Happy Toast, ABC and Invisible Wizard could all do with
familiarising themselves with the concept of Chesterton’s Fence.
The idea is that unless one can understand why a fence was erected in the first place, it is folly to tear it down. This is because a fence (literal or metaphorical) is very unlikely to have been erected arbitrarily. Maybe the fence isn’t needed. Maybe it was needed once but isn’t now, maybe it’s still needed. But until the reason is understood, you don’t get to tear it down, because in not understanding why the fence is there, you can’t understand the consequences of removing it.
Read the whole thread and the people advocating for abolishing sex divisions have singularly failed to acknowledge or understand what sex divisions in sport were created for, let alone an explanation of why they’re no longer relevant.
Anyone advocating abolition of sex categories needs to be able to fully understand what purpose sex divisions fulfil
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 10:27, Reply)
I'm not advocating for the abolition of categories in sport, and I don't see any evidence on this page that people don't understand why the existing categories exist.
Do you believe that the existing system of "men" and "women" is the only possible way to categorise sporting competition?
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 13:19, Reply)
You’re advocating for the eradication of sex categorisation
And of course sex isn’t “the only possible” way to categorise sporting competition. You can do it by whatever criteria you wanted to, if you’re not bothered about having a level playing field, and if you’re not aware that male and female physiology is the most important variant in almost all aspects of sporting potential, The point, which you’ve not been able to address substantively after three days, is that your criteria has to be more useful than what we have, without undoing the positive aspects of the existence of the categories.
You are demonstrably unable to do so.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 13:23, Reply)
I explained how an alternative classification system might address the problems that exist in the current classification system (with reference to specific examples) in the discussion above.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 14:59, Reply)
You really haven’t
You’ve simply said “you could use a combination of characteristics”
You haven’t said what that combinations entails, what it looks like in practice, nor how it addresses the fundamental point - and the reason for the Chesterton’s Fence analogy - how it would be better than segregating by sex.
You’ve offered nothing practical whatsoever.
And, as with everyone else arguing this nonsensical, self evidently ludicrous and unworkable idea that isn’t even specific enough to constitute an idea, you would almost certainly not want your porn categories to be determined by the nebulous, vague categorisation you mention here…
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 15:12, Reply)
I wrote "Define categories that classify competitors based on quantifiable physical characteristics (like weight, hormone levels, VO2 max, etc)"
a couple of days ago, and you replied to that comment!
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 17:01, Reply)
Define category based on bone density/tendon strength?
With this, no trans female would qualify as a female irrespective of weight, hormone levels, VO2 max etc.
Tad difficult to do, as it is usually done with samples from a corpse.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 17:36, Reply)