|
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 |
On July 01 2026 04:08 LightSpectra wrote:
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,
again dude... there are weight classes in combat sports.
and "nobody cares about"? what people will pay to watch has an impact.
the difference between a man throwing a ball off of a mound in baseball.. and a woman .. .is massive. the difference between a various races of men is almost zero.
|
Who here is objecting to weight classes?
|
On July 01 2026 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:
Who here is objecting to weight classes?
the guy who said he'd pay $20 to see a 260 lb guy destroy a 150 lb guy. i don't think he is serious though.
the difference between a man throwing a ball off of a mound in baseball.. and a woman .. .is massive. the difference between a various races of men is almost zero.
and the man can be 5'9" Tim Lincecum or 6'9" Randy Johnson... they both blow the doors off of Ayami Soto. Hell , so do I.
|
On July 01 2026 04:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote: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?
Say the word "advantage."
|
I don’t think there is anything wrong with at the highly competitive level having an open division and a CIS women division. At the youth fun level then just let everyone play because that’s the point.
The competitive level is different, first from simply strategy it’s a terrible issue for the left, it impacts a handful of people in the world. And there are all sorts of barriers to competitive sports that impact far more people. Parents are fucking crazy, pressuring their kids to swap gender to do better is not as unthinkable as it should be.
Stick to the big issues. Circle back to this one when the major ones are sorted.
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
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 school field hockey team sucked, to the degree I was on it, most decent at sport gravitated to rugby, which we’re famously good at and have produced many internationals and pros.
The girl’s field hockey team was conversely very good, amongst the top 3 when I was in school.
We played a friendly and absolutely smashed them, like 6-0 no bother. They had some players who were as good, or better technically than us but they simply couldn’t cope with the physicality we had. Both in running around, but even in the pace we had in smacking the ball around, which they didn’t really have a point of reference for in their competitions
The gap is very real in athletic competition at least. I don’t really see how you get around that.
In activities where physicality is less of a factor, but perhaps social issues come into play, I think there’s a good case for co-ed competition
|
On July 01 2026 04:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:31 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote: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? Say the word "advantage."
Say "the only reason I'm advocating trans exclusionary and not racially segregated sports is because the former is socially acceptable and the latter would make me sound even more like a crackpot"
|
Canada11573 Posts
What is the enormous amounts of gender discrimination in volleyball? What exists, I will argue it has a negligible impact on performance, and I don't see this Star Trek future.
@Wombat
Yeah, same in volleyball. The team we took to provincials that played together since grade 8 got smoked by the boys team put together in the last two years and who couldn't make it out of Islands. Right out of the gate you have to decide on net height. Do you want to get smoked in the face by spikes on a senior girl's height or do you want to roll shot over the senior boys height because you can't get the downward spike? So you split the difference and still it's not competitive. The jump serves are that much harder, the spikes even more so. The girls were more technically sound, more experienced, their passes better, and worked far better as a team, communication etc, but they were simply overpowered.
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On July 01 2026 04:40 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:39 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 04:31 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote: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? Say the word "advantage." Say "the only reason I'm advocating trans exclusionary and not racially segregated sports is because the former is socially acceptable and the latter would make me sound even more like a crackpot"
Methinks this is a stretch.
|
On July 01 2026 04:40 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:39 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 04:31 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote: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? Say the word "advantage." Say "the only reason I'm advocating trans exclusionary and not racially segregated sports is because the former is socially acceptable and the latter would make me sound even more like a crackpot"
i disagree. If a bunch of my friends from Trinidad want to have an all black league... let 'em do it. meh.
if it is super entertaining i might pay to watch.
If you gave me a choice between paying to watch MLB or Negro League baseball... i'd take Negro League baseball all the way. it comes down to the play styles i talked about in the baseball thread years ago. i am tired of everyone in MLB swinging for the fences and the 3rd baseman standing 130 feet from home plate because the batter will never bunt in a million years.
I also prefer women's hockey to the NHL. The 200X85 ice surface was designed 100 years ago for 6 players between 5'7" and 6'0" tall on each team. Not 6 giants in the NHL. NHL goalies cover the whole net just be standing there. They go down on their knees and still cover the top of the net. ZZZZzzzz....
