earnest, is there a point in your involvement (eg to defend a stance) other than to express contempt for how undignified you find this issue. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I hear the senate race ads. It’s a political issue because Lia Thomas does happen, and it’s viewed as wokeness run amok. Leaving rule making to an utterly toothless organization like the NCAA is dangerous, and I am pretty certain in instances like Thomas (not a great number I would imagine), it’s not a vocal minority. It’s the majority, at the very least, and probably vast majority. 

Having said that, as I said, it’s not an issue I get wound up about. And absolutely there are bigger fish to fry. 

The NCAA is not toothless when it comes to this kind of rule.  The sport sanctioning bodies are the only ones that should be addressing this.  Just like all other issues of competition.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Its not any less loony as a hypothetical. 

And if youre not discussing in earnest, is there a point in your involvement (eg to defend a stance) other than to express contempt for how undignified you find this issue. 

What is the issue in your mind? 

Again, if the question is "fairness" it is a false premise. Sports aren't fair. Some people will have huge physical advantages. I'm all for having additional leagues representing different skill levels. It is great when more people can participate and contribute. I think it is a legit good. But this concern for sanctity of women's athletics is very clearly false and being used for nothing more than prosecuting a culture war. And let me be clear, I have nothing but contempt for the people pursuing it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

NCAA has been a bastion of idiocy long before the NIL era. They may not be toothless in this particular issue as it stands today, but if they don’t get it right, they’ll see how fleeting their power is. 

The NCAA has about shit to do with NIL.  Ol boy Kavanagh doesn't apparently appreciate amateurism in athletics, so NCAA was told to butt out of that kind of regulation.

I grant that they have been largely toothless in enforcing pay to play rules and the like, largely because they face sophisticated and well-financed institutions intent upon covering up their misdeeds.

All they have to do here is set out a rule. Enforcing it will not be difficult and I doubt anyone attempts to circumvent it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Not putting a minor on blast seems like the prudent thing for media outlets to do.  There were many witnesses to the game, and if this was a conspiracy, that would be a hundred people participating in the ruse.  Regardless of the rules, she had no intention for the incident and wouldn’t deserve to be doxxed for following the rules adults decided. 

Murphy is a town in western, ruby red NC with a population of 1600. It doesn’t strike you as odd that a girl on the high school volleyball team was knocked unconscious during a game by a transgender individual, suffered a brain bleed and partial paralysis… and nobody talked about it? There was no local news coverage? No angry viral Facebook posts about this transgender menace running amok in small town high school volleyball games? And why does the video stop right after the hit? Is there no footage of her lying unconscious on the ground? No footage of her body contorting into a “fencing position” (her words)? Surely that would be compelling footage for anyone supporting the cause.

I’m not saying she’s a liar. I’m saying there’s absolutely no desire to look into this stuff because it scratches that “feels true” itch that so many seem to desire with this issue.

I understand the safety concerns. Logically they make sense. But shouldn’t it say something that your only cited example of danger is a lightly sourced, 7 second video of a spike that resembles something you would likely see if you walked into any high school gym in Houston this weekend?
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Mikey4 said:

I have disappoint. When I saw this thread title, I was confident that surly could discuss this issue objectively in DT without cloaking it up. Lol.

 

if the Bloods & Crips can get along, I don't see why conservatives and liberals can't

Posted (edited)

I don’t know what the NCAA rule is specifically but it’s 12 months hormones only I’m pretty sure. That’s idiocy. Again, I’m 10 years in, and I can tell you at the 2 year mark I was fine out and about but I was still changing. EVERY body is different but I could see blood tests for hormone levels monthly for 24 months easily. I think when you get into “did it work” tests it’s gets really subjective but I know trans women who could not take to estrogen orally (their words) but injections worked like a charm. the particular woman I’m talking about didn’t figure it out for a near decade now she’s fine. I don’t know if surgery should be required but I could see at least 18-24 months with no biological testosterone factories - noting that you can get to normal female ranges of estrogen and testosterone without an orchiectomy or other surgeries. If we simply added these to the rules, the very few that are outliers will be cut by a noticeable amount. Leaving it even rarer than it is now that a Lia Thomas does what she did. And make no mistake she followed NCAA rules and fucking swam for the men and a year later swam for the women with almost no real transition. That was lunacy. 

