|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Was that 10.49s record set by a trans woman? If not, what's the world record for trans women?
|
On July 01 2026 02:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Was that 10.49s record set by a trans woman? If not, what's the world record for trans women?
My mistake, it'd actually be world #8500 or so.
In the 5 years since it was first pointed out, the world has gotten so much more sexist that she lost 2500 places.
|
United States44394 Posts
On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage?
The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too.
The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense.
|
On July 01 2026 01:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? Well first of all, there can't be a biological sex advantage until "biological male" and "biological female" are properly defined. Caster Semenya is a cisgender woman (female genitalia, assigned "female" at birth) who naturally produces more testosterone than most women do. 2019 World Athletics rule changes resulted in her being banned for not being female enough. FOX News falsely reported on her as being trans, which she isn't. Most rules designed to exclude trans women from sports end up excluding more cis women because the definition is arbitrary and usually stupid.
I think it's quite fine to have rules that are approximately mostly correct. Biological sexes are fuzzy. Far fuzzier than people used to think. But if you get it right for about 95% of women that's probably okay. It's probably fairer to exclude the 5% of women with XXY chromosomes or transgenders or other outliers than it is to include them. Some of those women will be able to compete at the top level in men's competitions. And I think the rest can be solved with other competitions. In the same way people with disabilities aren't expected to compete against people without them. And there are many categories at the Paralympic games: people in wheelchairs compete with other people in wheelchairs, and people with visual impairments compete with other people with visual impairments, etc. I'm sure we could figure this out if we wanted to.
|
On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense.
But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people.
And yeah, if there were a way of (fairly easily) categorizing nerds in a way that made sense and showed they were consistently disadvantaged in sports through no fault of their own, and these nerds made up a sufficiently important fragment of the world population, I'd advocate for Nerd Olympics too. But, we don't. Subcultures don't make for good categorical distinctions in sports.
|
Oh man, what have I done xd
|
There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical.
And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care."
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On July 01 2026 03:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense. But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people.
Yeah I’d broadly agree, there are outliers of course.
I had partners who religiously went to the gym, and mostly did weight training and I was still much stronger than them despite doing very little outside of my work, it wasn’t even a remotely close thing either.
There are also competitive activities that are gender segregated for other reasons, eSports, darts, pool etc, where women should in theory have no particular disadvantage but perhaps do for social or cultural reasons.
I’m generally very pro trans rights, but I’m not sure about this one myself
|
On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:
There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
These are not independent lol.
On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
What exclusion?
If you are in favor of women and men playing in coed sports, i.e. women competing with men, you cannot possibly have a problem with trans women playing in men's sports.
On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:
And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care."
You're so scared of a slippery slope that leads to racial segregation (even though racial segregation could already EASILY be the de facto result of your dream "Star Trek"-esque "other non-sex-based things" sport classifications) that you can't admit men and women are different.
|
On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care."
At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!".
|
There was some earlier yap about how i am "bragging about voting for// supporting a sex offender for President" or some such nonsense. I'd like to address that directly. I prefer a candidate with a clean personal record. However, if a person is going to do a great job as the leader and the alternative is a much worse leader with a spotless past.... I'll vote for the person with the checkered past.
So I'd vote for Bill Clinton, Pierre Trudeau, and Donald Trump. All these guys have checkered pasts. Considering the amounts of times all these guys had in power I'm not the only one willing to make that compromise.
If there were an alternative as good as these guys with a clean personal record I'd have voted for them. Thing is... there wasn't.
this is not bragging... its pragmatism.
On July 01 2026 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care." At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!".
when these WNBA players start piling into the NBA and starting taking all the precious high paying men's jobs.... lemme know.
Baseball night games were made possible by the Negro League Baseball. Team owners were more willing to take chances on games being unfair in poor lighting. Night time lighting started off as experimental and a novelty. People worked during the day and MLB had day games. NLB had to come up with something to compete at different times. Over a few years night lighting became a reliable way to play games. Also, I prefer the play style of the league. If you check the baseball thread you'll see i don't like every at bat being either a walk, a strikeout, or a 500 foot home run. I am tired of 240 lb shortstops swinging for the fences on an 0-2 count. NLB had more well rounded athletes. MLB had ... and i am being generous here... a lot of 1-dimensional power hitters.
