Rocket launch from 747 'plane, 1:30 pm today
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgL5pMDktxA
Info, wiki.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:21, Reply)
Takeoff expected 0650.
Doesn’t say which time zone, nor give a local time, so not exactly helpful information.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 13:36,
Reply)
They've updated it to say PT, which I'm assuming should actually be PDT - meaning they'd take off in about an hour.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 13:55,
Reply)
Janis Ian - Society's Child (1965)
I'm listening to a lot of Janice Ian at the mo - a very overlooked artist - this one is special - she write and composed the song when she was 14, based on growing up white in a black neighbourhood in the segregated 60s. when I was 14 I could just about tie up my own shoe laces.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:07, Reply)
D-d-d-danger lurks behind you, there's a stranger out to find out...
What to do? Just grab on to some DUCK!
(
guffguff fuckes your gradeds balls!, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 10:30,
Reply)
This is probably older than YouTube
youtu.be/wITs43kUds8
(
Thrill_My_Chinchilla is old and unimproved, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:39,
Reply)
Evolution of a project's requirements
Pentagon wars on the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle. Brought to mind when reading of the teething troubles the UK's Ajax vehicle is encountering.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 7:57, Reply)
Hey, don't knock it just because it hasn't brought back Flash Gordon's body.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 8:52, Reply)
I thought it did, the only problem was that Flash wasn’t dead at the time
(
Thrill_My_Chinchilla is old and unimproved, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:41,
Reply)
Reviewer 1: Requirement incompatible with HSWA 1974.
Recommend testing is conducted elsewhere.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 20:33,
Reply)
*updates requirements, adds HSWA 1974 compliance*
*adds sign to gun ' point towards enemy forces ONLY ' *
* check if 'charlie says' ad creator still available for provision of HSWA compliant educational materials for squaddies *
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 0:20, Reply)
let the bodies hit the FLOOOOOAAAR
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uguXNL93fWg
(
simbosan nuck nuck nuck, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 4:18,
Reply)
The idea is better than the execution.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 12:59,
Reply)
I dunno
it gave me a good grin
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 13:25,
Reply)
They Might Be Giants - Experimental Film
That Strong Bad video reminded me of the Homestar Runner animation to my favourite band's pretty good tune.
(
Ambegris likes his tea stirred anti-clockwise, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 23:03,
Reply)
A plan comes together. Happiness starts at 7:19
(
cowcat Bituminous squeegee, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 18:32,
Reply)
The gameboy megamachine is just pure insane creativity
(
Nephinsnubbin, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 20:58,
Reply)
That was great. The guy is industrious
One of them www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpB0_YWPwD8
(
cowcat Bituminous squeegee, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 1:08,
Reply)
Completely wrong sounds for a Leslie spinning that speed...
And, having humped a few Leslie cabs on/off stage in recent years: heavy fuckers!
(
Happosai _,,,,_(O ; o)_,,,, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 22:52,
Reply)
Quentin gets a delivery
(
buffet_the_appetite_slayer ٩(●̮̃•)۶ jacked in to the ICE on, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:15,
Reply)
Yeah
They really are going for it.
(
garold you're on mute I SAID YOU'RE ON MUTE, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:43,
Reply)
Would sweet onion yoghurt work? Using shallots maybe
doh! already exists as a dip
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 10:04, Reply)
Bacon yoghurt has to be a winner.
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 15:54,
Reply)
The controversy of the Nike Vaporfly shoes
Interesting dilemma that is causing lots of distance records to be smashed.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 8:10, Reply)
Luddites.
Trying to freeze a moment in time like those amish hypocrites. Either you're a purist and run naked and barefoot, or you allow normal progress.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:34,
Reply)
Up to a point
But there's a difference between rejecting any technological advances and rejecting/delaying those that give certain individuals an advantage depending on who their sponsor is.
I think the authorities are well within their rights to ban the tech for a year or two until everyone's got their own version and no one gets a particular advantage...?
(
FridgeBadger, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:55,
Reply)
I see your point, but I enjoy a good argument ;)
The sponsor's aim is showing their product is superior so they can flog them to the masses.
Blocking that could limit investment in innovation.
The very fact this shoe is being used and breaking records will spur Adidas, Puma and what have you on to develope better technology. I don't consider it an unfair advantage when this shoe is available in the shops for anyone to buy and use. If you're tied in a sponsor contract that forces you to use inferior products limiting your potential, you've only yourself to blame.
Then you've got no leg to stand on. (sorry)
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:25,
Reply)
So a lot like F1 then.
Not that I have any interest or stake in that “sport”.
(
jonbob loves you, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:28,
Reply)
Exactly.
Strangled to death by regulations and boring as fuck for at least the last 30 years.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:32,
Reply)
Le Mans showed what was possible with a lack of restrictions on development. It was bloody brilliant between 2013 and 2016. And then the whole thing collapsed because nobody could afford the development costs.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 19:44,
Reply)
Totally agree about the luddites
Shoes have improved by leaps and bounds in the last 5 years.
Even the entry level stuff is much much better.
I am using a pair of 35€ Decathlon shoes now, that are simply better than the 150€ Mizuno´s or Asics´s I previously rocked.
I bought them as walkabout shoe, now I have ran about 900km on them.
The main improvement is the foam, before it was either had hard/controlled or soft/all over the place.
Now every brand has soft/controlled shoes.
These don't really go faster, but it has become far easier to do more miles without pain and injuries - thus allowing overall gains.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 7:21, Reply)
That’s not actually what the Amish do.
Their priority is, as I recall, family life. They assess new technology, and how and whether it enhances or detracts from family life, and incorporate it or exclude it on that basis. So they recognise the benefits of having telephones, for instance, in being able to report emergencies quickly, and talk to people far away; but also see the distractions from family life they can provide. So they have communal phone boxes, but no mobiles or phones in the home.
Sure, they move slowly compared to the outside world when it comes to technology, but they aren’t frozen in time.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 17:57, Reply)
wonder if there any use for pensioners or those who find walking uncomfortable
they're even
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:50, Reply)
I was just thinking they'd make fantastic slippers.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:28,
Reply)
the only thing that can stop a man with a gun is another man with a gun, who then gets killed by another man with a gun because he was carrying a gun
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 0:36,
Reply)
Lazy journalism
Why can't they report this properly through the medium of a mildly tedious culmative song
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 6:22,
Reply)
There's so many YouTube videos about how Batman could defeat Superman
but about how Superman could defeat Batman
(
Ambegris likes his tea stirred anti-clockwise, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:03,
Reply)
50.
Seduce Batman with his super-sexiness, then whilst Batman is giving him a nosh through that gap in his mask, super-jizz his head clean off!
(
VicJameson : fucking internet virgins since, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:44,
Reply)
Are we talking Brandon Routh or Henry Cavill?
Just trying to decide if it would be worth it if I were Batman.
(
jonbob loves you, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:30,
Reply)
The video shows Henry Cavill...
But I was imagining Brandon Routh, so probably not worth your time.
(
VicJameson : fucking internet virgins since, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:34,
Reply)
51
challenge batman to a friendly game of subbuteo then flick to kick his head off with a small plastic ball
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:38, Reply)
YouTuber “Treyten” stealing entire Lambo dealership assets in “cops and robbers” mode.
Really good fun…or so I thought.
Ronseal.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 20:32, Reply)
I like to give the benefit of the doubt
I'm LOVELY me
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:48,
Reply)
that's been out for fair number of years now, hasn't it
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 3:52,
Reply)
Don't trans athletes deserve to compete?
In the spirit of "Nothing about us without us", here's a trans woman's opinion about why the discussion of trans people in sports isn't an honest debate.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 19:09,
Reply)
Not a spokesperson, but ok:
If trans people don't play sport in their affirmed gender, where do they?
Going through transition is brutal on the body and doesn't create advantages.
Anti trans sentiment tends to come from right leaning sources as part of a wider political agenda, stirring up trans phobia to win votes, with no regard for the hurt it does to trans people.
The psychological damage of having your identity attacked leads to vastly inflated suicide and self harm rates among trans people.
Also, silly costumes and bad basketball. Jessie is a fun geeky lass.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 20:31,
Reply)
Not sure what the solution is but you can't really ignore the biological advantage
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 20:43,
Reply)
Jessie's main point
- is that trans kids need to be allowed to play as their affirmed genders so that the late transition advantages aren't a factor.
So maybe there are advantages to late transitioning adult women, but we need to look past that and bring trans kids up without the horrors and pain that the past generations went through.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 20:59,
Reply)
Just letting them play as their affirmed gender won't cancel out any advantages they get from their biology though
The only thing that might do that is hormone treatment isn't it?
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 21:54, Reply)
If
They experience puberty as boys they have higher bone density and greater muscle mass. They are usually taller.
(
An Egg ,D, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 0:37,
Reply)
and what about the advantage that the transgender get to train all month long
while the woman athlete is red sails in the sunset and it's cactus week at home
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 3:24,
Reply)
This is the point of helping teens transition before puberty makes their body more alien and disturbing to them.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 7:34,
Reply)
this is where it starts to fall down a bit
I would be reluctant to allow my child to take hormones before they'd reached an age (adulthood) where they could make rational, informed decisions for themselves. As you say, it is a brutal process that often has a deleterious effect on the body and it's not one that I would want to see my child undergo unnecessarily. I don't consider their potential future participation in affirmed gender sports to be an important enough issue to risk their health and wellbeing
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 8:58, Reply)
Quite so.
This was the crucial point - and will be again - in Bell v Tavistock. The long-term harm of things like puberty-blockers is unknown, and detransition rates are - at the lowest - non-trival. It's therefore not clear that informed consent from the child is possible. Neither is it wholly obvious that the decision could be made in the child's best interests by the parents.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:24,
Reply)
not sure you'd agree with this but
there seems to be some reluctance to acknowledge that gender dysmorphia might be a mental illness, perhaps because mental illness carries a stigma which they dont want to burden their cause with, perhaps because homosexuality was once (and still is sometimes) characterised as a mental illness by people who oppose it.
