|
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 |
United States44152 Posts
On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable. Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that. I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level. If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest!
I have been very clear that I don’t have a solution and I don’t need to have a solution. You may be having some kind of episode.
|
On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here.
People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men.
|
On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men.
Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights?
|
Northern Ireland27074 Posts
On July 03 2026 03:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable.[ Okay, then quantify it. Tell me in exact, measurable, arithmetical terms how much of an advantage a nonspecific trans woman has over a nonspecific AFAB woman in sprinting, boxing, and swimming, respectively.
How does one answer that? For one the research isn’t always there to begin with, as I mentioned earlier. Has the AFAB woman underwent male puberty? How long ago have they transitioned, what level of sport were they competing at prior to transitioning? These factors will influence things too.
Someone who transitioned earlier, who was maybe casually interested in doing a bit of swimming is likely not going to suddenly become an elite swimmer in the woman’s category, whereas a hypothetical Olympic standard male boxer who transitioned like a year ago is going to be a somewhat different proposition.
It’s highly suspected that Florence Griffith Joyner‘s world records in the 100m and 200m, that have stood since 1988, have proved so durable because she was doped to the eyeballs. But those times I don’t think would qualify her for the Olympics if she were male, much less making the latter stages.
There’s clearly some pretty big gaps between cis men and cis women in all sorts of sporting disciplines. What’s not yet fully understood, to my knowledge is how that persists when we’re talking trans women and cis women, and what is understood seems to show it’ll differ quite a bit depending on the sporting discipline, or other factors.
|
On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights?
Sorting by weight works well for men's boxing. It wouldn't work very well for co-ed boxing though as a 70kg man will always beat a 70kg woman.
What do you propose we sort people by to create leagues for 100m dash ?
|
What do you guys think about these "flock" cameras and such going up everywhere?
|
Northern Ireland27074 Posts
On July 03 2026 03:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 02:34 Luolis wrote:On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable. Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that. I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level. If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest! The chromosome thing is stupid, because even forgetting trans women, it would bar intersex women from competing which would be pretty unfair as well. I already brought it up, but if we're going to ban women from competing for chromosomal issues, etc, because it's unfair, then we should've banned people like Michael Phelps for being genetic monsters as well. Nobody seriously takes that argument though, because for some reason the complaints are always about minority women. Thing is that sports are unfair and you're gonna have a harder time making it to the top level if you're like 170cm versus 190cm. I don't personally feel that strongly about trans women in sports, but as i said before, it's basically a red herring and letting them play is not going to be this massive problematic event that some people are painting it as. It's still only about normal distribution. The population number of intersex women or whatever example that gets brought up is so small that even if it gives a significant advantage its unlikely to have any impact on the highest level of a sport. Same reason trans women haven't made an impact. The number of trans women are so small it's unlikely they will produce a top athlete. The difference in people's minds is that hypothetically the population level is just as big and being trans is something that can change. That said its probably unlikely a top tier athlete would change their gender just to dominate women's sports but it could happen and unlike other factors there is enough of a population base (being males) to make it plausible. On the whole this issue is just the latest example of how people doesn't realise that acceptance of norm changes is a generational issue that takes a lot of time. The "battle" is won in a war of attrition. But the HBTQT crowd would rather bash their heads against issues that the general public is not going to accept rather than to wait until trans individuals get internalised as normal by society before pushing further. Keeping at it might hasten the process slightly but it will also generate a lot of backlash.
Yeah, trans issues take up a disproportionate amount of attention for population. For trans people to dominate women’s elite sport, you’d need a big chunk to have either some physical or technical talent, and also the desire to pursue elite sport. And there’s a lot of sport out there so that population would be diluted further
It doesn’t feel a particularly realistic proposition.
|
Whether trans people will dominate women's sports is totally unrelated to whether it's fair or not to let them compete.
If tomorrow a law passes that allows all men named joshua born on the 12th of october 1980 to park on handicaped parking spots, would you say it will change the availability of parking spots for disabled people ? Probably not. Is it fair ? Probably not either.
|
On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights?
Weight is not ability. People watch average weight boxers, not average skill boxers.
WNBA crushes minor league baseball in attendance and TV.
Yes people watch because of the W.
No they wouldn't watch a league of high school boys beating pro women in basketball once the novelty wore off. They watch because they're pro WOMEN not that they are pro compared to a unisex world, because they aren't and will never measure up to that.
|
On July 03 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Yes people watch because of the W.
So again, it has nothing to do with fairness, it's just transphobia. Thank you for so efficiently demonstrating what it's been taking me paragraphs to explain.
On July 03 2026 03:59 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Sorting by weight works well for men's boxing. It wouldn't work very well for co-ed boxing though as a 70kg man will always beat a 70kg woman. What do you propose we sort people by to create leagues for 100m dash ?