Some great things came out of Negro League Baseball.
|
United States44394 Posts
On July 01 2026 03:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense. But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people. And yeah, if there were a way of (fairly easily) categorizing nerds in a way that made sense and showed they were consistently disadvantaged in sports through no fault of their own, and these nerds made up a sufficiently important fragment of the world population, I'd advocate for Nerd Olympics too. But, we don't. Subcultures don't make for good categorical distinctions in sports.
No, it has never been the point. Women’s sports has always been about creating an area of social equity, never biological equity. There’s no requirement for genetic equity within their sports.
|
On July 01 2026 03:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:03 Acrofales wrote:On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense. But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people. And yeah, if there were a way of (fairly easily) categorizing nerds in a way that made sense and showed they were consistently disadvantaged in sports through no fault of their own, and these nerds made up a sufficiently important fragment of the world population, I'd advocate for Nerd Olympics too. But, we don't. Subcultures don't make for good categorical distinctions in sports. No, it has never been the point. Women’s sports has always been about creating an area of social equity, never biological equity. There’s no requirement for genetic equity within their sports.
what people will pay to see has an impact. this is why weight classes exist in combat sports. Hardly any one wants to pay to watch Brock Lesnar kill Conor Macgregor.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On July 01 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:
That's exactly the point. Women's Chess leagues exist for the same reason physical sports leagues for women exist. Not because of some essential advantage from your biological sex but because of a structural inequality that exists in society.
I don't see what's so hard to imagine about a Star Trek-esque future where all physical sport leagues are only classified by weight class or other non-sex-based things.
I don't see it, this Star Trek future. I mean, we already have co-ed sports in most community events but I don't see it for professional sports or even down at the competitive high school level. I remember going through the track and field records for our province which the oldest record holders (mostly on the boys side) go back to the 80s. I think all the record holders for the girls were in the last twenty years or so. So assuming structural inequality back then, let's just focus on the last twenty years. And immediately ignore all the throwing events because the boys are literally throwing heavier objects.
If you take the best of the best of the girls for the last twenty years (provincial record holders), and then compare any random year (I think I checked four or five) some qualify at Islands (top 8) to go on to provincials, I don't think any medaled (well, ribbons, but you get the idea). And then at the provincials, there were like two that made top 8 across all sports and no medals. (I think one in high jump and one long-distance. Both had amazing records.) So again, comparing the provincial records of the best of the best senior girls across twenty years... and they struggle to qualify for provincials at any random single year of boys first at the Islands level and almost completely blanked at the provincial level against any one random year of boys.
I could give more examples such is in volleyball where I think you would be hard pressed to argue structural inequality but I will leave it there for now.
But generally, I think women's competitive sports is good for women, and I don't see a world where we collapse the boundaries.
|
United States44394 Posts
On July 01 2026 03:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:51 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 03:03 Acrofales wrote:On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense. But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people. And yeah, if there were a way of (fairly easily) categorizing nerds in a way that made sense and showed they were consistently disadvantaged in sports through no fault of their own, and these nerds made up a sufficiently important fragment of the world population, I'd advocate for Nerd Olympics too. But, we don't. Subcultures don't make for good categorical distinctions in sports. No, it has never been the point. Women’s sports has always been about creating an area of social equity, never biological equity. There’s no requirement for genetic equity within their sports. what people will pay to see has an impact. this is why weight classes exist in combat sports. Hardly any one wants to pay to watch Brock Lesnar kill Conor Macgregor.