But this isnt about adults wanting to have sex with other consenting adults. This is about adults imposing potentially dangerous and irreversible medical interventions on children to make themselves feel better. That is not the same and it needs to be discussed.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:37, Reply)
Dysphoria is not something about which I know anything, so I'll tread carefully here.
Lots of people might have gender dysphoria, insofar as that they are made unhappy by gendered expectations. The solution to that, as far as I can see, is to remove the expectations - gender abolitionism - rather than anything else.
There are people who are deeply unhappy because of their (sexed) body. I have no idea what's going on there, or what the best solution would be. It may be that there's no good solution, and the best solution is simply the least-bad one. Again, no clue. But none of that would mean that one is "really" a member of the oppisite sex.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:53,
Reply)
I think the case could be made to allow trans athletes to compete as a separate category in the Paralympics for example
I'm not sure it's what they want exactly but I think it might be a more appropriate response to their condition
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:10, Reply)
beside the fact that there aren't categories at the paralympics for most mental illness, as much as I'd like to see the 800m for depressives, I think you're painting with too broad a brush
there's plenty of odd things that people do that you could classify as mental illness, but I reckon the term should be reserved for things that are harmful or debilitating and not just different. Being obsessed with wanting to fuck kids is a mental illness because it's harmful to them, while wanting to fuck fat black women isn't because it doesn't harm anyone. If it did it'd be a mental illness. Why do people want to fuck kids, black women, or think they should be a woman? Because we have messy complicated brains in a messy complicated society.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 4:53,
Reply)
The comparison to paedophila is not valid and you should withdraw it
For whatever reason, people proposing hormone treatment for kids believe they are acting in the child's best interest. Tarring them with the nonce brush is just as ridiculous and unhelpful as the accusations of misogyny below.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 6:38, Reply)
withdraw it?
what do you think this is, parliament? Besides, paedophilic disorder is a recognised mental health disorder on the DSM-5, while as far as I know, being obsessed with big black women isn't. It's a fine, rich example to illustrate my point as to why we categorise some things as mental health disorders and others not, based around harm. I don't think wanting to be a chick is a mental health disorder as you and enzyme seem to want to characterise it. Paralympics, indeed. Mine is merely crude, while its you two that are entertaining bullshit notions that we should have left behind in the 50s, like sterilising turing just for being a bender
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 9:17,
Reply)
least I'm not a cunt who thinks transpeople should compete in the paralympics
you're too earnest and slow to have meant it as a joke
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:13,
Reply)
Agree that tarring with the nonce brush is shit and unhelpful
…but I’m dubious about the “best interest” thing.
The reason for this is that there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that these two groups (im focusing on male people here for the moment):
1: male children who are gender non-conforming and claim to be girls
2: middle aged males who come out as trans later in life
are entirely different demographics - group 1, left untreated, does not grow into group 2.
There are all manner of possible reasons for group 1, not least environmental factors and the fact that if a small human boy is taught a differing definition of “girl” that allows male children to be one, and that seems to summarise his personality, then *of course* some boys will genuinely believe they’re girls, it’s just that they’re basing that identity on the idea that “girl” *is* an identity and not a neutral descriptor. Factor in the lovebombing that trans kids receive from organisations who treat “trans” as a brilliant thing to be, and the current cultural tendency to see trans kids as “special” and add in that to a small child “we can change you into the girl you are meant to be” has more relevance as a strategy to be safe from bullying than as anything about future life and it’s easy to see that there is a credible possibility that maybe these are kids being told bullshit by adults
However, older middle aged transitioners, in order to support their claims to literally be women, to literally have an intrinsic sense of gender that should overwrite sex for them, and for everyone else, *need* for there to be a group of young people they can point to as evidence that they have *always* been women.
And as the Tavistock whistleblowers are saying, there’s a LOT of trans activists who have convinced small children with homophobic parents that it’s OK, their little gay kid isn’t gay, they are just in the wrong body and since we got them early, dosing them full of hormones will be best
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 10:09, Reply)
"tarring with nonce brush"?, not you too.?
it seems to be a recurring theme when arguing with thick people that they have difficulty in comprehending that comparative analogies are often limited in scope to single qualities, rather than general associations, in this case what constitutes mental illness and what doesn't.
If I'd meant that transpeople are like paedophiles I would have said it. still, I'll know next time im dealing with people who say "duh, he said 'paedophile'. he done think they're all paedophiles". I'll leave you all to it
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:54,
Reply)
I know what you meant
And I can see the analogy that you’re making, and that you aren’t drawing a moral equivalence or anything like that. The point is though that in making a persuasive argument, it’s best to avoid giving people something to grasp to in lieu of a point, and arguing with trans activists already involves dealing with bad faith and obfuscation, so for me, if the point can be made without a paedophile analogy, so much the better.
As you point out - the opponents in this debate are people who have been convinced that chemical sterilisation of kids is a great idea, and who have somehow never realised that men are physically stronger and faster than women,. Thick people are the opponents
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 13:52, Reply)
well, if I can't use a good paedo analogy in B3ta, where else?
but I appreciate the explanation
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 16:05,
Reply)
Transitioning before puberty
Does not make ones body “less alien” and you are peddling dangerous nonsense that isn’t based on evidence if you are suggesting that pre-teens are capable of making life changing decisions that will impact on their reproductive capacity and sexual function before they are able to fully understand what that means in practice.
And if you look at what the whistleblowers at the Tavistock are saying, and demonstrating, a LOT of the kids presenting with dysphoria are young gay kids bullied endlessly for being effeminate boys or manly girls, with groups like the despicable Mermaids pathologising gender non conformity and putting them on a pathway to lifelong medical treatment when many studies show that dysphoria often desists with puberty.
Do you really think that Caitlin Jenner and Kellie Maloney were the type of kids that;d show up on Mermaids radar? late transitioners and children with dysphoria/gender non conforming kids have not been shown to be the same demographic at different stages of life
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:56, Reply)
If they're teens,
it's not before puberty, really, is it?
What you're talking about is pumping young children full of drugs, for the sake of... well, what? Note that this is not consequence-free: male and female puberty are both developmentally important.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:02,
Reply)
Kids of course can't legally consent to anything, so this has to be with the support of the family and medical professionals
And of course there are detailed guidelines on exactly how this sort of transition should be handled. It's not uncontrolled access to dangerous drugs. These hormones are available to combat baldness - far more trivial than gender identity.
wpath.org/publications/soc
Again, I'm not a spokesperson, I'm just bringing up the arguments that trans people have made for themselves.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:01,
Reply)
WPATH is hardly disinterested.
And I do think that there are big, big questions about a medical professional who is willing to make a physiological intervention to "treat" something that is fundamentally non-physiological.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:11,
Reply)
Plastic surgery for low self esteem and self worth is pretty suspect too.
Ive encountered a few people who were transitioning (on the Harry Benjamin protocol) who were between 30-60+. They weren't kids who had identity issues.
It depends on what you deem physiological or indeed psychological and where the line is drawn, if one exists. Psychiatric drugs often have nasty side effects, check out Risperidone, lithium, duloxetine, etc.
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:14,
Reply)
Family can’t reasonably consent
To deciding that a pre-teen’s assertions about something as intangible and nebulous as “gender identity” should be enough to put them on a medical pathway to irreversible changes to their body, future reproductive capacity and sexual function.
Even less so when you listen to the Tavistock whistleblowers, many of whom say that one of the biggest drivers in gender dysphoric children are parents worrying they have a gay kid and being led towards a pathological approach
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:28, Reply)
Ok, I’ll bite.
Imagine being a cisgender woman. You’ve spent much of your adolescence and adulthood training to compete against other cisgender women. You’re good at your chosen discipline, let’s say weightlifting, you win and you’re very competitive.
Then one day a trans woman comes along. She was a man for thirty four years before transitioning, and her long term naturally elevated levels of testosterone as a result of her then manhood were hugely beneficial to her physicality vis à vis competitive weightlifting. She enjoyed some success as a male weightlifter, but now she’s a woman, she’s unbeatable.
If this imaginary cisgender woman said “Hold on, this doesn’t seem very fair” it seems to me you’d say something along the lines of “This is how things are now, and if you’ve got a problem with any of this, I’ll call you a fascist.”
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 21:13,
Reply)
No, I wouldn't call her a fascist.
There's a big difference as I already said between late transitioning women and people who have managed to go through puberty in their affirmed gender.
Being a trans woman isn't a magical advantage over cis women. You've still got to be good. Transitioning is hard on the body. It takes a lot of recovery time.
Anyway, we don't need hypotheticals. Let's watch the Olympics and see how the New Zealand weigh lifter does in her rounds. From memory, she's not the best in her class, despite being trans.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 21:22,
Reply)
“Anti trans sentiment tends to come from right leaning sources as part of a wider political agenda.”
“ No, I wouldn't call her a fascist.”
Trans women are women.
Your capacity for doublethink is impressive.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 21:35,
Reply)
Calling someone fascist is a very different thing to saying
- that anti trans rhetoric tends to be from right wing folks.
I certainly don't call Boris Johnson or Rees-Mogg fascists, but they are undeniably right wing.
Besides, when I wrote the bit about right wing agenda being anti trans, I was summarising Jessie Gender's video essay as requested, not trying to state some absolute fact.
My own opinion is that we should do our best to avoid being hurtful - making crap jokes about trans sportswomen hurts real people - and leave the international sports policy to the committees. I'm happy to say I support trans sports women, but I get it that this is a nuanced thing.