The women are the right size for the ice surface. The goalies are the perfect size for the nets designed 100 years ago. When someone breaks free into open ice... she's really open.
you talk about a lot of open ice available
it is canada in 8 hours.. i had to do it.
|
On July 01 2026 04:42 Falling wrote:
What is the enormous amounts of gender discrimination in volleyball? What exists, I will argue it has a negligible impact on performance, and I don't see this Star Trek future.
The gender discrimination is in society itself. I could give my own personal anecdotes about how the most athletic woman I know in real life utterly refuses to participate in team sports for multiple reasons, including her evangelical Christian parents, but I don't really see the point in warring anecdotes.
If transwomen had such an inarguable advantage in women's sports then I have to ask yet again why their domination is entirely hypothetical.
|
On July 01 2026 04:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +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 school field hockey team sucked, to the degree I was on it, most decent at sport gravitated to rugby, which we’re famously good at and have produced many internationals and pros. The girl’s field hockey team was conversely very good, amongst the top 3 when I was in school. We played a friendly and absolutely smashed them, like 6-0 no bother. They had some players who were as good, or better technically than us but they simply couldn’t cope with the physicality we had. Both in running around, but even in the pace we had in smacking the ball around, which they didn’t really have a point of reference for in their competitions The gap is very real in athletic competition at least. I don’t really see how you get around that. In activities where physicality is less of a factor, but perhaps social issues come into play, I think there’s a good case for co-ed competition
Interesting but mostly unrelated. Any coed sport I have played the teams with the best girls dominate. Most of the time the gap between the best guy and your average guy is much different than from the best girl to the average girl is massive. Also, always fun to smash the teams who don’t use their girls.
|
On July 01 2026 04:40 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:39 oBlade wrote:On July 01 2026 04:31 LightSpectra wrote:On July 01 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote: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? Say the word "advantage." Say "the only reason I'm advocating trans exclusionary and not racially segregated sports is because the former is socially acceptable and the latter would make me sound even more like a crackpot"
As usual, no original thought, simply copies the rhetorical structure of who he claims to oppose.
Sports are not "trans exclusionary." You ignored this on the last page, and are going to ignore it now, because you have neither an answer nor honesty. You cannot discriminate in sports based on sex. It's federal law. A trans woman CANNOT be stopped from playing in men's sports. (And nobody is advocating that they should be.) Just play in the men's, which you want everyone to do anyway. There is nothing for you to be upset about.
I believe there are significant enough differences between men and women to warrant separate sports. Oh also bathrooms. This is because I'm fascist a normal person.
This is different than believing "any difference of any sort warrants an entire new category," which is your strawman, because you think it's the only way to be consistently fair. Now you can separately make your case that there are also significant enough racial differences to warrant racial categories but that's not my cup of tea and you'll have a hard time convincing anyone else.
|
On July 01 2026 04:50 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:40 WombaT wrote: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 school field hockey team sucked, to the degree I was on it, most decent at sport gravitated to rugby, which we’re famously good at and have produced many internationals and pros. The girl’s field hockey team was conversely very good, amongst the top 3 when I was in school. We played a friendly and absolutely smashed them, like 6-0 no bother. They had some players who were as good, or better technically than us but they simply couldn’t cope with the physicality we had. Both in running around, but even in the pace we had in smacking the ball around, which they didn’t really have a point of reference for in their competitions The gap is very real in athletic competition at least. I don’t really see how you get around that. In activities where physicality is less of a factor, but perhaps social issues come into play, I think there’s a good case for co-ed competition Interesting but mostly unrelated. Any coed sport I have played the teams with the best girls dominate.
in co-ed or men's baseball the best pitcher can carry an entire team. you need a guy on the mound. if he is good.. the rest won't matter. the determining factor is the pitcher not "who has the best girls".
In my final year playing Junior baseball 7 position players of our #1 opponent was better. catcher position was probably equal. We had a big fat 6'4" pitcher who threw 95mph. they scored 0 runs in a BO5 and we won the championship.
how about tackle football? is there any co-ed tackle football happening?
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On July 01 2026 04:50 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:40 WombaT wrote: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 school field hockey team sucked, to the degree I was on it, most decent at sport gravitated to rugby, which we’re famously good at and have produced many internationals and pros. The girl’s field hockey team was conversely very good, amongst the top 3 when I was in school. We played a friendly and absolutely smashed them, like 6-0 no bother. They had some players who were as good, or better technically than us but they simply couldn’t cope with the physicality we had. Both in running around, but even in the pace we had in smacking the ball around, which they didn’t really have a point of reference for in their competitions The gap is very real in athletic competition at least. I don’t really see how you get around that. In activities where physicality is less of a factor, but perhaps social issues come into play, I think there’s a good case for co-ed competition Interesting but mostly unrelated. Any coed sport I have played the teams with the best girls dominate. Most of the time the gap between the best guy and your average guy is much different than from the best girl to the average girl is massive. Also, always fun to smash the teams who don’t use their girls.