I can also get behind blood tests for oxygen capacity and muscle mass but when you go there you end up policing all women and their bodies which is already too much. But in theory I’m ok with simple objective threshold participation tests that get to the heart of “did transition work” for this athlete. If it did go compete if it didn’t, I’m sorry. Life isn’t fair.  And I know saying that is not popular with my community but hey I’ve always thought myself to be fair and to have sound judgment and there are two sides here that have legitimacy and matter.

conversely the idea that a trans woman is a man or is de facto at an advantage athletically is just inaccurate. Case by case basis and for those who navigate and are fortunate enough to have a “successful” transition on these matters, they are just not the boogeyman people make us out to be.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Again, if the question is "fairness" it is a false premise. Sports aren't fair. Some people will have huge physical advantages. I'm all for having additional leagues representing different skill levels. It is great when more people can participate and contribute.

Sports is segregated for fairness to the extent that is reasonable. There is no binary division in the human population more obvious than something split ~50/50*, with observable anatomical differences, with biological functional differences, so natural that it establishes societal/behavioral differences. 

And empirically along that division for every athletic outcome ever recorded in time there is the same ranked order in performance. 

That is why males/female sports segregation exist. And within it, we let the competitors self-sort for who has more physical advantages. 

That’s the first-order segregation that should not be controversial. If your fundamental premise is well different individuals are physically advantaged over others anyway….be clear: are you suggesting to eliminate gender in sports altogether? 

If so, theres no point to continue to the real point: addressing how to fairly and respectfully treating the 1%*

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No. I'm not. I've already said that opinions on it varied. But I've also pointed out that vocal element pushing the issue now aren't doing it out of concern for fairness in women's sports

Whatever the motivation, surveys of US citizens on this subject reflect a growing number of folks who support banning trans athletes in women’s sports.

In 2021, 28% favored a ban.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-poll-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-anti-transgender-laws

In 2022, 58% favored a ban.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate-sports-participation.aspx

Last year, 69% favored a ban.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

 

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:


Murphy is a town in western, ruby red NC with a population of 1600. It doesn’t strike you as odd that a girl on the high school volleyball team was knocked unconscious during a game by a transgender individual, suffered a brain bleed and partial paralysis… and nobody talked about it? There was no local news coverage? No angry viral Facebook posts about this transgender menace running amok in small town high school volleyball games? And why does the video stop right after the hit? Is there no footage of her lying unconscious on the ground? No footage of her body contorting into a “fencing position” (her words)? Surely that would be compelling footage for anyone supporting the cause.

I’m not saying she’s a liar. I’m saying there’s absolutely no desire to look into this stuff because it scratches that “feels true” itch that so many seem to desire with this issue.

I understand the safety concerns. Logically they make sense. But shouldn’t it say something that your only cited example of danger is a lightly sourced, 7 second video of a spike that resembles something you would likely see if you walked into any high school gym in Houston this weekend?

CBS Austin ran the same story. There is nothing out there contradicting the account of the incident. 
 

https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/volleyball-player-injured-after-transgender-opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

Posted
CBS Austin ran the same story. There is nothing out there contradicting the account of the incident. 
 
https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/volleyball-player-injured-after-transgender-opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

They ran the same story everyone else did: a retroactive account strictly from Payton’s point of view. Maybe I’m jaded, but I, personally, find it hard to believe that in the year 2022, a transgender high school student could go around partially paralyzing blonde high school athletes in a county that Trump won by 40 points and there be absolutely zero public discussion for over 7 months.

Edited to add: my response is veering towards attacking the victim, which is not my intent at all. I’m merely attempting to point out how there’s a lot about this story that seems like it warrants further investigation, yet instead it is being used as yet another irrefutable data point to inflame the culture war.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Why don't all the teams playing Wyoming say they have a trans person on their team. Pick up the easy win and move on.....

