|
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 03 2026 06:27 Slydie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Honestly, I think a blanket ban is the only option. You should only be allowed to compete in women categories if you were born a woman. Even fringe cases with natural hormone disturbances etc. need very clear rules.
Why is this even a debate?
Because people feel helpless about the genocidal expansionism, surveillance state, rampant corruption, wealth disparity, etc. Meanwhile, staking out a position and offering "solutions" to "trans problems" feels manageable and they can imagine tangible things being done.
I'm sure some of you have heard of it as some variation of the "law of triviality"
|
United States44157 Posts
On July 03 2026 06:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well for one, in some sports, you'd need to have thousands of competitors before you get the first female, so the sheer logistics of it makes it impossible.
Excel can definitely handle thousands of rows. I've checked.
Like right now the world championship in football for men is happening. If you make this event co-ed, you get the exact same number of women participating.
So literally no damage done. If we made the FIFA World Cup co-ed nobody would even notice. It doesn't bear thinking about.
In fact, if football was co-ed, the best female players in the world would struggle to make a second division team in Norway
Drone, you seem confused here and I don't get it because you're smart. Within your example you've clearly not abandoned the idea of teams with arbitrarily defined requirements, you're specifying "second division team in Norway". Imagine I were to insist on the impossibility of a Norwegian national side because Messi exists, you'd be the first to point out that Messi isn't Norwegian and therefore wouldn't be eligible. In a world in which there is a second division Norwegian team there is obviously also woman's football. And in a world in which woman's football teams are impossible because we refuse to separate people there isn't a Norwegian team either for the same reasons. There's no world in which soccer has no more separation into groups to make the game more fun to watch but we still have divisions.
Personally, I don't want to eliminate women's sports in the fight against discrimination.
Okay but nobody is doing that.
if the 50th best man can choose to identify as a woman and then win the Olympics and all the money that comes with being the best female athlete, I'd assume this would happen at some point.
Sports don't exist in a vacuum, there needs to be popular interest and investment for there to be a sport. That's why nobody knows who the Vanilla Starcraft champion is, you don't automatically get medals and prize money for being the best at something, there have to be fans/sponsors/viewers. So let's say an organization decided to permit this. All that would happen would be an immediate fork and the one that permitted men would find itself without viewers while the exclusionary one gave out the medals and prize money.
The entire scenario is nonsense, it assumes that the prize money exists completely outside the structure of the sport. It supposes that the medal descends from heaven and the trans fakers will steal it if we let them and so the only solution is to get rid of all the trans. You might as well worry about what happens to the Tour De France when someone wins on a motorbike.
So - just let all trans people participate, then?
Nobody is saying that.
We're keeping the idea of arbitrary divisions and weight classes and geographic restrictions and college sports and age groups and so forth. We're just not pretending that the only way any of these can work is if we build it all on a foundation of trans erasure.
|
All top level sports are coed. There is nothing stopping any gender from competing in any major pro league.
The exclusions are in the professional women’s league, or top competitive women’s league with other exclusions (age, professional status).
So the question is, is it fair to also exclude trans women, and should some trans women be allowed or a blanket ban.
And no answer to that question is going to make everyone happy.
On top of that, it is pretty funny to have a side sexism discussion, with lots of blame being thrown around. When it is all men having this discussion. And for the record if sexism is the only issues, women are way more sexist than men.
|
Norway28840 Posts
Have you ever watched a track and field event in the Olympics or world championship or diamond league or any other highest tier of competition? Spoiler alert, they're not letting 1000 people compete in the various events. Not having separate competitions for men and women would - even if you doubled the amount if participants - lead to 0 women being part of the competition. Coed will work just fine for a marathon (and marathons and other long races are often already not gender segregated other than through the Excel sheet at the end), but there are so many sports where this would in fact eliminate women from competition. Unless, of course, you did something like say, mandating that half the competitors need to be women, at which point I'm like, maybe just give them their own competition then, rather than have them compete for the 51st-100th place spots.
For football, the point is that right now, the women have their own world cup. They have their own Norwegian national league. They have their own champions league. While money is obviously much less than for men, it is possible to be a professional female football player. If you forced them to play with men, it wouldn't be. The best female player in the world would be playing in a league where there's either no salary or a very low salary. And it would be like this across the board, for most sports.
|
United States44157 Posts
On July 03 2026 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Have you ever watched a track and field event in the Olympics or world championship or golden league or any other highest tier of competition? Spoiler alert, they're not letting 1000 people compete in the various events. Not having separate competitions for men and women would - even if you doubled the amount if participants - lead to 0 women being part of the competition. Coed will work just fine for a marathon (and marathons and other long races are often already not gender segregated other than through the Excel sheet at the end), but there are so many sports where this would in fact eliminate women from competition. Unless, of course, you did something like say, mandating that half the competitors need to be women, at which point I'm like, maybe just give them their own competition then, rather than have them compete for the 51st-100th place spots.
For football, the point is that right now, the women have their own world cup. They have their own Norwegian national league. They have their own champions league. While money is obviously much less than for men, it is possible to be a professional female football player. If you forced them to play with men, it wouldn't be. The best female player in the world would be playing in a league where there's either no salary or a very low salary. And it would be like this across the board, for most sports.
1000 people literally do compete in the Olympics.
Let's say we accept your claim, you've disproved the Olympics, it's simply not possible for every nation to compete, there isn't enough room on the track. But as you know we have feeder events and multiple rounds. That's how you get a hundred men to compete for a medal on a track with only 8 lanes. The Olympics manages to narrow billions of men into a world champion, there's plenty of room.