I’d absolutely throw $20 into the pot for that.
|
On July 01 2026 03:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 03:51 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 03:03 Acrofales wrote:On July 01 2026 02:27 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On July 01 2026 01:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 01:32 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage. Says here a structural inequality towards women would be forcing them to do wrestling and track and field and basketball against men, if at all, rather than in their own leagues. Women-only leagues exist because women are discriminated against. If discrimination against women ceased to exist, then there wouldn't be a structural inequality when women play against men. On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
What about the biological advantage you just cited? I don't think there is a biological advantage. If there was, it hasn't shown up in any statistically meaningful way. Riley Gaines started a trans panic because she tied for fifth place with a trans woman, if trans people were excluded from the NCAA she still would've placed fifth. I mentioned childhood nutritional deficiency in an earlier comment. Why don't Republicans support universal free school and summer meals for children so that doesn't cause unfairness in sports? Well, because it turns out, none of you actually give the tiniest of shits about that, this issue has always just been about ostracizing trans people wherever and whenever possible. On July 01 2026 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
Women's leagues exist because there is a structural inequality towards women on a society-wide level, not simply because men have a biological advantage.
In a distant future where all sexism has been abolished on every level, there is no reason all sports couldn't be co-ed.
Several male high schoolers declared themselves female and entered girls sport sans hormone therapy or surgery. If I did the same thing I'd be the best female baseball pitcher who ever lived... Until some other guy comes along and does the same thing. Not only is your argument completely unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, we both know you'd never do that because you're not brave enough to undergo the discrimination and hatred that trans people do. You can resume bragging about voting for people who sexually abuse women now that you're done pretending to care about fairness in women's sports. Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage? The problem is that has never been the point. There are biological advantages between cis women too. The argument “women need women’s sports because a woman shouldn’t be made to compete against someone with biological advantages” has never made any sense. But it definitely has. What is the fastest 100m dash by a biological woman? Or the world record weight lifting. Men are also all built differently. I'm not able to compete with Bolt despite being a man. Hell, I can't compete with Julien Alfred either, but that's beside the point. There's something we can identify that groups almost half the world population together, and impacts their top speed, strength and possibly endurance. It makes sense to create a separate category of sports for these roughly 4billion people. And yeah, if there were a way of (fairly easily) categorizing nerds in a way that made sense and showed they were consistently disadvantaged in sports through no fault of their own, and these nerds made up a sufficiently important fragment of the world population, I'd advocate for Nerd Olympics too. But, we don't. Subcultures don't make for good categorical distinctions in sports. No, it has never been the point. Women’s sports has always been about creating an area of social equity, never biological equity. There’s no requirement for genetic equity within their sports. what people will pay to see has an impact. this is why weight classes exist in combat sports. Hardly any one wants to pay to watch Brock Lesnar kill Conor Macgregor. I’d absolutely throw $20 into the pot for that.
if there were profit to be made doing it ... Dana White woulda found a way. Would you really enter an arena and be seen by your friends and your family watching a 260 lb guy crush a 150 lb guy? of course now Conor , who should weigh 150, now weighs 190 due to steroids helping his "recovery".. but i think you get the idea.
The alpha dawg of my little high school gang was about the size of 1st year college Brock Lesnar. His closest friends frowned upon him doing anything more than taking down any guy under 190 lbs. If my high school gang of lunatics frowned upon it... i can't see the average person enjoying it.
When you were a teenager wasn't it frowned upon in your friends circle for a big guy to beat the hell out of a small guy? In hockey, you just knocked the little guy off the puck... nothing more. Unless the guy acted like Eric Lindros. Then of course it was open season.
|
On July 01 2026 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care." At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!".
I'm glad we agree on this.
On July 01 2026 03:55 Falling wrote:
I could give more examples such is in volleyball where I think you would be hard pressed to argue structural inequality but I will leave it there for now.
But generally, I think women's competitive sports is good for women, and I don't see a world where we collapse the boundaries.
I won't re-type the other points (how it's impossible to cleanly define biological sex, the fact that there's a million other kinds of unfairness that nobody cares about in sports leagues, the obvious parallels with racial segregation, etc.), but you're writing this from a world where sexism is so ingrained into society that it's often invisible to us.