 

Edited by Jameslaw121
  • Haha 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:


Murphy is a town in western, ruby red NC with a population of 1600. It doesn’t strike you as odd that a girl on the high school volleyball team was knocked unconscious during a game by a transgender individual, suffered a brain bleed and partial paralysis… and nobody talked about it? There was no local news coverage? No angry viral Facebook posts about this transgender menace running amok in small town high school volleyball games? And why does the video stop right after the hit? Is there no footage of her lying unconscious on the ground? No footage of her body contorting into a “fencing position” (her words)? Surely that would be compelling footage for anyone supporting the cause.
 

I don’t know shit about that particular case, but I know that a spiked volleyball can cause whiplash and brain injury without any obvious immediate symptoms. The brain interprets sensor data (think eyes, ears) and can essentially forget how to do it due to even mild injury. You then get stuck in a negative feedback/migraine loop that only prescription medication and gradual eye/vestibular PT can break and cure, respectively. My wife spent 6 months suffering ignorant (but specialized) doctors before we found a young neurologist who just happened to know a PT that specialized in this… all due to a spiked (then deflected) volleyball. Women are more susceptible to this sort of brain injury than men. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Deej said:

So you'd rather whip out your dong in a bathroom full of nothing but dudes? Noted. 

You’ve never pissed in the trough?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Jameslaw121 said:

Why don't all the teams playing Wyoming say they have a trans person on their team. Pick up the easy win and move on.....

 

Why doesn't Title IX apply to transgender athletes?

Posted
21 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

CBS Austin ran the same story. There is nothing out there contradicting the account of the incident. 
 

https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/volleyball-player-injured-after-transgender-opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

 

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:


They ran the same story everyone else did: a retroactive account strictly from Payton’s point of view. Maybe I’m jaded, but I, personally, find it hard to believe that in the year 2022, a transgender high school student could go around partially paralyzing blonde high school athletes in a county that Trump won by 40 points and there be absolutely zero public discussion for over 7 months.

They ran the same story because both are Sinclair owned stations. This was not an independent call. It is part of Sinclair's right wing propaganda to continue this culture war and persecute transgendered individuals. It isn't a new source. It is the exact same source with the exact same story. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 5
Posted

Despite effort to taint the concept of “segregation” with racial-discrimination, we still know its a good thing in sports. 

We segregate for convenience, and to award winners. We segregate by affiliation, geography, age, etc. 

We segregate to determine the fastest runner in a company, in a club, in a school, in a district, in a league, in a state, in a country, under-13, over-55, etc.

In any decent-sized grouping of the above, theres would not be a female winner. In a global competition, eg Olympics, there will never be a single event with a female winner. Not in running, swimming, jumping, lifting, throwing, skating, skiing, surfing, anything.

Gender segregation gives access for (born) biological women to win.

And yet theres been transwomen winners at high level competition in different sports.

I think it’s reasonable to view that as unfair to the biological women. And it’s a tenable position from logic, not from bigotry or cultural zealotry. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
CBS Austin ran the same story. There is nothing out there contradicting the account of the incident. 
 
https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/volleyball-player-injured-after-transgender-opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

Wait…you mean a Sinclair station ran a piece produced to tell a packaged story by folks fully on board with an openly stated right wing agenda? I’m shocked.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, B00M said:

I don’t know shit about that particular case, but I know that a spiked volleyball can cause whiplash and brain injury without any obvious immediate symptoms. The brain interprets sensor data (think eyes, ears) and can essentially forget how to do it due to even mild injury. You then get stuck in a negative feedback/migraine loop that only prescription medication and gradual eye/vestibular PT can break and cure, respectively. My wife spent 6 months suffering ignorant (but specialized) doctors before we found a young neurologist who just happened to know a PT that specialized in this… all due to a spiked (then deflected) volleyball. Women are more susceptible to this sort of brain injury than men. 

