More Unfairness From the Insane Left...

[carpedm9587]

How about this biological boys compete against biological boys, biological girls compete against biological girls. Simple - without all the extra hoops you are suggesting. Why does everyone have to be held hostage by a mere handful of mentally messed up kids?

No extra hoops. If girls are biological inferior to boys (for sports) as you suggest, then allowing them to compete with boys should make no difference - they will always lose. Meanwhile, "biological girls" have a safe venue to compete in.

Unless you're actually afraid some of those poor, inferior girls might actually clean up in mixed sports?

[carpedm9587]

Because anything and everything must be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Right. And it's certainly not "politically correct" to note that girls and boys should be competing separately...


As I have noted before, "politically correct" is a euphemism for "I don't want to hear it!"

[seer]

No extra hoops. If girls are biological inferior to boys (for sports) as you suggest, then allowing them to compete with boys should make no difference - they will always lose. Meanwhile, "biological girls" have a safe venue to compete in.

Unless you're actually afraid some of those poor, inferior girls might actually clean up in mixed sports?

I never called girls inferior, but your whole scheme is unnecessary.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't matter if you "teach" them that or not, because it's true (at least in the realm of most physical sports). If you keep them segregated as we do now, it teaches them that because they're kept segregated. If you don't segregate them, then the women are all going to be pushed out and they won't be able to compete. Again: World records for track events by women are not fast enough to meet the requirements men have for the events such as the Olympics.

The ability of a woman to win against a man is not in dispute. I expect that in any sport, a good female player would defeat me simply because I'm not any good at sports. However, the issue is when people of similar ability are put against each other, rather than a case where the woman has a clear advantage due to the man not being anywhere near as good. For example, the first example on your first link is Jackie Tonawanda vs. Larry Rodania. The former is an excellent female boxer, the latter is a complete nobody who is only remembered today because of the fact he lost to the former. Further, a number of the sports are cases where the biological differences between males and females play a much smaller role, such as horseracing and racecar driving, sports in which men's naturally stronger muscles are not particularly relevant.

Also, your third link actually does some to disprove your point. It argues that in the rather specific sport of open water swimming, men and women are on equal footing (though it does list some objections to that hypothesis), but declares that to make it "unique among the world's various athletic competitions" as in conceding that's not the case for other sports.

I would also be remiss to not point out something absolutely laugh out loud: In your first link, when listing times women beat men, it cites Chyna as defeating Jeff Jarrett. Here is the problem: That win occurred in professional wrestling, which is scripted and not an actual competition. One might as well point to some point in the comics that Wonder Woman defeated Superman as an example of how women can be as good as men in athletics.

So what if an "entire book" is devoted to the subject? One can easily find "entire books" devoted to arguing that the world is flat.

Your points are duly noted, Terra, but still do not deal with the fundamental problem. We have an entrenched attitude in our society that girls cannot compete on an equal footing with boys. Surprise, surprise, with that message repeatedly put out there (reread your own post to see multiple examples) we see exactly that result. So there is no way to know if the result is because of the repeated, diminishing message, because of the biology, or because of some combination of both. We do know there are instances where a woman won a professional competition that combined men and women. So we do know it is possible. So I'm inclined to believe it is a combination of both.

Until we eliminate the message, we will not know to what degree we are creating that reality. An easy way to eliminate the message: instead of dividing sports men/women, divided them anyone/XX. Then only those exhibiting XX chromosomes (which eliminates transgender females) can compete in those sports, providing a "protected" environment for those wanting that protection, but all athletes, regardless of genetics, can compete on an equal footing otherwise. If girls are truly inferior to boys athletically, this should pose no threat to boys. They'll always win, right?

That being said, I am not surprised the conservative response to this is, "oh my - a change? We cannot possibly have that! Let's just keep it the way it has always been!"

And then they wonder why the "conservative" message gets a bit of a bad rap these days...

[Mountain Man]

No extra hoops. If girls are biological inferior to boys (for sports) as you suggest, then allowing them to compete with boys should make no difference - they will always lose. Meanwhile, "biological girls" have a safe venue to compete in.

Unless you're actually afraid some of those poor, inferior girls might actually clean up in mixed sports?

Saying that on average women have inferior speed and strength to men is not an insult, it's a biological fact. The woman that can compete on equal footing with men is the rare exception

[Psychic Missile]

So their secret is to have more testosterone like a man?

And you don't see any difference in those photos and regular female athletes who DON'T abuse steroids (which are illegal in sports anyway?)

You are misinterpreting what I said, so I'll spell it out for you. I don't see a difference between the women pictured in your previous post and ciswomen like Katie Smith, Chantae McMillan, and Amanda Bingson. I pointed out that Nataliya Kuznetsova is more muscular than any of the other women I just mentioned and any of the women pictured in your post. She is more muscular because she uses steroids, which shows the difference high testosterone makes in sport competitions. When transwomen undergo HRT, their testosterone is brought down to the level of ciswomen. The no longer have male levels of testosterone. Testosterone is the main reason men have a competitive advantage in sports. Therefore, after HRT, there is no difference in competitive advantage.

[lilpixieofterror]

An example is not an argument, Pix. And I actually accept that their are biological differences between men and women. I do not accept that we know those biological differences justify separating men and women sports in whole or in part. There is a cultural bias at work here as well, and we do not have enough data to tell us what amount each (cultural bias, biological differences) contributes to the current state of affairs.