The shit guy player is still massively physically dominant in all sorts of sports, the lasses can’t compete unless they’re absolutely outstanding, and even then there are limits.
Football, rugby, GAA, I mean just forget about it.
We had a cricket international in our ranks who played on our boys/men team, pretty credibly too. But she went from absolutely dominant playing with other girls to merely decent amongst the boys. The extra 5-10 mph in bowling speed alone makes that tough.
And we’re talking a full international cricketer here, at the time she was in school.
|
I believe there are significant enough differences between men and women to warrant separate sports. Oh also bathrooms. This is because I'm fascist a normal person.
So, exactly as I said, you can't really explain why it's OK to use the exact same logic to justify racial segregation for trans exclusion, just that it's "normal" to do so. Thanks for playing.
Trans women are women, and women should be allowed to play in women's leagues. One day it'll be normalized and you'll either mald about it or pretend you were never on the wrong side.
|
United States44170 Posts
The case with the Algerian boxer was funny. The transphobes started from the assumption that she didn't belong on the woman's team because she was trans and then after they learned that she was assigned female at birth, raised female, and XX, decided that she should be forcibly transitioned into the wrong sex and made to compete with all the cis athletes.
Makes you wonder if we might just be dealing with a bunch of idiots here.
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On July 01 2026 05:02 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +I believe there are significant enough differences between men and women to warrant separate sports. Oh also bathrooms. This is because I'm fascist a normal person. So, exactly as I said, you can't really explain why it's OK to use the exact same logic to justify racial segregation for trans exclusion, just that it's "normal" to do so. Thanks for playing. Trans women are women, and women should be allowed to play in women's leagues. One day it'll be normalized and you'll either mald about it or pretend you were never on the wrong side.
Well various orgs keep independently voting against this, at least at elite level. The groundswell seems to also vaguely be in this direction too
Much less so at grass roots level mind
|
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. It's a tangent to the real issue of fairness, inclusion, and compassion to talk biology. But people like LightSpectra exist and significantly influence the discussion on this very topic. They will argue that the science shows a mostly independent relationship between sex and genitalia/hormone levels/chromosomes/reproductive cells. They will refuse to attest to a general biological advantage for males in athletic sports. + Show Spoiler +A: 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.
B: What about the biological advantage you just cited?
A: I don't think there is a biological advantage.
B: Are you seriously arguing there isn’t a general biological advantage?
A:Well first of all, there can't be a biological sex advantage until "biological male" and "biological female" are properly defined.
[Second of all] Woman are discriminated against by society
[Third of all] The characteristics we associate with physical sex are mostly independent of physical sex
|
On July 01 2026 04:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:50 Billyboy wrote:On July 01 2026 04:40 WombaT wrote: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 school field hockey team sucked, to the degree I was on it, most decent at sport gravitated to rugby, which we’re famously good at and have produced many internationals and pros. The girl’s field hockey team was conversely very good, amongst the top 3 when I was in school. We played a friendly and absolutely smashed them, like 6-0 no bother. They had some players who were as good, or better technically than us but they simply couldn’t cope with the physicality we had. Both in running around, but even in the pace we had in smacking the ball around, which they didn’t really have a point of reference for in their competitions The gap is very real in athletic competition at least. I don’t really see how you get around that. In activities where physicality is less of a factor, but perhaps social issues come into play, I think there’s a good case for co-ed competition Interesting but mostly unrelated. Any coed sport I have played the teams with the best girls dominate. in co-ed or men's baseball the best pitcher can carry an entire team. you need a guy on the mound. if he is good.. the rest won't matter. the determining factor is the pitcher not "who has the best girls". In my final year playing Junior baseball 7 position players of our #1 opponent was better. catcher position was probably equal. We had a big fat 6'4" pitcher who threw 95mph. they scored 0 runs in a BO5 and we won the championship. how about tackle football? is there any co-ed tackle football happening?
Made up anecdotes are the lowest tier of “evidence “.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