(This post wasn't supposed to be quoting here, but I can't delete it on Mobile)

40 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Sports is segregated for fairness to the extent that is reasonable. There is no binary division in the human population more obvious than something split ~50/50*, with observable anatomical differences, with biological functional differences, so natural that it establishes societal/behavioral differences. 

And empirically along that division for every athletic outcome ever recorded in time there is the same ranked order in performance. 

That is why males/female sports segregation exist. And within it, we let the competitors self-sort for who has more physical advantages. 

That’s the first-order segregation that should not be controversial. If your fundamental premise is well different individuals are physically advantaged over others anyway….be clear: are you suggesting to eliminate gender in sports altogether? 

If so, theres no point to continue to the real point: addressing how to fairly and respectfully treating the 1%*

I'm suggesting it is all arbitrary. Fairness isn't the issue. Allowing more people to participate is. There is recent historic precedent for women's sports being one such divider, but it is hardly the only divider we have used historically. I don't even think it is necessarily a bad divider. But I do think legislating that divider via force of government and trying to do so uniformly for all sports is a not only a misuse of government resources, but also fucking idiotic. More critically, I don't think those pushing this issue now give a god damn about women's sports but instead are doing it solely to punish a class individuals they have decided to hate. It is bigotry that drives the narrative now just like sexism drove many of the dividers are society erected between men and women and how racism drove similar dividers between blacks and whites. I'm not going to pretend that bigots are doing anything but being bigots. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
2 hours ago, troph said:

That’s the thing it’s always the trans. Win it’s the trans, lose well you just suck, injury it’s the trans, even when it’s not. 

You should already be used to that. Win a case- the client had a great case. Lose a case- the client had a shitty lawyer. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kennythetiger said:

You should already be used to that. Win a case- the client had a great case. Lose a case- the client had a shitty lawyer. 

Except I don’t ever lose as a lawyer.  😉 

Edited by troph
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Despite effort to taint the concept of “segregation” with racial-discrimination, we still know its a good thing in sports. 

We segregate for convenience, and to award winners. We segregate by affiliation, geography, age, etc. 

We segregate to determine the fastest runner in a company, in a club, in a school, in a district, in a league, in a state, in a country, under-13, over-55, etc.

In any decent-sized grouping of the above, theres would not be a female winner. In a global competition, eg Olympics, there will never be a single event with a female winner. Not in running, swimming, jumping, lifting, throwing, skating, skiing, surfing, anything.

Gender segregation gives access for (born) biological women to win.

And yet theres been transwomen winners at high level competition in different sports.

I think it’s reasonable to view that as unfair to the biological women. And it’s a tenable position from logic, not from bigotry or cultural zealotry. 

 

I feel like it's become a litmus test issue for which tribe we belong in, whether we want it to or not. 

I feel like I'm inherently accused of being transphobic if I don't believe transgender women should be competing in women's sports. I guess if that's part of the definition, then I am. 

I like your point about men being the open competition. If a woman is able to compete equally with men then by all means, she should be able to do so. I don't think the problem is as much about whether she's permitted to. It's about she's not able to compete athletically with the men, so there's a separate category created for women so there can be a more competitive footing among their peers.

In theory the idea of a more nuanced categorization that isn't completely binary can have some appeal, but in practice it becomes too subjective and people get into arguments about what subjective measurement is the ideal. It's simpler to say if you're born a woman you can compete against other women. If you're not, then you're not. Absolutely there are plenty of transgender women who will not dominate their biological counterparts in athletic endeavors, but all it takes is one, unfortunately, for the whole thing to feel unfair for people who were women at birth. 