And again, the same is true for all my girlfriends too. It had zero to do with cultural biasness, but biological reality. Men have strength advantages that are biological realities. How many women are special forces? How many are in SWAT teams? How many firefighters? Few (if any) despite fewer caring if women are in those fields and there’s good reason because very few women are capable of those physical requirements. My fastest 1.5 mile run time was 10:58. Is that faster than a man that does zero exercise? Yep quite a bit faster, but is that faster than a male, in his early 20s that does that sort of thing regularly? No, many have that beat by 2 minutes or more and my time was in the top 5 in the women’s category when I did it nearly 10 years ago by practicing for a month, 6 days a week before my test. Sorry, but you’re wrong and it’s easy to demonstrate how wrong you are just by talking with fitness experts, consulting fitness records, talking with doctors, or consulting with male and female athletes.

[lilpixieofterror]

Saying that on average women have inferior speed and strength to men is not an insult, it's a biological fact. The woman that can compete on equal footing with men is the rare exception

My fastest 1.5 mile run is 10:58 and these days I’m around 12:15-45 on average.. That’s pretty good for a women’s run time, but not nearly as good for a man in the same physical shape. I’ve been doing this since I was 18 and I know there’s no way I can beat the men in my same fitness category. There a full minute faster per half mile.

[Tassman]

No extra hoops. If girls are biological inferior to boys (for sports) as you suggest, then allowing them to compete with boys should make no difference - they will always lose. Meanwhile, "biological girls" have a safe venue to compete in.

Unless you're actually afraid some of those poor, inferior girls might actually clean up in mixed sports?

Except that the real purpose of the is thread and the OP is the perennial opposition to granting equal rights to LGBT folk.

[rogue06]

Except that the real purpose of the is thread and the OP is the perennial opposition to granting equal rights to LGBT folk.

Obviously they have very strong drugs down under and tassy has taken more than his fair share

[carpedm9587]

Saying that on average women have inferior speed and strength to men is not an insult, it's a biological fact. The woman that can compete on equal footing with men is the rare exception

I don't believe I said "insult" anywhere...?

[carpedm9587]

And again, the same is true for all my girlfriends too. It had zero to do with cultural biasness, but biological reality.

How on earth could you possibly substantiate that claim?

Men have strength advantages that are biological realities. How many women are special forces? How many are in SWAT teams? How many firefighters? Few (if any) despite fewer caring if women are in those fields and there’s good reason because very few women are capable of those physical requirements. My fastest 1.5 mile run time was 10:58. Is that faster than a man that does zero exercise? Yep quite a bit faster, but is that faster than a male, in his early 20s that does that sort of thing regularly? No, many have that beat by 2 minutes or more and my time was in the top 5 in the women’s category when I did it nearly 10 years ago by practicing for a month, 6 days a week before my test. Sorry, but you’re wrong and it’s easy to demonstrate how wrong you are just by talking with fitness experts, consulting fitness records, talking with doctors, or consulting with male and female athletes.

And none of them will provide the information I'm asking for because, AFAICT, it has never been studied. If it has not been studied, we have no way of knowing what percentage of the infamous 10% gap is due to physical/biological differences, and what percent is due to social indoctrination.

As I have now noted multiple times - I do not question that there are clear biological differences. Indeed, I delight in some of them! However, we also live in societies where women (on average) still play second fiddle to men in multiple respects, are regularly told they are inferior to men, and are told they have their "proper role" to play. The form of indoctrination from childhood must have some degree of effect. How much? No one knows. Maybe the highest women achievers (in sports) are not the exception because of their biology, maybe they are the exception because they were raised in a context where that message was not regularly delivered by their family or community - or maybe they had the mental fortitude to shut it out.

The point is, we simply don't know.

[Mountain Man]

Except that the real purpose of the is thread and the OP is the perennial opposition to granting equal rights to LGBT folk.

That whooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head.

The real purpose of this thread is to point out the inherent unequality that is created when biological men are allowed to call themselves women and then dominate in women's sports. I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't outraged by this appropriation of female culture, but I suppose I shouldnn't be. Logic and consistency has never been the strong suite of liberalism. White people selling burritos? How dare you, sir! Men competing in women's sports and destroying the competition? That's simply what "equality" looks like.

[MaxVel]

How on earth could you possibly substantiate that claim?



And none of them will provide the information I'm asking for because, AFAICT, it has never been studied. If it has not been studied, we have no way of knowing what percentage of the infamous 10% gap is due to physical/biological differences, and what percent is due to social indoctrination.

As I have now noted multiple times - I do not question that there are clear biological differences. Indeed, I delight in some of them! However, we also live in societies where women (on average) still play second fiddle to men in multiple respects, are regularly told they are inferior to men, and are told they have their "proper role" to play. The form of indoctrination from childhood must have some degree of effect. How much? No one knows. Maybe the highest women achievers (in sports) are not the exception because of their biology, maybe they are the exception because they were raised in a context where that message was not regularly delivered by their family or community - or maybe they had the mental fortitude to shut it out.

The point is, we simply don't know.

Wow. You think that it's possible that if we had a truly equal opportunity society in every way, the biologically-based physiological differences between the two sexes might completely disappear?

Wow. I can't even...

[carpedm9587]

Wow. You think that it's possible that if we had a truly equal opportunity society in every way, the biologically-based physiological differences between the two sexes might completely disappear?

Wow. I can't even...

At no point did I ever say anything remotely like that...