But making fun of trans folk? Nah, fuck off. That's for shits.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 21:47,
Reply)
We’ve been laughing at gender bending for years.
From dramatic irony drag in Shakespeare, to Lemon and Curtis in Some Like it Hot, The Two Ronnies et al in the seventies, French and Saunders as two old gammons, Kathy Burke’s Perry, The League of Gentlemen, Lily Savage on Blankety Blank to mention a few.
It’s going to take a long time to break all those funny bones. But sticks and stones could do it.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 22:14,
Reply)
At or with?
Also there's a subtle difference between being right wing and fascist. I'm not sure if you made that argument in bad faith or if you're really that thick. I realise that's a bit rich coming from me.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 22:34,
Reply)
At, with, whatever.
Ultimately this has nothing to do with ‘right leaning’ agendas and conspiracies, as much as the trans lobby bleat that it does. It comes down to cold hard facts of science, specifically biology.
For a long time we have accepted that climate change dialogue must follow the science. More recently we have accepted that governments must follow the science in their responses to Covid. Yet in the trans debate, science can get the fuck out. Cancel all who disagree.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 22:51,
Reply)
You've missed the major point in Jessie's video -
Early transitioning for trans girls through hormone treatments avoids creating a male physique during puberty. This too is science.
The sports discussion is part of a wider issue that trans people are not being treated the way they want. This is itself part of a wider issue that conservative groups tend to deny the rights of non-cis, non-hetero people.
One doesn't need to claim there's a conspiracy when there are actual legislative processes going on to deny those rights. It's not a conspiracy, it's an open fact.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 8:01,
Reply)
You've missed the most major point of childhood development.
They are, by nature, extremely whimsical and capricious. The idea that an 8 year old can give informed consent to be given puberty blockers is crazy. These drugs irreversibly change a person for life. If they're not allowed tattoos before they're 18, why should they be allowed puberty blockers?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:40,
Reply)
Prufrock is spot on
…and I don’t often agree with him.
Add into that that regressive parents can and do enforce gender norms, and an 8 year old (or younger) being told that their interests are “not appropriate for boys” who also hears that it’s the case that some boys are really girls, might reach the understanding that a boy who likes feminine stuff is a girl.
Genuine progressive thought says this;
“a girl is a child with a female body and any personality”
the current extreme form of trans activism adopted by Mermaids and the like says
“A girl is a child with a female personality and any body”
And you can see them as being just different phrasing’s of the same thing, if not for the fact that Mermaids and trans activism in general follows it up with “oh, but the body then has to match the personality to avoid distress in later life, so hormones and a pathway to surgery it is”
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:08, Reply)
Here's one of your right-wingers
(Possibly NSFW due to text sweariness)
www.glaad.org/gap/germaine-greer
(
An Egg ,D, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:10,
Reply)
Those cunts will be burning books next.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:14,
Reply)
Avoid being hurtful?
OK then, what about crapping on the hard-earned achievements of top-level women competitors - how is that not hurtful to the women? I'm not a fan of women's efforts being wiped out by a mediocre ex-man - why don't women get to have a say in this, since they are the ones who will see their hard work erased
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 6:11, Reply)
Gavin Hubbard already bumped a woman from her spot on the NZ team
(
An Egg ,D, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 1:42,
Reply)
Being a *male* is an advantage over female people
Your argument “you still have to be good” misses the point.
The issue with trans women in female sport isn’t “trans women will win all the gold medals”, much as that’s a convenient little strawman with which to pretend that the opposition view has no merit.
The point is twofold.
Firstly - and the point most obvious but least relevant; almost every elite male athlete would immediately become the world’s best if measures against female achievement, and would still retain most of that advantage after hormone treatment. These are your “gold medal” trans women, but the most unlikely to actually happen
Secondly, and most importantly; an *average to good* male athlete if they transition, still retains the same percentage of male advantage as elite athletes do.
In practice, as with Laurel Hubbard, this results in - whatever the placing, whether second or 10th or 100th - a mediocre male athlete supplanting an exceptional female.
That’s evidence based and obvious yo everyone - I daresay that five years ago nobody here would’ve thought such a statement was controversial.
I’m amazed that so few people see the most glaring moral/ethical issue though; all sport should be about striving to be the best we can be. Where is the integrity in sport if 98% of competitors are striving to improve, be the best they can, the strongest, the fittest, the fastest, while a small group of people of the sex with an advantage are attempting to *mitigate* their advantage just enough to make it all look fair?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:46, Reply)
They play according to their sex, which is material reality and inescapable, rather than a bare feeling. Sure, transitioning doesn't create advantages - but puberty does.
None of this is anti-trans, and none of it is right-wing. There is nothing right-wing about pointing out that sex is real, immutable, and important, and that just social structures would account for that.
Neither is anybody "attacking" anyone's identity (whatever the hell that means). Everyone should be able to live their life as they see fit, constrained only by considerations of others being able to do so under fair conditions too.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:30,
Reply)
FWIW...
I do agree that the matter has been coopted and weaponised by the right, and that's regrettable and a distortion of what's really in play.
But the fact that a position can be coopted by the right does not mean that it's a right-wing position, any more than Nick Griffin's crocodile tears about halal slaughter mean that animal welfare concerns are right-wing.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:49,
Reply)
That's a bloody good point well made.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:48,
Reply)
What does playing according to "sex" mean?
Do you think male heavyweight boxers should be competing against male bantamweights, for example?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:52, Reply)
No. Of course not.
But you can have weight classifications within sex classifications.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:53,
Reply)
My point is that boxing already recognises that a single category of "male" is not sufficient to categorise competitors. Perhaps "playing according to sex" is also too simplistic for other sports, and they need to consider ways of categorising competitors in a more granular fashion.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:37, Reply)
Simply because sex isn’t sufficient
As the *only* category, does not mean that it isn’t the most important initial category. And in fact, as everyone who hasn’t lost their minds knows, it is.
I’m not meaning this to sound hyperbolic, it’s simply the truth of what you’re suggesting; if boxers were separated by weight class and not sex, what you’d have is this; lots of dead female boxers.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:42, Reply)
It's perfectly sufficient in most contexts.
In some, it's not. That's why we divide boxers by weight.
But the natural range of abilities within sex classes is dwarfed by the differences between them; and that's why competition within sex classes is (by and large) fair, and between them is (by and large) not.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:45,
Reply)
Thanks for this
I realise I need more education on the subject.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:52,
Reply)
If you're on twitter
follow @fondofbeetles and @scienceofsport.
They're both excellent.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:04,
Reply)
I don't get why they don't just create a separate trans competitive category and be done with it.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 22:17, Reply)
You'd need more than one.
At least 2 and probably more for those in different categories. Boxing would be a nightmare, it has enough different classes/belts already.
It'd also be a bit sad if you made them compete in their own class in things like motor racing.
(
An Egg ,D, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:25,
Reply)
Can we put Kenyan runners in their own separate Olympics, it's not fair on white people.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:02, Reply)
It's not the same though is it
unless you think skin whitening treatments make you run slower.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:50, Reply)
there were a lot of theories thrown about about genetic differences that make kenyans and tanzanians made great distance runners
and then some researcher did extensive metanalysis and found they were all nonsense, they had no biological advantage that could be established with any authority . they were better because they trained harder and longer than their competitors, and showed a normal response to that training in their performance
found it
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 9:31,
Reply)
none really, other than it was in interesting fact
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 23:44,
Reply)
Yes: there is a paring problem.
If you start having categories based on people's inner sense of themselves, it's not obvious why there wouldn't be precisely as many categories as there are people in the world - which would make the whole thing a bit silly.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:33,
Reply)
So you're saying I'm a winner in my own division?
\o/
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:11,
Reply)
Technically a loser also
You're the worst person in your division.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:10,
Reply)
Isn't this basically what's been done in the paralympics for decades?
Classifying based on handicap seems to work. As much as I'd like to see a blind vs. deaf boxing match, it wouldn't be fair, would it?
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:45,
Reply)
i think it must be up to the governing bodies of each sport
to make a reasonable and respectful determination whether an individual transgender woman's particular physiology gives them an advantage outside a reasonable statistical deviation from the mean.
i'm looking at you darts
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 5:32, Reply)
Thanks for sharing this
I'd been hoping to hear a transgender perspective on this for a while. Too many talking heads and hypotheticals clouding the issue.
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:09,
Reply)
Here's an actual right winger talking to an immigrant
If you get past the first 5 minutes, it will be better, if you skip them it won't.
www.altcensored.com/watch?v=8vOFy_bTuQ8
Edited to fix a typo
(
An Egg ,D, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 0:43,
Reply)
That was far more interesting than I expected, and quite insightful
Which does make me a little concerned why it's flagged on YouTube with this:
"In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences."
I can't see why this video was deserving of that. His questions were authentic, if ham-fisted, and it focused on the woman describing her life experience. I wonder what got everyone so ruffled...
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:17,
Reply)
Thanks
I watched it again before posting it, I was in 2 minds as I wasn't sure how it would go down. I assume the label is due to the number rather than quality of complaints.
(
An Egg ,D, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 19:21,
Reply)
if only transpeople could get the understanding and acceptance in sport that they get in the porn industry
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 3:21,
Reply)
I see that they want to compete
but it is massively unfair on the women who've toiled to get where they are to see a mediocre ex man come along and blow away all their hard-earned achievements. It's just not fair on the women. How many ex women do we see competing in men's sports? Do they do well? It's just not fair.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 5:38, Reply)
Why don't they create trans divisions then?