You've missed the point entirely. Sports aren't some Platonic ideal where people immediately lose interest the moment it's not about "peak physical form attainable by human beings." People want to watch welterweight boxers for similar reasons they want to watch women's leagues and the Paralympics, and similar reasons why people watch foreign Brood War leagues even though it's semi-miraculous when a foreigner can take even a single map off of a Korean pro.
Or to put it in another way. In a world without sexism, the reaction to a woman coming 100th in a co-ed dash wouldn't be "damn, women are so much frailer than men," it would be something like "wow, it's so cool she's better than everyone but 99 human beings on the Earth."
On July 03 2026 04:14 Geiko wrote:
Whether trans people will dominate women's sports is totally unrelated to whether it's fair or not to let them compete.
If tomorrow a law passes that allows all men named joshua born on the 12th of october 1980 to park on handicaped parking spots, would you say it will change the availability of parking spots for disabled people ? Probably not. Is it fair ? Probably not either.
That's approximately what it feels like when cisgender AFAB women are excluded by these ridiculously arbitrary tests that are just supposed to filter out trans women, but can't do so because the definition of "biological sex" is so nebulous.
|
On July 03 2026 00:00 Jankisa wrote:I wonder how does the "Biden crime family" and "Biden is a worse criminal then Trump" crowd feel about incredibly obvious and clear case of insider trading that anyone a brain can see has happened since he came back in to power: https://www.today.com/video/trump-made-327-stock-trades-1-day-before-tariff-pause-filings-266063941615I mean, given that Trump is gleefully bragging to anyone who will hear that he has Immunity (thank you SCOTUS!) and that there is a "Pardon radius" around the Oval office, they would probably go with the good old conservative credo of "Anyone would do it in his position", but I'd still love to hear from our resident centrists. And all of this is just "legitimate" stock activity, the insane bribery, market manipulation and rug pulling his crime family did with Crypto is even crazier, plus, that is only the shit he disclosed, and it amounts to almost $3 billion since he took office, almost doubling his net worth, completely normal, right? Again, this is just the things that are disclosed, all the deals that his, Lutnick's and Witkoff's spawn are making around the world in shady deals is much more then this. But I guess that is all good with our centrist friends, as long as the libs get owned and the brown people get put in cages or have bombs dropped on their heads.
$3b in personal profits for the Trump family while his lawyers are currently asking a court to hold off on forcing him to E. Jean Carroll the $0.005b he owes her for having raped her.
|
On July 03 2026 04:25 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Yes people watch because of the W. So again, it has nothing to do with fairness, it's just transphobia. Thank you for so efficiently demonstrating what it's been taking me paragraphs to explain. Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:59 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Sorting by weight works well for men's boxing. It wouldn't work very well for co-ed boxing though as a 70kg man will always beat a 70kg woman. What do you propose we sort people by to create leagues for 100m dash ? You've missed the point entirely. Sports aren't some Platonic ideal where people immediately lose interest the moment it's not about "peak physical form attainable by human beings." People want to watch welterweight boxers for similar reasons they want to watch women's leagues and the Paralympics, and similar reasons why people watch foreign Brood War leagues even though it's semi-miraculous when a foreigner can take even a single map off of a Korean pro. Or to put it in another way. In a world without sexism, the reaction to a woman coming 100th in a co-ed dash wouldn't be "damn, women are so much frailer than men," it would be something like "wow, it's so cool she's better than everyone but 99 human beings on the Earth." Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 04:14 Geiko wrote:
Whether trans people will dominate women's sports is totally unrelated to whether it's fair or not to let them compete.
If tomorrow a law passes that allows all men named joshua born on the 12th of october 1980 to park on handicaped parking spots, would you say it will change the availability of parking spots for disabled people ? Probably not. Is it fair ? Probably not either. That's approximately what it feels like when cisgender AFAB women are excluded by these ridiculously arbitrary tests that are just supposed to filter out trans women, but can't do so because the definition of "biological sex" is so nebulous.
I'm really having trouble understanding you. In your sexism-free world there will be no women in the top 50 of any sports. And people should be happy for the first woman to come in 100th ? People already don't care about the runner who finishes 4th, why should they care who finishes 100th ? Your ideal world actually locks women out of competitive lucrative events.