For football you're still not making any sense. If the fans wanted to see cis women playing cis women and the sponsors wanted to fund that why wouldn't the cis women play in that league? In your example you're keeping all the rest of the arbitrary separations that result from the fans/sponsors so why wouldn't that also exist? You could also have a league with all women, including trans women. If nobody wanted to sponsor it they could still happily play among themselves and throw an ice cream party for the winning team.
In a world where we have geographic leagues, age restricted leagues, weight classes, national leagues, collegiate leagues, and so forth I'm fine with a cis league. What gets me is when people insist that there are a million different arbitrary groups and that trans people belong in exactly none of them.
My stance is that ultimately we don't decide any of this and even the organizations involved don't really decide any of this. If I decided it then it would involve a whole lot more Brood War.
Sport is a reflection of the interests of the society that plays. American society isn't somehow worse or poorer because the best natural sumo wrestlers aren't getting paid what they might be paid in Japan, those people aren't being discriminated against, they're off living their lives and not thinking about it at all. I might personally feel that the best US Starcraft player is hugely underpaid but they're objectively not, the sponsorship money simply doesn't exist because society doesn't value them.
Society will allocate resources in accordance with the beliefs of the people. In a hypothetical world in which nobody cared at all about the distinction between cis and trans and all the prize money in women's leagues went to trans women that'd be fine. Right now all the prize money in women's basketball is going to tall women and I don't lose any sleep over that.
There's a movement that says that the foundation upon which all social sports must be built is no trans, but then after that it's a complete free for all. That's clearly bullshit. The "fairness" fanatics don't care that some national teams are easier to get onto than others or whatever. They don't care that an over the hill English national side player might get to continue to compete internationally by remembering he was born in Wales. Fairness is a construct.
|
Norway28840 Posts
Yes lol but not in the same sport, what the fuck. To compete in the 100 meter, where in 2016 (last year where the wiki was updated) you had 84 participants, men needed to have ran at 10.16 the same year to qualify. That's more than half a second faster than what the fastest woman ran in 2016 - make it a 200 person competition, and you have 200 men.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say about football. Don't really see the point in going further with this tbh.
|
United States44157 Posts
On July 03 2026 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes lol but not in the same sport, what the fuck. To compete in the 100 meter, where in 2016 (last year where the wiki was updated) you had 84 participants, men needed to have ran at 10.16 the same year to qualify. That's more than half a second faster than what the fastest woman ran in 2016 - make it a 200 person competition, and you have 200 men.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say about football. Don't really see the point in going further with this tbh.
Do you not understand what a qualifier is? The people who didn't qualify for the final round were still competing for the cup, they got knocked out at the qualifier stage.
There were way more than 84 people trying to win the men's 100m. The 8 lanes on the track does not represent a hard cap.
|
On July 03 2026 08:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes lol but not in the same sport, what the fuck. To compete in the 100 meter, where in 2016 (last year where the wiki was updated) you had 84 participants, men needed to have ran at 10.16 the same year to qualify. That's more than half a second faster than what the fastest woman ran in 2016 - make it a 200 person competition, and you have 200 men.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say about football. Don't really see the point in going further with this tbh. Do you not understand what a qualifier is? The people who didn't qualify for the final round were still competing for the cup, they got knocked out at the qualifier stage. There were way more than 84 people trying to win the men's 100m. The 8 lanes on the track does not represent a hard cap.
You're being deliberately dense. But you already solved it in your previous post. You said you're fine with a league in which there are arbitrary cutoffs, such as a womens' league. The cutoff of what a woman is, is arbitrary. If they draw that line to exclude all trans women, and also a bunch of AFAB women, are you okay with that? The line is arbitrary after all, and commercial interests somewhere backed it up with TV rights or so.
And yes, everyone who can't compete in the women's league can, of course, compete in the coed league, which we generally call the men's league, because non-men get knocked out early on in the qualifiers. In fact, they generally do even worse than foreigners do in Brood War.
|
United States44157 Posts
On July 03 2026 08:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 08:12 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2026 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes lol but not in the same sport, what the fuck. To compete in the 100 meter, where in 2016 (last year where the wiki was updated) you had 84 participants, men needed to have ran at 10.16 the same year to qualify. That's more than half a second faster than what the fastest woman ran in 2016 - make it a 200 person competition, and you have 200 men.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say about football. Don't really see the point in going further with this tbh. Do you not understand what a qualifier is? The people who didn't qualify for the final round were still competing for the cup, they got knocked out at the qualifier stage. There were way more than 84 people trying to win the men's 100m. The 8 lanes on the track does not represent a hard cap. You're being deliberately dense. But you already solved it in your previous post. You said you're fine with a league in which there are arbitrary cutoffs, such as a womens' league. The cutoff of what a woman is, is arbitrary. If they draw that line to exclude all trans women, and also a bunch of AFAB women, are you okay with that? The line is arbitrary after all, and commercial interests somewhere backed it up with TV rights or so. And yes, everyone who can't compete in the women's league can, of course, compete in the coed league, which we generally call the men's league, because non-men get knocked out early on in the qualifiers. In fact, they generally do even worse than foreigners do in Brood War.
Yes, it’s their money, sponsors can choose what they sponsor and viewers can choose what they view. If they want a cis league that also excludes cis women with hormone disorders or whatever then good luck to them. I can’t make them go along with my vision for basketball where everyone wears stilts of various lengths to equalize the height.
That’s the difference between me and the transphobes. I think if a league decides to allow trans people under whatever restrictions it has decided to enact then that’s basically fine. The transphobes disagree. They may not watch women’s college swimming and they may not care about women’s college swimming but they’ll kill to prevent a trans woman getting 5th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