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 7:11,
Reply)
because we're all supposed to pretend they're women, it's about inclusion, which means you including whatever new orthodoxy it is somebody else wants or you're a prick
They are women, despite not growing up as women, not having all the defining experiences that girls have because they're girls, not having periods, not being treated as female by their teachers, their classmate, parents and friends, not knowing what it's like to have have a vagina and frig yourself under the covers, to have female hormones mediating their behaviour, all the common biological, social, and cultural factors and experiences that make up them being a women, we just have to ignore all this and treat them as women and not some bloke acting out some idea of what he imagines women are because anything else is insensitive and wrong. If I black up my face and dress as bob marley, it's vile racist cultural appropriation, but if put on a dress and lipstick you must respect my chosen gender identity because that's the way we show to our peers how nice and woke and accepting we are, and if you don't we'll vilify you as a cunt on social media
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:29,
Reply)
^ absolutely spot on.
People will find it offensive but be absolutely and completely unable to say why.
For some reason, those opposed to males in female sport have been forced down a cul-de-sac of explaining the blindingly obvious. But here’s the thing.
If you think “women” are an idea that male people can have and claim to literally be, and you think that women’s existence *as* female people, with their own needs, experiences, politics is somehow an abhorrent idea, then it doesn’t matter that you formed your view based on what the progressive left says -you are an active sexist.
Trans activism is the only civil rights movement that demands recognition and acceptance not as what they are - trans people - but as something they aren’t; members of the opposite sex. The mental gymnastics to pretend that laying claim to the opposite sex *isnt* what’s happening is laid bare in the issue of male people in female sport, and a lot of people on this thread who, based on their usual posting, aren’t stupid, need to have a word with themselves.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:42, Reply)
let em compete, that's what I say
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:48,
Reply)
I don't care that much about it. Ive known a fair few trannies over the years, though oddly more in melbourne and brasil than in my years in london. maybe different scenes?
I'm happy to call them women and use female pronouns as it seems polite and is no skin off my nose, but it's with the understanding that the label is kind of a shared fantasy. they are what they are, as we all are, and I take them on their merits. It doesn't make them better or worse. But sport is different, and I reckon it shouldn't need to change itself and deny women a shot at gold in order to extend that fantasy just because they would like to join in as women. It's like the door-hating pistorius, people tolerated him bouncing around on pogo legs as long as he didn't win gold. if this kiwi trannie wins, it'll be the first and last I reckon
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:32,
Reply)
You make an interesting point about blacking up.
Rachel Dolezal was exposed as a fraud and her career, rightly, destroyed. There have been a few other white US academics exposed as race fantasists. Trans raciality, it seems, is forbidden. Trans sexuality though is being enshrined in law.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 0:52,
Reply)
Just to repeat Jessie's points, cause it's a long vid:
Puberty blocking treatments prevent any development of advantage in trans girls.
Transition has a hard toll on the body, and its impact of any supposed advantage shouldn't be ignored.
And for those who want it, there's a whole video on why having a trans league is a bad idea.
youtu.be/LCxJLhU6Ags
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 7:28,
Reply)
I've never quite understood why there are such binary male and female options in sports
Surely a weight/strength category like in boxing would make more sense?
Why doesn't the argument that trans people can't compete because they might have a physical advantage not apply to other physical variations? Should kids who inherited certain height/muscle advantages from their parents be allowed to compete against kids who had weedy parents and can never attain that form?
What about financial advantages? Should sports people who've had access to all the equipment, dieticians and supplements be allowed in competitions when other athletes haven't?
And what about when the perceived trans issue works the other way, why shouldn't a female to male athlete compete in a male sport if they put the training in to reach that perceived level?
This is also ignoring the fact that a large part of being a good sports person is based on learned technique/guile which has no relation to gender.
Seems to me that it's just anti-trans and maybe a bit of misogyny hiding behind a pretence of fairness.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 7:35,
Reply)
Because variations in weight and strength occur *within* sexes.
Nobody (save a few loonies in Slackjaw, Alabama) is saying that trans people can't compete. The claim is that sports are segregated by sex, and that that is immutable.
Of course, within each sex-class, there is variation. But the difference between sex-classes is *staggering*. There are thousands of men who would beat the world's fastest woman in a sprint; and the same pattern is repeated elsewhere. In other words, even if you segregate by weight, you'd still have abolished female sport.
No amount of learned technique can make the difference to that.
Sure, there're some sports where sex doesn't make a difference. High-diving doesn't seem to me to favour one sex over the other, for example. So maybe if we were to go through every sport case-by-case, you could make a few unisex.
That's not anti-trans, and it's baffling how keeping male people from competing in female sport categories is misogynistic. By parity of reasoning, if there were a sport in which being female lent a natural advantage - there is some suggestion that some ultra-endurance events might fit in here, but it's not certain by any means - then there would be cause to maintain sex-segregation in order to maintain fairness to male competitors.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:20,
Reply)
Weight categories
Would not counter the advantage male people still have over female people. That’s why.
The integrity of female sport is dependent upon recognising that female sport isn’t created because female people “aren’t as good as men”, but recognising that female physiology has differing ranges of abilities.
Get the tallest men and the tallest women together - the men will be significantly stronger,
Sort boxers by just weight rather than weight *and* sex? Guess which sex has 130% more strength in their punching.
Runners? 10,000 male college age runners ran 100m faster than the existing female world record last year.
Happy Toast, do you not recognise that a man suggesting we abandon sex segregation in sport due to the fact that the sex with superior strength and speed want to be in that category too, is perhaps not being very considerate to women?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:26, Reply)
"not being very considerate to women" sounds very patronising there :D
I'm not saying we do anything, I'm simply saying I've never understood how sport is called fair or unfair when there are thousands of "whataboutisms" at play.
I'm not sure there's a problem for men to always be winning the "LEVEL C" category of weightlifting if they can, but if it means that men and women are competing together in the "LEVEL F" one that's a good thing isn't it?
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:57,
Reply)
No.
Once again - women are NOT “less strong men”. Their physiology is different, and so the world’s best female weightlifter needs to be recognised as the worlds best weightlifter according to sex.and that same recognition applies right down the line to the worlds millionth best female weightlifter.
Honestly astounded you can type “men will win at level C, what’s wrong with women being a few divisions lower with the crap men” with a straight face. Presumably the US women’s football team would be better placed in the Evostik Premier League where they’ll battle bravely against relegation?
Pound for pound men will still lift more than women. and you’re still relegating women’s achievements by not recognising that when strength is measures relative to men, women will come up short, but when women’s physiology is recognised and celebrated in its own merits, we can celebrate and award female excellence by measuring against other females, rather than against average men.
It’s fanscinating how quickly “include trans athletes” can morph in some men’s minds into “let’s not have female categories anyway”. My intention was to patronise because I find it sexist as fuck, and it amazes me that ostensibly progressive people will discuss female sport as irrelevant, or pretend they don’t know what female means on B3ta or in the olympics when they definitely know what it means on Pornhub
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:10, Reply)
But by winning whichever class they win they would still be the strongest female if you want to think of it that way
You're seeing the class as "lower with the crap men" whereas I'm seeing it like welterweight compared to heavyweight.
Or do you think welterweight boxers are shit heavyweight ones?
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:20,
Reply)
If the worlds best female
Is not recognised as the worlds best by any official metric, what impact do you think that has on sponsorship, prize money, medals etc?
If you don’t see a problem with “it just happens that men are better, but well done world’s 750,000,000th fastest person, we’ve noticed that you’ve done alright for a lady” isn’t a batshit crazy stance to take, I dunno what to tell you.
Except that it has taken precisely one male wanting in on female sport for you to say “meh, do we even need female sport”. And that is grossly sexist.
Again, I wonder how many straight men here happily suggesting it’d be ok for women to scroll through 38 pages of stats before finding a woman would go back to a porn site where they encountered the same issue...
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:30, Reply)
^That^
Serena Williams is a magnificent tennis player. She'd still get trounced by hundreds, if not thousands, of men. That's not because she's crap. It's because she's female, and - wouldn't you know it? - female bodies are different from male bodies, and this matters in sport.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:40,
Reply)
you're ignoring the welterweigh/heavyweight issue completely
By your argument you're saying no one cares about Manny Pacquaio because he's not Tyson Fury.
It's not sexist to question whether people should or could be judged on physical ability and if a new class system could be incorporated in sports.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:44,
Reply)
No I’m not.
Take sex segregation out of welterweight boxing and separate it only by weight, and you’d have zero female welterweight boxers at elite level, and plenty of dead women who tried to get there.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:49, Reply)
oh ffs it wouldn't be the same welterweight, I'm just using that as a comparison
Your argument is people only care about the fastest person so women would always be 750,000,000th.
I'm saying that's not true because people care about multiple classes of boxing, some holding welterweight champs higher than heavyweight.
The same therefore could apply to a wide spectrum of classes in all sports getting equal big screen bouts/races based solely on sporting ability not gender.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:00,
Reply)
What would it be then?
If it’s not the same welterweight, what form would these mixed sex boxing matches look like? How would they ensure
1: that the sport was actually inclusive of women
2: that women weren’t disproportionately at risk of serious physical harm
3: that women’s achievements are recognised
4: that sex differences didn’t lead to men winning everything?
This is the problem with people with casual drive by opinions. You haven’t engaged with this stuff.
Here’s what you should consider - your frustrated “of COURSE that’s not what I mean” suggests that outside of a thought experiment, you know you’re talking utter bollocks that’s harmful to women. So you need to either say exactly what a given sport - let’s stick to boxing for now, or maybe football or sprinting - whichever you’d prefer - would look like in practice - How does your sex neutral sport still rewardfemale excellence? - or acknowledge that the sex division serves (and always will serve) a very useful purpose in that it - blindingly obviously - allows recognition of female sporting excellence
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:01, Reply)
Funnily enough I'm not a world class sports physician/judge and this isn't a forum for making that kind of call
so you're really wasting your time hoping someone musing something on b3ta will come up with the specifics here.