|
On July 03 2026 04:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 03:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 03 2026 02:34 Luolis wrote:On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable. Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that. I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level. If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest! The chromosome thing is stupid, because even forgetting trans women, it would bar intersex women from competing which would be pretty unfair as well. I already brought it up, but if we're going to ban women from competing for chromosomal issues, etc, because it's unfair, then we should've banned people like Michael Phelps for being genetic monsters as well. Nobody seriously takes that argument though, because for some reason the complaints are always about minority women. Thing is that sports are unfair and you're gonna have a harder time making it to the top level if you're like 170cm versus 190cm. I don't personally feel that strongly about trans women in sports, but as i said before, it's basically a red herring and letting them play is not going to be this massive problematic event that some people are painting it as. It's still only about normal distribution. The population number of intersex women or whatever example that gets brought up is so small that even if it gives a significant advantage its unlikely to have any impact on the highest level of a sport. Same reason trans women haven't made an impact. The number of trans women are so small it's unlikely they will produce a top athlete. The difference in people's minds is that hypothetically the population level is just as big and being trans is something that can change. That said its probably unlikely a top tier athlete would change their gender just to dominate women's sports but it could happen and unlike other factors there is enough of a population base (being males) to make it plausible. On the whole this issue is just the latest example of how people doesn't realise that acceptance of norm changes is a generational issue that takes a lot of time. The "battle" is won in a war of attrition. But the HBTQT crowd would rather bash their heads against issues that the general public is not going to accept rather than to wait until trans individuals get internalised as normal by society before pushing further. Keeping at it might hasten the process slightly but it will also generate a lot of backlash. Yeah, trans issues take up a disproportionate amount of attention for population. For trans people to dominate women’s elite sport, you’d need a big chunk to have either some physical or technical talent, and also the desire to pursue elite sport. And there’s a lot of sport out there so that population would be diluted further It doesn’t feel a particularly realistic proposition.
Or you would have to have high level male athletes "transition" in order to win in womens sports.
Which feels incredibly unlikely.
But if it was an issue it could probably be solved by only allowing trans athletes who has had gender affirming surgery at the top level. 😉
|
In your sexism-free world there will be no women in the top 50 of any sports.
I don't think that's actually true, for the same reason why there wouldn't be only 44 female Chess grandmasters in a world without sexism. But regardless,
And people should be happy for the first woman to come in 100th ? People already don't care about the runner who finishes 4th, why should they care who finishes 100th ?
I have already given numerous examples of athletes that people care about even if they aren't top contenders in the top league. In fact, if that's all they cared about, there literally wouldn't be women's sports leagues whatsoever to begin with.
I don't see much point in continuing a conversation where you're just ignoring the arguments.
|
United States44152 Posts
On July 03 2026 04:39 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 04:25 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 04:18 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Yes people watch because of the W. So again, it has nothing to do with fairness, it's just transphobia. Thank you for so efficiently demonstrating what it's been taking me paragraphs to explain. On July 03 2026 03:59 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 03:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 03:49 Geiko wrote:On July 03 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models. So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here. People won't care about women in sports in this fantasy world where men and women play together because the best women will be competing in average leagues and still losing to some men. Do people not care about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao because they're welterweight and they'd lose to equivalent-skill heavyweights? Sorting by weight works well for men's boxing. It wouldn't work very well for co-ed boxing though as a 70kg man will always beat a 70kg woman. What do you propose we sort people by to create leagues for 100m dash ? You've missed the point entirely. Sports aren't some Platonic ideal where people immediately lose interest the moment it's not about "peak physical form attainable by human beings." People want to watch welterweight boxers for similar reasons they want to watch women's leagues and the Paralympics, and similar reasons why people watch foreign Brood War leagues even though it's semi-miraculous when a foreigner can take even a single map off of a Korean pro. Or to put it in another way. In a world without sexism, the reaction to a woman coming 100th in a co-ed dash wouldn't be "damn, women are so much frailer than men," it would be something like "wow, it's so cool she's better than everyone but 99 human beings on the Earth." On July 03 2026 04:14 Geiko wrote:
Whether trans people will dominate women's sports is totally unrelated to whether it's fair or not to let them compete.
If tomorrow a law passes that allows all men named joshua born on the 12th of october 1980 to park on handicaped parking spots, would you say it will change the availability of parking spots for disabled people ? Probably not. Is it fair ? Probably not either. That's approximately what it feels like when cisgender AFAB women are excluded by these ridiculously arbitrary tests that are just supposed to filter out trans women, but can't do so because the definition of "biological sex" is so nebulous. I'm really having trouble understanding you. In your sexism-free world there will be no women in the top 50 of any sports. And people should be happy for the first woman to come in 100th ? People already don't care about the runner who finishes 4th, why should they care who finishes 100th ? Your ideal world actually locks women out of competitive lucrative events.
Does it? Let’s say the racers race on the same day. Can’t you just put the times into Excel and filter col B for sex then sort col C by time?
How is that different from having them race on a different day to the men and then posting their times to the Excel?
Do you think by holding the woman’s event on a different day people all forget that the men are faster? The fastest woman is going to be on the exact same line of the spreadsheet either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