I will bring up the Chess comparison again because nobody seriously believes male genitalia confers an unfair advantage in Chess, but it's still the case that women are grossly underrepresented among grandmasters. What would have to change in the world to have a roughly 50:50 ratio? Well, for starters, women perceived as being nerds are socially ostracized orders of magnitude more than men. Sometimes by other Chess pros. Often in subtle ways. I would make an educated guess that there's a lot of overlap with the the reasons there are barely any women Starcraft players.
|
On July 01 2026 04:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care." At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!". I'm glad we agree on this. Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:55 Falling wrote:
I could give more examples such is in volleyball where I think you would be hard pressed to argue structural inequality but I will leave it there for now.
But generally, I think women's competitive sports is good for women, and I don't see a world where we collapse the boundaries. I won't re-type the other points (how it's impossible to cleanly define biological sex, the fact that there's a million other kinds of unfairness that nobody cares about in sports leagues, the obvious parallels with racial segregation, etc.), but you're writing this from a world where sexism is so ingrained into society that it's often invisible to us. I will bring up the Chess comparison again because nobody seriously believes male genitalia confers an unfair advantage in Chess, but it's still the case that women are grossly underrepresented among grandmasters. What would have to change in the world to have a roughly 50:50 ratio? Well, for starters, women perceived as being nerds are socially ostracized orders of magnitude more than men. Sometimes by other Chess pros. Often in subtle ways. I would make an educated guess that there's a lot of overlap with the the reasons there are barely any women Starcraft players.
Why are men taller than women?
|
Canada11607 Posts
So you do think there is invisible sexism that creates structural barriers for girls in volleyball? Might that be entirely unfalsifiable if it's invisible?
Because all the things you say about Chess is simply not true of volleyball.
It is far more socially acceptable for girls to join volleyball than for boys. And structurally (at least around here), it's far easier to find out of school leagues, both in continuity of the leagues and even multiple tiers to tryout for... and the boys sometimes struggle year by year to maintain a single community league team. Girls join at far greater numbers at a much earlier age and therefore have years of extra experience and yet by senior years the teams are just not competitive.
|
On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:08 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care." At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!". I'm glad we agree on this. On July 01 2026 03:55 Falling wrote:
I could give more examples such is in volleyball where I think you would be hard pressed to argue structural inequality but I will leave it there for now.
But generally, I think women's competitive sports is good for women, and I don't see a world where we collapse the boundaries. I won't re-type the other points (how it's impossible to cleanly define biological sex, the fact that there's a million other kinds of unfairness that nobody cares about in sports leagues, the obvious parallels with racial segregation, etc.), but you're writing this from a world where sexism is so ingrained into society that it's often invisible to us. I will bring up the Chess comparison again because nobody seriously believes male genitalia confers an unfair advantage in Chess, but it's still the case that women are grossly underrepresented among grandmasters. What would have to change in the world to have a roughly 50:50 ratio? Well, for starters, women perceived as being nerds are socially ostracized orders of magnitude more than men. Sometimes by other Chess pros. Often in subtle ways. I would make an educated guess that there's a lot of overlap with the the reasons there are barely any women Starcraft players. Why are men taller than women?
Partially sex hormone levels, partially genetics. But I'm glad you raised yet another obvious parallel to racial segregation in sports. The average height of Caucasian, Black, Asian, etc. men in the USA are different, what's your plan to deal with this biological disparity?
On July 01 2026 04:21 Falling wrote:
So you do think there is invisible sexism that creates structural barriers for girls in volleyball? Might that be entirely unfalsifiable if it's invisible?
Because all the things you say about Chess is simply not true of volleyball.
It is far more socially acceptable for girls to join volleyball than for boys. And structurally (at least around here), it's far easier to find out of school leagues, both in continuity of the leagues and even multiple tiers to tryout for... and the boys sometimes struggle year by year to maintain a single community league team. Girls join at far greater numbers at a much earlier age and therefore have years of extra experience and yet by senior years the teams are just not competitive.
My point is even if there was a clean way to define biological sex, which there isn't, we still live in a world with enormous amounts of gender discrimination, so it's impossible to exactly quantify how much biology is actually a factor.
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