You're fixating on rewarding female excellence when what we're considering is rewarding excellence full stop.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:12,
Reply)
“Excellence full stop”
...when using a mixed sex class = male excellence, because mixing the sexes at the Olympics would result in no female Olympians. Mixing sexes in football would mean zero professional footballers,. Mixing sexes in sprinting would = zero female world record holders. Boxing - no female title holders.
You haven’t even been able to lay out a laypersons vague idea of how this works work in practice, and you’ve done so while admitting not being an expert. Hard to conclude that what you’ve done is seen that a male wants into female sport and been so enthusiastic about it that you, who isn’t an athlete, are happy to write off female sport at a stroke.
And that, my friend, is sexism; it’s sexism that emerges from the left, so it’s sexism that you’ll find your left wing mates approve of. But it’s sexism all the same, and it stinks; you initially said you don’t understand why sport is segregated by a sex binary; that would suggest you had a much more sensible plan in mind. You’ve been unable to demonstrate even the most basic idea of how it would actually work in practice, how to ensure integrity and safety. Maybe just put this one down to “hmmm, I didn’t think it through” because that’s a better option than sticking to your guns here. You’ve heard that it’s the right, good thing to think. It ain’t.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:26, Reply)
I don't understand what you're saying in that first bit at all
Why would I need to lay out how this would work in detail. This is b3ta, we're just chewing the fat not actually solving world problems.
You're completely misjudging me with the sexism thing, I'm not saying get rid of women's sports, I'm talking about trying a new separate system based not on gender but on ability. You could keep having male and female divided competition, there's not a finite amount of competitions you can have.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:00,
Reply)
aspects of your system seems quite contradictory so I can see why he/she might want more detail
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:22, Reply)
what system? And why would I have more detail?
Hold on, is this b3ta? I haven't accidentally been posting on the World governing body for sports scientists have I?
I simply said "I've never quite understood why there are such binary male and female options in sports" when humans come in all shapes and sizes of varying ability and with so many external factors on top of that. Some sports have weight/ability classes to separate people, can that not be expanded on to solve this issue? I didn't expect some kind of sexism accusing Spanish inquisition
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:29,
Reply)
If you’ve never quite understood why there is a male female distinction in sports
That strongly implies that a more sensible model is something that springs to mind easily.
You’ve made vague suggestions and had potential issues identified, so I’ve asked you for a specific, back of the envelope summary of what your alternative looks like.
If there’s no obvious alternative, then that’s your lay person’s, chewing the fat answer as to why the male/female distinction exists.
The nature of this board doesn’t preclude me from articulating why male and female distinctions are essential, so I don’t see why it should preclude you from informally laying out why you think I’m wrong.
Your initial point about weight/height doesn’t work, because pound for pound men still have advantage; “same weight” isn’t “same physiology”
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:35, Reply)
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong
I'm just pondering on whether it might be good or not to try a more scientific approach to sports based on ability which might solve the issue in the original post, especially when so many sports seem biased on physical attributes. I don't think I need to spend any time investigating the complex nuances and writing up details, even on the back of an envelope. Because this is b3ta, it's just chit chat.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:46,
Reply)
When we base on “ability”
without controlling for the differing physiology of the sexes, “highest achievers” = “male athletes”
Most competitive sports were already designed to recognise attributes society valued in male people.
You’re simultaneously arguing for a more scientific approach while also saying that as it’s chit chat, being asked to scrutinise the implications of your arguments just isn’t cricket.
Here’s an example
Base football on “ability” not sex, and there are zero young girls who watch England vs Germany this evening who will be able to do so while thinking “if I train hard, I can represent my country at international level at football”, because no female footballers will be as good even as the top 1% of male footballers, let alone the even tinier number who represent their countries.
Same applies for sprinting, boxing, weightlifting, tennis, swimming and countless other elite sports.
Simply put, the answer to “why separate sports by sex” is “because if we don’t, there’s no female elite sport”
It seems you don’t really have a counterpoint to this - even your own example of boxing was immediately shown to be wrong, and while you said that’s not what you meant, it’s not clear what you did mean.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:04, Reply)
I'm not arguing anything, I'm wondering if there's a better, more inclusive and still fair way of doing it
I'm sure it's been tried, tested and rejected by many minds greater and more focused than mine, but there's also a huge chance that we're stuck in the current system because it profits some people and why bother rocking the boat.
So apologies for half arsed considering it, but that's all I was doing.
Also, you have mixed competition in snooker, equestrian and stuff, so who knows, maybe they'll find a way in other elite sports.
I'm off now, peace and love as Ringo would say.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:41,
Reply)
Those last sports you mention
are not based on strength, build or stamina where males have an obvious advantage, so I'm not sure your point holds up there
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:50, Reply)
^this
there is a lot of fuzzy logic being thrown around by some in this thread
(
Mex3 =mememe, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:51,
Reply)
Snooker and equestrian sports
Are an example of sports where segregation of sex would be sexism rather than recognition of sex differences.
The fact that we have some sports that aren’t segregated by sex suggests that the question of fairness has been addressed, and resulted in a situation where sports are, funnily enough, segregated by sex where it’s legitimate and fair to do so, and not where it isn’t.
If you’re able to give just *one* example of an elite female athlete whose prowess and recognition is limited by not being allowed to show that she’d outperform elite males in direct competition, I’ll concede that something needs looking at.
As it stands, all you’re saying is “because trans people, maybe “male and female” are outdated terms”
That is frankly nonsense, and it’s dangerous nonsense because if a reasonable, unbiased person read this thread, they’d see that your instinctive desire to support trans rights has resulted in egregious casual sexism
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:58, Reply)
we have womens sports for the same reason we have the paralympics
most of the time this goes unexamined and unspoken, but occasionally some prick like bobby riggs or McEnroe decides to make a point about it. It's a little ironic that in their desire for inclusion as women in sport, male to female trans athletes are once again bringing back into focus this inconvenient truth, and I think will get confronted by disgruntled female athletes that gender identity choice and gender are not the same thing if the big kiwi trans weightlifter wins gold in tokyo. there's already ructions. I'm not that fussed myself, it's only women's sport, but I can't see how you can please all parties. It's one of those life of brian foetus gestating in a bucket things
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:58,
Reply)
Sceptical that there's some third way that will please everyone here.
Not least because this isn't something I've heard many trans people say that they want themselves. If you define yourself as the opposite to the binary gender you have been born with then your world is still just as binary.
But also 5 or six weight divisions for stuff like football just isnt going to work is it? No-one will want to watch all that
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:30, Reply)
Not everyone has to be pleased
What has to happen is fairness. And in this instance, all the evidence says that the fair thing to do is, quite obviously, telling the group of male people who think that male people whose sense of identity means they should be categorised as female for sporting purposes; “No”
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:37, Reply)
I think the existing categories of "male" and "female" used in sport were adopted when we had a much less sophisticated understanding of gender and sexual biology, and the current debate just highlights that they are probably no longer fit for purpose.
If you extend the discussion about eligibility for trans athletes to include the eligibility of inter-sex athletes, like Castor Semenya, you end up with a huge range of human biology and sexual identity, and the simplistic historic categories of male and female just don't seem appropriate any more.
There are already precedents for categorising sport in a more granular way; no one would seriously suggest that athletes in boxing or martial arts should compete in a single "male" or "female" category, and triathlon has a well established age group structure with multiple categories. It's not unreasonable to suggest that many sports could be restructured to group competitors into multiple bands of similar athletic ability.
The really difficult question is how to define new categories for each sport. I don't know the answer to that (and there are obvious logistical issues with multi category sport) but perhaps it would be more useful to investigate this question, instead of persisting with arguments about eligibility for the existing male/female classifications that often seem to be bad natured and unproductive?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:49, Reply)
yes, I'm sure some bloke telling women that women's sport is no longer fit for purpose and will be replaced with some as yet to be decided categories will go down well to those that have dedicated their lives pursuing careers in it.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:14,
Reply)
See the thing is I hadn't been looking at womens sport as "fit for purpose"
I didn't realise it was there to keep them happy and winning medals that apparently you lot think they couldn't win normally
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:41,
Reply)
It’s not “I think they couldn’t win”
Recognising the difference between male and female physiology isn’t denigrating them. It’s been demonstrated to you with statistics that female people and male people are not on a level playing field if competing against each other.
The sexist thing is a mindset that implies that women might be faster than Bolt if only they tried a bit harder.
It isn’t sexist to recognise that the fastest female runner should be valued as an exceptional woman, and that that’s equally as meaningful as being the fastest man, even if the fastest man is faster.
Yet again, your problem is your unthinking assumption that “normally” = “competing with men”.
Differing physiology means that if “normal” was “unisex sport”, male people would be the ONLY people in most elite sports.
Your issue is in thinking that the statement “women are not as strong/fast as men” is a value judgement rather than a neutral statement based on observation of peak performances of both sexes plotted on a bell curve.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 23:13, Reply)
A prime example of this is American Football
It is open to both sexes, yet there are no top female players. There is a reason for that.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 16:58, Reply)
you were the one who liked his comment, HT
men and women ain't the same. deal with it. As to why women compete in their own comp, it's the same reason why children don't compete with adults.
why do we value and laud Serena Williams much more than 49th ranked man Bublik Alexander, despite him having an awesome name? He could thrash her in straight sets. It's mainly because she's the best in the handicap category of women, though it could also be that people like watching the gendered differences that women bring to sport, though this argument wouldn't work if you don't acknowledge they exist in some nice but misguided effort to be inclusive and non-sexist
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 23:51,
Reply)
I guarantee that you don’t have a more refined understanding of biology
There are two sexes. There are variations within those sexes.
Those variations can manifest physically as differing specialisations. Sport measures and rewards those specialisations.