To me it feels unfair for transgender women not to be able to participate in sports when that's such an important part of our existence. But it's also unfair in my opinion for women to compete against transgender women, when the whole purpose of having women's sports in the first place was to give them an exclusivity because of the acknowledgement that it would not be a fair competition to introduce men into the equation. It's my belief if you break the seal and say it's okay for transgender women to compete under certain circumstances it can be difficult to actually argue that arbitrary line, whereas if you make the line whether someone is born as a woman or not, the line seems as clear cut as it's going to get. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

(This post wasn't supposed to be quoting here, but I can't delete it on Mobile)

I'm suggesting it is all arbitrary. Fairness isn't the issue. Allowing more people to participate is. There is recent historic precedent for women's sports being one such divider, but it is hardly the only divider we have used historically. I don't even think it is necessarily a bad divider. But I do think legislating that divider via force of government and trying to do so uniformly for all sports is a not only a misuse of government resources, but also fucking idiotic. More critically, I don't think those pushing this issue now give a god damn about women's sports but instead are doing it solely to punish a class individuals they have decided to hate. It is bigotry that drives the narrative now just like sexism drove many of the dividers are society erected between men and women and how racism drove similar dividers between blacks and whites. I'm not going to pretend that bigots are doing anything but being bigots. 

Everything can be construed as arbitrary. You can argue an Under-18 sports league is arbitrary because what's the real difference between that and 17.5y/18.5y weeks besides a round number. My argument its a convenient boundary to split human population. Most of the world establishes 18 as the legal age of majority separating adults vs minors.  Therefore its less arbitrary.

Gender is an ultra convenient boundary to split human population. Its a world recognized distinction within human population, separating them by half!  It's very much less arbitrary.

Don't tar that as sexism, like age brackets isn't ageism.  Neither age or gender grouping in sports is done out of spite.

You talk around the periphery of the issue. You're clear you don't like people who push the issue. But you're not clear about your own view of the issue itself: is gender segregation in elite competition a good thing?

You kinda admit coyly that yes, its a good thing, but simply it shouldnt be determind by government. Is that the right read?

 

Posted
16 hours ago, troph said:

I'm 49 and a late transitioner and I fit squarely within female athletics parameters, from my hormone levels and physical strength, all the way down to my red blood cell count, red blood cell size, hemoglobin concentrations which are down the middle female range (some folks claim O2 carrying capacity is a reason why trans athletes shouldn't be allowed to compete). there is a way for everyone to win here (which does require more stringent requirements on trans athletes (thank you Lia Thomas grrrr), but nah, let's make it a south park skit and a wedge issue for voters, that makes sense.

The opening responses capped by this one were strong enough to incline me not to read much further. There is something particularly cowardly about singling out such a tiny element of the citizenry for contempt and persecution. Of course, it's also about gays and lesbians without having to say it out loud. The bully goes after the smallest.

As Troph writes, there would have been a way to arbitrate this sports problem given time and proper consideration. Now, it's joke on the one hand and a dire threat to the country on the other. I cannot stop my dark and violent thoughts regarding the anti-republic party that feeds on this with unending appetite. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

I feel like I'm inherently accused of being transphobic if I don't believe transgender women should be competing in women's sports.

...

To me it feels unfair for transgender women not to be able to participate in sports when that's such an important part of our existence. But it's also unfair in my opinion for women to compete against transgender women, when the whole purpose of having women's sports in the first place was to give them an exclusivity because of the acknowledgement that it would not be a fair competition to introduce men into the equation. It's my belief if you break the seal and say it's okay for transgender women to compete under certain circumstances it can be difficult to actually argue that arbitrary line, whereas if you make the line whether someone is born as a woman or not, the line seems as clear cut as it's going to get. 

Theres an annoying policing that accompanies this topic using appeal to motive ("youre a bigot") and then to emotion ("why do you want to exclude minorities"). Its surprisingly not as much on this thread, but it toxifies the ability to discuss it elsewhere.

Transgender people can participate in sports. Theres no ban against it. And in low-stakes, casual competition -- grade school, rec leagues, amateur -- who cares everybody play where they want none of you are lebron james just have fun. In elite competition like collegiate sports, professional leagues where theres real stakes on the table (money, trophies, careers), yeah absolutely use the imperfect but clearest-cut 99.9%-fair method.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t really, because such a situation will never affect my athlete daughters, but to suggest it’s not newsworthy is definitely a take. Having a poster, without any comment, neg my opinion that 90%+ of the country agrees with, is indicative of a Cunts Run Amok board. 

Your daughters aren't athletes.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...