If we didn’t segregate by sex, well done, female sport doesn’t exist and no female person achieves sporting excellence. I don’t think you understand quite how much advantage male people have over female people in sport.
Appropriating a complex case like Caster to justify inclusion on the basis of asserted identity is absolutely not logically justifiable. Peoplewith intersex conditions are a different group from people who have a gender identity they day categorises them as the opposite sex.]
You can see quite how different the groups are by the way that Laurel Hubbard has been accommodated while Caster has been put through hell.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:00, Reply)
"Appropriating a complex case like Caster to justify inclusion on the basis of asserted identity is absolutely not logically justifiable."
It's a good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:02, Reply)
Dunno, mate.
It was you who introduced her to the debate.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:17,
Reply)
“If you extend the debate about trans eligibility to include intersex athletes”
Please explain how that isn’t using an intersex athlete in order to make a point about inclusion of intersex athletes in lieu of an argument for inclusion of unambiguously male people on the grounds on identity?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:48, Reply)
Sure. I'm including the example of intersex athletes to demonstrate how the existing categories of male and female (as currently defined in sport) don't appear to work very well for people that don't fit neatly into those existing definitions. Many trans athletes encounter the same problem.
I am not trying to "justify inclusion on the basis of asserted identity". I'm biologically male. If I self declare as a woman, but have no hormone treatment or other procedures, some women athletes might object to me competing in the existing category of "women". If you discard the existing sporting categorisation of male and female, and classify me according to some other combination of objective measurement (weight, hormone levels, body composition, V02 max, etc, etc) then my identity becomes irrelevant. I only qualify to compete in a class of athletes with similar characteristics.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:43, Reply)
Laurel Hubbard *does* fit neatly into existing definitions of male and female;
Laurel Hubbard is an adult human male.
I’m not sure why ŷour post mentions your “identity” becoming irrelevant.
Sex still remains the most relevant factor, even if you pretend that sex isn’t a thing that exists or matters.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 14:11, Reply)
...
Intersex has nothing to do with trans. Intersex people are not a third, fourth, or fifth sex. They are male or female; intersex conditions are sex-specific.
One more time: there are two sexes in humans. Sex is determined by the activity of the SRY gene, which either is or is not activated. That's it. That's your lot. There is nothing simplistic about this.
More importantly for this debate, having an intersex condition is a fact about material, observable reality. It is not something that one identifies into.
I thihnk that cases like Semenya's are very difficult, not least because she competed in good faith as a woman, rather than deciding that that was what she was. Still, cases like hers tell us nothing about trans athletes, because she is not trans.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:01,
Reply)
Of course intersex is different from trans. I am not conflating two different things.
Castor Semenya is a woman, and competes in the female category, which is entirely proper. However, it seems unarguable that because of her specific biological makeup she has a significant athletic advantage over many other athletes in the female category. That would be fine if she was simply allowed to compete as she is, but the athletic authorities have ruled that she must take hormone treatment to limit her athletic ability in order to compete in her existing category, which seems fundamentally wrong.
Instead of hobbling someone to fit a category that is clearly not fit for purpose, I'm arguing that we should consider reorganising sport to group athletes in more granular ranges of similar physical potential which are based on material, observable reality, and are independent of historic categories of male/female or self identification. This would also address the issue of trans classification; you compete in the category that matches your base physiological characteristics, regardless of sex, gene activity or identity.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:20, Reply)
It wouldn't touch the (non-)issue of trans classification
since the whole basis of the trans claim to compete in female categories is that biology is unimportant in this regard, or at least less important than one's inner "sense of self". So there'd still be plenty of scope for athletes to insist that they should compete in this or that category, irrespective of their sex.
Your proposal is to take something other than sex as the guideline for classificatory boundaries. But what would that be? How granular do you want it? Eventually, you end up saying that there's as many categories as there are people, and in that case competition is meaningless. Or if you try to come up with meaningful categories based on combinations of size, muscle-density, metabolism, and the thousand-and-one other athletically-relevant factors... well, you end up back at sex.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:31,
Reply)
If you remove the existing male and female categories you do address the (non-)issue of trans classification. You can't insist that you should compete in a category that no longer exists.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:42, Reply)
All you'd succeed in doing there is ensuring that all elite sport is male.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:55,
Reply)
No, you would have multiple elite categories. Some of those categories would be dominated by athletes currently categorised as "male", some would be dominated by athletes currently categorised as "female" and in between there would be categories where the winners could be athletes from either of the existing categories.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:57, Reply)
how do we gauge "material, observable reality"?
In something like the 800m, presumably they'd all need to race against each other to find out who was closest together in ability. Then all the ability classes would race to find out who was top of each class. So you'd have a fastest class (all men probably) that would get all the media attention, then a load of slower classes containing women and the slower men that everyone would ignore. That's a bit shit isn't it?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:35, Reply)
I don't think simply getting people to race against each other would work as an alternative method of categorisation. I'm not pretending there is an easy answer to how you would define that alternative classification, and I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the existing classifications of male and female are working very well for many trans and non-trans athletes.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:47, Reply)
you dont know what the answer is because broadly there is no better system than the one we have now
That is not to say that every effort shouldn't be given to accommodate minority groups wherever possible. But in this case it is not possible without excluding half the population from meaningful competitive sport.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:21, Reply)
No, I don't know the answer because it is a very complex question, and society has only started seriously discussing it relatively recently.
"broadly there is no better system than the one we have now"
The current system accommodates the majority of athletes in the majority of competitions, but is causing some high profile issues in the relatively small number of cases where it doesn't work. I don't think we can say there is no better system, because I don't think anyone has seriously looked at alternatives yet.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:50, Reply)
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what sport *is*
The categories we have allow us to measure and reward excellence, and so there are barriers to entry/recognition/high level competing based on skill.
What you are discussing isn’t “people that the current system doesn’t support” - there is, after all, a category in which Laurel Hubbard can compete fairly against peers - but you are in fact talking of a shift *away* from useful categories because you are coming from a perspective where your aim is “trans inclusion, with the right to choose their category” rather than “sporting fairness”
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 9:17, Reply)
A lot of people discussing this who aren’t really
Sporting experts, and I think their lay position, or assumption is that you have the men’s 100m and the women’s 100m, and that while the men are a bit faster, it’s almost as if the fastest men are the worlds fastest 1-8 with the women being 9-16, because that’s what a casual glance at the olympics might suggest if you’re not paying attention.
They seem not to realise that there’d be zero female Olympians under Happy Toast’s batshit proposals
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:48, Reply)
" no one would seriously suggest that athletes in boxing or martial arts should compete in a single "male" or "female" category"
Pro sumo has no weight classes (and it's thrilling to see a 90kg Enho or Takanoyama beating 200-300kg giants).
Amateur sumo has an openweight class, judo also has a long tradition of openweight tournaments, some MMA/bare knuckle promotions have openweight championships, and I think most of the old shootfighting and 90s proto MMA promotions were defacto openweight or at least had an openweight division (never mind that the outcomes were often predetermined).
Then of course there's catchweight contests in MMA and boxing, as well as lots of inter-weight contests (see the colourful career of Butterbean for example).
I'm open minded about the whole trans in sport thing. For all its talk of fairness, sport is, to a large extent, a genetic contest. No amount of training or expertise will overcome your body type; Eddie Hall will never be able to run faster than Usain Bolt, who in turn will never be able to deadlift half a tonne. There's nothing fair about that.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 17:53,
Reply)
You’re confusing fairness with the sport itself
Eddie Hall racing against Usain Bolt would be these two things;
1: fair
2: a mismatch
It would be fair because both men would be competing by the same rules, and are in the same sex category, and what would be measured would be “which of these men is faster”
The answer would be Usain Bolt, and we would have found out which man is faster.
It would be a mismatch because Eddie Hall’s ability is way below Bolt, due his differing specialisation; if he wants to sprint, then he can sprint, and if he runs enough, in different competitions/meetings, he would theoretically eventually discover where he ranks, and it’s likely that it’s be many levels below Bolt.
There is nothing unfair about that. The only way it would be unfair would be if Bolt challenged him to a race as a way of settling a tie break in a pub quiz.
The unfair thing would be this;
Usain Bolt in his prime racing against Florence Griffith Joiner in her prime to find “fastest person”, with a reward for the winner.
Why?
Because we know that male physiology means their bell curve of speed places the fastest men *waaaaay* above fastest women; while Hall and Bolt exist on the same spectrum of speed, with sport the vehicle of separating them, Joiner and Bolt’s performances exist on different bell curves, and we already know *whoever* the fastest female is, she will be slower than the fastest male.
With that knowledge, and the understanding of the physiological reasons for that performance gap, there emerges a compelling argument that if we want to recognise elite atheletic performance by people with female bodies, we need to celebrate female performance on its own terms. It’s not “the nice thing” to say “I believe women can be just as fast as men” because all you’re doing is showing that you don’t understand how bell curves of performance work.
It’s interesting - a lot of this thread is taken up with people arguing against sex categories who are effectively saying “to ensure fairness, we should somehow find a way of ranking athletes and sports people by ability rather than body type”, and not realising that the process they’re describing *is* the sport
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 10:36, Reply)
I'm not confusing fairness with the sport itself at all.
If sport was fair, there could be no winners or losers. Conceptually, a fair contest isn't intended to distribute the results evenly.
Eddie hall is a short squat wide man, whose body is best suited to deadlift half a tonne. With his body he will never be a sprinter, and never could have been an elite sprinter even if he'd dedicated his life to sprinting. There is nothing fair about that.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 14:05,
Reply)
“If sport was fair, there would be no winners and losers”
There you go again, fundamentally misunderstanding what sport is.
The sport - sprinting - is a means of finding out and ranking the speed of competitors. The fairness is in having a meaningful category, not in nobody winning or losing. “Male people interested in sprinting” is a meaningful category. “All people interested in sprinting” isn’t, because an elite female will be outrun by an OK male,
While Hall/Bolt is a non-sprinter being not as fast as a sprinter. The unfairness isn’t in ranking the two; the only unfairness would be if a third party decided that the way to measure who was the best sportsperson arbitrarily decided that sprinting was the means by which we decide.
Eddie Hall will indeed never be an elite sprinter, and that’s why a fair contest to find out how he compares to Bolt would show him to be not as good at sprinting.
What you’re failing to understand is that there is no fair way to compare a female sprinter to Bolt. For exactly the same reason there’s no fair way to compare Bolt to a Cheetah in a “fastest mammal” contest - the differing physiology makes it impossible to have a meaningful ranking of positions, because a 10.5 second 100 metre run means something different for a man, a woman, and a cheetah.
Eddie Hall’s 100m run would demonstrate what sprinting attempts to show, and his, presumably unimpressive, time would contrast with Bolt’s excellence.
But put Bolt against the fastest woman who ever lived, and you don’t demonstrate Bolt’s ability relative to anything except a physiology less geared towards speed than that of Bolt’s sex.
Once more, it’s a fundamental understanding of what sport is for.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 15:59, Reply)
I said could, not would. A small but significant difference. And I said a fair contest isn't intended to distribute the results evenly,
so what you're responding to isn't clear, especially as your conclusion contradicts your introduction.
At this point I think it's fair to say that we just don't agree on the definition of fairness. Sport, like life, isn't fair.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 20:07,
Reply)
Male people aren’t female people
Nobody is saying that “transitioning” gives advantages simply that transitioning doesn’t remove all the advantages a male body has over female bodies in most sports, which were the reason for segregating sports by sex in the first place.
As for where trans women compete? Well, the obvious way to ensure that everyone can compete (including trans men as well as women - hmmmm, I wonder why this issue isn’t about female people identifying as men in the male category - couod it possibly be because when female people transition to men, they don’t make up the difference in performance?) is to have two categories; “Open”, for male people, trans women, and trans men who take hormones which would preclude them from women’s sport, and a female category.
This is the only way to ensure fairness.
The headline is incredible in its hypocrisy. “Nothing about us without us”? The discussions that led to the IOC changing the rules in 2015 took place without any voices from female sport who maintained that female sport should be for female people, was campaigned for by trans activists without recourse to evidence. They didn’t seem to think “nothing about us without us” applied to female athletes.
It’s actually quite sickening to see a page load of blokes who think they;re being progressive casually arguing against the integrity of women’s sport and thinking they’re the good guys for doing so.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 9:20, Reply)
How would you define "male" and "female" in your "open" and "female" categories?
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:02, Reply)
Are you saying
That you don’t know what male and female means?
Because I don’t think there’s anything unclear in that the female category is for female people, while the Open category is open to anybody who feels they can compete or want to compete in that category.
This is a proposal for how to address trans participation in sport, not people with intersex conditions.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:16, Reply)
Castor Semenya, who is female, is compelled by the athletic authorities to take performance limiting hormones if she wants to compete in the category that she qualifies for, as a woman. I think this ruling is very wrong, but the behaviour of the authorities clearly demonstrates that they think not all women are the same. The proposed "open" and "female" categories don't address this situation.
I think multiple categories based on athletic ability could be a solution to arguments about inclusion of trans and intersex competitors, but "open" and "women" categories are too simplistic.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:27, Reply)
I literally said
That my categories were to address trans inclusion, not intersex inclusion.
Now why don’t you address those categories from a “trans inclusion” standpoint
It’s interesting that people supporting trans activism on this will bring up Caster but won’t actually consider what the nature of the issue is with Caster;
She has a condition which has granted her a natural advantage over other women, and the difficulty of that natural advantage ethically is that rather than simply being very very tall, or having big feet or fast twitch reflex, the advantage comes from an intersex disorder, making her advantage to some degree be comparable to the advantage male people have over female people, and she has suffered a lot due to this.
The reason for Caster’s suffering - perceived, measurable advantage due to male attributes - is what many are pretending isn’t present in Hubbard’s male body.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 10:35, Reply)
I'm proposing that sporting categorisation should be independent of trans status, intersex conditions or existing definitions of male/female.
Define categories that classify competitors based on quantifiable physical characteristics (like weight, hormone levels, VO2 max, etc) instead of tinkering with existing categories.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:12, Reply)
Nonsense
you say “existing definitions of male or female”
Regardless of whether you redefine those terms to mean something else, male and female bodies will still exist and still have physiological differences and will be by far the best - and essential - category distinction in humans if your aim is “integrity and fairness” rather than “give trans people what they demand and hang the consequences”
It’s already been demonstrated that a male body gives an advantage across the board, regardless of weight and height. Trying to make the word “male” mean something else doesn’t negate that advantage.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:21, Reply)
no-one's going to bother with the varying hormone level world championships
I think you know this
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 11:26, Reply)
It would be hugely difficult to agree alternative classification systems, and the logistics of introducing more multi category sport would also be enormous.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing the idea, however, and the concept is not without precedent.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:07, Reply)
What's in it for cis athletes?
Their achievements diluted, their incomes cut, their profiles diminished.
They'd be off en masse to a new governing body at the first sniff of this I reckon
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:21, Reply)
Base sporting categorisation on weight
And men are still stronger, pound for pound than women. Significantly so.
Across the board, male people have the advantage, and, all else being equal, male physiology results in greater strength, speed, lung capacity and many other attributes
That is the key issue here, and you haven’t demonstrated why it should be ignored.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:19, Reply)
The whole point of my argument is that these characteristics should not be ignored.
Take a range of measurable physical characteristics and use those to create multiple athletic categories to replace the existing categories of "male" and "female".
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:01, Reply)
"And the gold medalist for '200m hurdles Category 21F Subclass 3: Skeleto-muscular ratio between 14.5% and 18.5% but no greater than 20% fast-twitch muscle fibres as determine by MRI no earlier than 6 months before competition date' is Jamie Switkins of the UK"
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 1:33,
Reply)
The “measurable physical characteristics”…
Are the actual fucking RACES.
You can’t categorise sprinting on anything other than speed. And there is no metric for measuring or categorising sprinting as a unisex sport that won’t result in zero female elite sprinters.
]you’re coming over as having no more substance than this
“Look, Trans people want in! So why can’t so called scientists come up with a fair way?”
There is a fair way - trans activists need to recognise that the only way trans women can compete fairly is to recognise that their gender identity does not change their sex, and since sport is segregated by sex, trans women should compete in the male category, and if activists find that the term “male category” is upsetting for them, then we can change it to “open category”. But women’s sport is not a vehicle for the validation of identity. It’s competitive sport
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 9:23, Reply)
I'm suggesting that a combination of physical characteristics could be used to determine eligibility to compete in a category, not to decide the outcome of a race. The winner of the race is the first person over the line (of course).
There is no reason why multi category sport would result in zero elite female sprinters (as I have already explained).
I fully agree that sport is not a "vehicle for the validation of identity" and what I'm suggesting as an alternative classification system takes identity out of the equation. It doesn't matter what you identify as; if you don't meet the physical criteria for a category, you don't get to compete in that class.
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 19:48, Reply)
You’ve yet to clarify what any of those characteristics are…
and placed them in a context which would put women on a level playing field with men.
So, let’s hear it.
You’re redesigning the Olympic Games based on a criteria other than sex.
With what are you replacing these events?
Men’s 100 metres final
Women’s 100 metres final
A thing to bear in mind in this is that a woman who runs 100 metres in eleven seconds is a *better runner* than a man who runs 100 metres in eleven seconds; it’d reassure me that you actually understand the debate if you’re able to sum up why that’s the case when answering.
Very excited to hear your answer, and particularly interested in how the distinction you come up with is more useful than the one that er…. Divides humans into their two distinct physiologies, the sexes, and rewards excellence in each.
Let’s hear it.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 10:20, Reply)
OK. I've already said that coming up with an alternative solution would be very complex, and I don't claim to have the answer to that, but that doesn't prevent me from outlining the concept.
Athletes would be classified into several different categories (let's say half a dozen for the purposes of this explanation). Classification would be based on a combination of multiple physical characteristics such as weight, testosterone level, VO2 max, muscle mass and density, body fat content, etc. That's not a definitive list, but the objective would be to build a representative measure of potential athletic performance, and assign competitors to a resulting competition category. This would be somewhat analogous to Paralympic classification. Medals would be awarded in each category.
There would have to be qualification events with a promotion system to prevent sandbagging; athletes consistently out-performing their category would be moved to a category with a higher level of classification criteria. If an athlete underperforms in qualification they are pushed out by the other competitors, but they would not automatically qualify to compete in a category with lower criteria.
One end of the classification system would be dominated by athletes who compete in the current "men" category. The other end would be filled with athletes who compete in the current "women" category. Somewhere in between, there would be categories which featured athletes from both of the existing categories, and where races could be won by athletes who are currently classed as "men" or "women".
Here's an example of why I think this system could be fairer than the existing system:
Currently, a woman trans athlete with significant physiological athletic advantages due to their male biological history can compete in the women's category against athletes who are at a significant physiological disadvantage. In the alternative system, that athlete would be forced to compete in a category with more demanding physiological qualification criteria. In the most extreme example, if you formerly competed against elite "male" athletes and retained your athletic performance after identifying as a woman (with no gender reassignment treatments) you would continue to compete against the same athletes under the new system. Conversely, if a trans athlete underwent transition before puberty and developed athletic physiological characteristics that are typical of the majority of competitors in the current "women" category, they could continue to compete against those women athletes.
This system would also assign intersex athletes (who we've already established are not the same as trans athletes) to categories where they would compete against other athletes within a similar range of physiological potential.
That's a long winded explanation, but a simpler way of thinking about this is that the current system is doing exactly the same thing, but segregating athletes into only two categories "men" and "women". This alternative proposal separates athletes into more granular categories, with more sophisticated qualification criteria that are independent of the declared identity of the athlete.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 12:46, Reply)
You haven’t successfully demonstrated
That “women” would not be the group adversely impacted.
There’s a lot of sophistry, but it doesn’t get around the fact that because your motivation isn’t
“Let’s find the best way of categorising athletes”
But is, in fact
“Structure sport around trans peoples feelings”
you are mentioning several combinations of characteristics, without having an example of what a race would look like under your vague idea, and are actively disregarding the most meaningful distinction in athletics, which is “sex”; the category in which Laurel Hubbard can compete fairly is “male people”.
So come on, put it into practice; you get to go back in time to the last olympics and are told “we’re not dividing the 100metres by sex this Olympics, but by more meaningful criteria”
Lay out how this works. What replaces the men’s and women’s 100m final?
What does the 100m determine? Currently, in the two sex categories, it determines these things;
1: the world’s fastest man presently (gold medal winner)
2: the world’s fastest woman presently (gold medal winner)
1: fastest man of all time (world record holder/Olympic record holder)
2: fastest woman of all time (world record/Olympic record holder)
What might your category determine?
If it’s “world’s fastest person”, you’ve erased female sporting success, so it can’t be that. So what is it? Which people compete in the olympics? Is one sex over represented? is equality of participation by male and female people something which your categories will seek to ensure? How?
Once again, as I mention below - Chesterton’s Fence; why *is* sport segregated by sex?unless you can accurately summarise the answer, you’re not arguing in good faith, and are in fact, an ideologue.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 13:30, Reply)
Fastest athlete (gold medal) in each of the new categories. Record holder in each of the categories.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 14:53, Reply)
What are the categories?
You’ve said “a combination of different characteristics”
What combination of what characteristics?
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 15:07, Reply)
from the comment just above:
"Classification would be based on a combination of multiple physical characteristics such as weight, testosterone level, VO2 max, muscle mass and density, body fat content, etc. That's not a definitive list, but the objective would be to build a representative measure of potential athletic performance, and assign competitors to a resulting competition category."
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 15:25, Reply)
Yes.that’s your abstract
It gets us no closer to how it would look in practice, so you haven’t even begun to demonstrate its usefulness.
Why don’t you lay out some specifics; what characteristics, at what intervals of measurements.
You can’t do it, and you’re embarrassing yourself here. “We could have a combination of weight, muscle, height, strength, hormones”…
Yep. We could. Now explain what that event looks like in practice. And why it’s better than “separate by sex, find fastest man and fastest woman”
But you won’t, because you can’t.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 16:21, Reply)
No problem, I don't mind embarrassing myself.
I'm quite happy to say that I can't definitively author a complete specification for Olympic sports classification. As I have already said, that's an immensely complex problem, for people with much more specialised knowledge than I have.
A very simplified version would be something like this:
Category I: athletes with testosterone levels ranging from a to b, VO2 max ranging from x to y, etc
Category II: athletes with testosterone levels ranging from over b to c, VO2 max ranging from over y to z, etc
Obviously it gets a lot more complex because some athletes might satisfy criteria in different categories, so you would have to carefully define categories to handle that, or place athletes based on the category they match most closely.
I'm not pretending this is anything like a concrete proposal, but I think what I am proposing is clear enough to have a discussion about. It seems you are refusing to even consider the possibility of alternative classification systems because they are not already fully detailed and defined?
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 16:56, Reply)
What I’m saying
Is that your proposal doesn’t even begin to show itself to be more useful than the existing category, and doesn’t even begin to show itself as being practical, and doesn’t even begin to address any concerns that a shift away from sex distinctions wouldnt hang women out to dry.
Again - without saying, clearly “this is what sex categories are designed to do…. And this is why they are limited…. And that’s why I propose this…” all you’re actually doing is saying “here are some things that are categories. And I don’t have any further insight”
It’s very lucky that you’re comfortable with embarrassing yourself
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 20:38, Reply)
I have addressed all those questions in my previous answers, with specific examples.
I pointed out earlier that you complained I had failed to answer a question you asked, but you had actually replied to a comment which contained the information you wanted! That does make me wonder if you are actually reading what people are writing here.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 22:00, Reply)
Naming a potential criterion without outlining how you see it impacting the structure of the sport
Isn’t an example without you giving your understanding of how it works in practice and why it’s better than what we’ve got currently.
Unless your next post does so, I’m done here.
(, Fri 2 Jul 2021, 8:59, Reply)
There is a trans woman at work.
Lovely lady, joy to work with.
But her hands are twice the size of mine (I,m a Joe Average), and have not decreased in size since transitioning.
She has lost maybe 20kg. But still would smash me to a pulp in fight.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 7:27, Reply)
There's rather a lot of words on this page,
I just want to know what channel I can watch men being paid to hit women on
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:53, Reply)
I think the best solution
would be to ban all sport, starting with football.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:15,
Reply)
What a load of tiresome muddled horseshit this whole gender discussion has become.
It's only giving more ammo to morons like Trump and his crowd.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig
(
Mex3 =mememe, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 14:26,
Reply)
It’s not just “giving ammo” to Trump/the right
Take Trump out of it for a minute, and look at “giving ammo to the right”.
The reason it’s “giving ammo to the right” is because this is an issue where the left hasn’t had the balls to scrutinise an activism that actively seeks to avoid scrutiny because many of its central tenets are batshit crazy.
It’s far easier to say “I guess the trans issue is just like gay rights. Live and let live I say” than to listen to the tangible impacts this activism has on women in particular, and engage substantially with them.
(, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 15:05, Reply)
relax, if it wasn't this it'd be something else.
it's not like if we stopped talking about it he'd fuck off
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:50,
Reply)
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses.
Ego sum iure? huh? Ego sum iure?
(
unclepills, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 20:00,
Reply)
Den eímai kóprana eísai kóprana
(
Thrill_My_Chinchilla is old and unimproved, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 11:48,
Reply)
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Wed 30 Jun 2021, 16:08,
Reply)
*twitches, fits, screams witnesses geometries not recorded in a school maths textbook of any colour*
(, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 19:29, Reply)
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)
Ross Tucker has some very good articles on the science behind this topic
Essentially men have major advantages over women in sports and mixing the two is dangerous in contact sports and unfair in most other sports.
If they have gone through puberty, those advantages are mostly retained if they transition and have their testosterone suppressed. The limit for allow Laurel Hubbard to compete was still 5 times that of a normal female athlete.
You don't get athletes complaining about not being allowed into the paralympics because it's clear why there is segregation. Equally, anyone who understands the science knows why sex segregation is important; without it there would be no women's sports, only trans women's sports.
Of course now that Laurel Hubbard is allowed to compete in the women's weightlifting, how long do you reckon it will be before the Russian team consists of trans women? If that's what it takes to win, they will do it.
My real problem with it all though is why are women's voices always dismissed when they say it's not fair? It strikes me that it is always men making decisions on behalf of the little ladies...
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 16:56, Reply)
Emu watched some static on a screen...
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Tue 29 Jun 2021, 23:37,
Reply)
This is funny - and has an underlying topical message -
but is also funny, which is the main thing, right?
Edit: It seems that I misjudged this badly, and I'm sorry for causing any upset.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Mon 28 Jun 2021, 11:53,
Reply)
champion cyclist can't understand why he's losing races
after idenfitifying as a motorcyclist would be funnier I reckon.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 12:28, Reply)
Then decides he's actually a dog and wins Crufts
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 14:31,
Reply)
I am shocked, appalled and outraged
They soundtracked an Aprilia V4 with the noise of a 2 stroke. Completely ruined it.
(
Greenbat, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 12:31,
Reply)
This one liner joke got stretched over 5:25 and didn't get any funnier.
I think there are less frustratingly unfunny ways to 'satirise' transexuals in sport.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 13:51,
Reply)
Is it a variation on the old 'I identify as an attack helicopter' 2014-vintage 'joke'?
If so I shan't be giving it a click.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 15:29, Reply)
I know what you mean but I thought this dodged it
but maybe I'm wrong after all.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Mon 28 Jun 2021, 16:37,
Reply)
Nope.
This is exactly the sort of shitty unfunny crap that drives trans people to self harm.
It can fuck off.
(
Invisible Wizard - 13th Level Scrote, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 19:02,
Reply)
I'm sorry. I posted in ignorance of the seriousness of the subject.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:25,
Reply)
Unfunny, unoriginal crap.
Good way of showing that you don't care about the pain trans people go through though
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 19:36, Reply)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that spirit, more like my plain idiocy and ignorance.
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:23,
Reply)
it's been a few years
but you gotta give it to jim davidson, right lads?
and they don't mind, do they? eh? it just a bit of fun.
i like the one he did about women on the board of stringfeller's n'all
i mean. ha ha! ffs right? cunts.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 23:59, Reply)
'I was joking, haven't you got a sense of humour etc'.
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Wed 30 Jun 2021, 0:18,
Reply)
Strongbad returns...well 4 months ago
With a nostalgia trip, to boot.
(, Mon 28 Jun 2021, 7:48, Reply)
for Jon Hassell (1937 - 2021)
I made this!
I made a film today for one of my heroes and biggest influences, who died yesterday. His albums such as Power Spot, Possible Musics (with Brian Eno) and Vernal Equinox are well worth a listen. (Plus he did the amazing trumpet solo on Houses In Motion by Talking Heads on the Remain In Light LP)
(
fred zeppelin (Taylor's version), Sun 27 Jun 2021, 22:03,
Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »