Transgender athlete

[Kfox]

In other words, they pay lip service.

No; they find your idea of fairness absurd; especially concerning your admitted ignorance concerning what physical traits are advantageous concerning the sport.

 

[Koldo]

Of course.


Agreed. But some would say that it's unfair to exclude me from the amateur tournament because of my sex.

My point is, no matter what we do it's going to be "unfair" to someone. But as many have noted, that's the nature of sports....at the competitive levels they are inherently unfair. That's what competition entails.

However, not all sports leagues are competitive. Some are primarily about playing and having fun, such as rec leagues, which are often co-ed. So if someone wants to play but isn't into serious competition, that's where they go.

So overall, given the number of nuances at play with this issue, it's important to specify exactly what we're talking about when we start debating different approaches. Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to do with people who don't know much of anything about sports.

But we can seek to minimize unfairness and if we don't try then we don't care. What annoys me is pretending we care when we don't or even worse, caring selectively. Like creating a women only category, but ignoring all other factors that make a huge impact.

 

[Jose Fly]

But we can seek to minimize unfairness and if we don't try then we don't care. What annoys me is pretending we care when we don't or even worse, caring selectively. Like creating a women only category, but ignoring all other factors that make a huge impact.

All I can do is repeat....given the number of nuances at play with this issue, it's important to specify exactly what we're talking about when we start debating different approaches.

 

[Koldo]

No; they find your idea of fairness absurd; especially concerning your admitted ignorance concerning what physical traits are advantageous concerning the sport.

It is absolutely irrelevant whether you or anyone elses find my idea of fairness absurd. If you have an argument to make, present it and let's debate.

 

[Koldo]

All I can do is repeat....given the number of nuances at play with this issue, it's important to specify exactly what we're talking about when we start debating different approaches.

Consider the height advantage in basketball, for example. Considering the advantage that height gives to basketball players, is it fair for short players to play against tall players without any kind of rule to balance that out?

 

[Jose Fly]

Consider the height advantage in basketball, for example. Considering the advantage that height gives to basketball players, is it fair for short players to play against tall players without any kind of rule to balance that out?

Yes. That's been covered in this thread already.

 

[Koldo]

Yes. That's been covered in this thread already.

Post number?

 

[Jose Fly]

Post number?

Dang man, you and Augustus went over it this morning on pages 7 and 8 of this thread! Did you forget?

 

[Koldo]

Dang man, you and Augustus went over it this morning on pages 7 and 8 of this thread! Did you forget?

I am asking in what post you typed your very own post regarding this subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am asking in what post you typed your very own post regarding this subject.

I didn't say I had. I noted that the question you raised had already been discussed in this thread.

 

[Koldo]

I didn't say I had. I noted that the question you raised had already been discussed in this thread.

Ah, I see. And you have nothing to add?
No one has been able to argue that the height advantage is fair though. Only that creating a new category to address this issue wouldn't be a popular solution. In other words, it is unfair, but.. shrugs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Even experts like Catlin Jenner agree it's an unfair matchup.

People need to acknowledge there are limits, and need to stop pretending it dosent matter when it clearly does.

As you know, I don't very often agree with you, but this time...

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, I see. And you have nothing to add?

Not really, unless you have something new to add.

No one has been able to argue that the height advantage is fair though.

Well duh...of course it's not "fair". In the same way, it's not "fair" that the guy who beat me out for the starting catcher spot on my HS baseball team was 6'2" and 215 lbs. It's not "fair" that my arms are longer than normal, which gives me lots of advantages in lots of sports.

That was my point when I noted earlier that sports competition is inherently unfair.

Only that creating a new category to address this issue wouldn't be a popular solution. In other words, it is unfair, but.. shrugs.

Welcome to sports.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As you know, I don't very often agree with you, but this time...

I may frame this post and hang it on me wall!

*grin*

 

[Koldo]

Not really, unless you have something new to add.


Well duh...of course it's not "fair". In the same way, it's not "fair" that the guy who beat me out for the starting catcher spot on my HS baseball team was 6'2" and 215 lbs. It's not "fair" that my arms are longer than normal, which gives me lots of advantages in lots of sports.

That was my point when I noted earlier that sports competition is inherently unfair.


Welcome to sports.

It Is like I have said: If sports are inherently unfair and we are going to do nothing about it, then the only reason to have a category for women is redundant. Might as well do away with it. I also don't get why you asked about fairness in the first place.

 

[Jose Fly]

It Is like I have said: If sports are inherently unfair and we are going to do nothing about it, then the only reason to have a category for women is redundant.

I also don't get why you asked about fairness in the first place.

Then you're misunderstanding the situation, and again it comes down to specifics and nuances, which means talking in vague generalities isn't going to accomplish anything.

Perhaps it would help if you clarified what you mean by "fair". In the context of elite level competitive sports, I think of "fair" as being that all competitors have equal opportunities to compete, and ultimately succeed or fail on their own merits. So when the bigger, stronger guy beat me out for the catcher spot, I saw that as "fair". As has been covered, that's the case in the top professional sports leagues, which are open to anyone who's good enough to play in them. The fact that they're all male is not by rule, but a result of the fundamental physical differences between men and women.

That outcome (top leagues being all male) raised an obvious issue....what about women who want to play and compete? Are they forever relegated to lower-level leagues where they would play in obscurity? Is that an outcome we want? We decided it wasn't, and given the obvious fact of "open competition = all men", we created women's sports leagues specifically to provide top women athletes opportunities to compete against the best of their peers.

I think that makes very good sense. Do you?

Getting back to what's "fair"......in the context of recreational/non-competitive sports, I see "fair" quite differently. In those settings, it means everyone gets equal playing time and there's a spot on a team for everyone who wants to play.

Do you see how those are quite different?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then why do so many sports exist here in Brazil if hardly anyone watches them?

Because every sport will have a top tier competition by definition.
If you're telling me that there are so many sports in Brazil that exist AND have various breakdowns of the competitors into classes beyond gender, and are team sports (ie. Basketball is fundamentally different to boxing) and keeping in mind we're talking about the elite level...

Well...let's just say I'm open to hearing more.

 

[Koldo]

Then you're misunderstanding the situation, and again it comes down to specifics and nuances, which means talking in vague generalities isn't going to accomplish anything.

Perhaps it would help if you clarified what you mean by "fair". In the context of elite level competitive sports, I think of "fair" as being that all competitors have equal opportunities to compete, and ultimately succeed or fail on their own merits. So when the bigger, stronger guy beat me out for the catcher spot, I saw that as "fair". As has been covered, that's the case in the top professional sports leagues, which are open to anyone who's good enough to play in them. The fact that they're all male is not by rule, but a result of the fundamental physical differences between men and women.

That outcome (top leagues being all male) raised an obvious issue....what about women who want to play and compete? Are they forever relegated to lower-level leagues where they would play in obscurity? Is that an outcome we want? We decided it wasn't, and given the obvious fact of "open competition = all men", we created women's sports leagues specifically to provide top women athletes opportunities to compete against the best of their peers.

I think that makes very good sense. Do you?

Getting back to what's "fair"......in the context of recreational/non-competitive sports, I see "fair" quite differently. In those settings, it means everyone gets equal playing time and there's a spot on a team for everyone who wants to play.

Do you see how those are quite different?

It is all about having double standards.

I could literally be asking: What about XYZ that want to play this given sport competitively but can't? Are they forever relegated to lower-level leagues where they would play in obscurity? Is that an outcome we want?

And if XYZ is replaced by anything other than 'cisgender women' or 'person with physical disability', you would easily say you don't care. Wouldn't you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not sure I follow...
Do you mean only open competitions are elite competitions?

No. Absolutely not. And to be fair to you, you may not have seen earlier in this thread where I linked to Basketball Victoria documentation and discussed this.

Elite and sub elite have very specific and defined meanings for basketball here.
Keeping things relatively simple, there are 4 competitions (only) that fall into this category.

1. NBL - national men's competition, which is basically open to anyone, although it has rules around number of international players, etc.

2. WNBL - national women's competition, open to any women (rules around foreign players), and with developing rules around transgender athletes. It's basically case by case for now, although no identified trans athlete has played at this level.

3. NBL1 Mens - multi-state level men's competition, which is basically open to anyone, although it has rules around number of international players, etc.

4. NBL1 Womens - multi-state level women's competition, open to any women (rules around foreign players), and with developing rules around transgender athletes. It's basically case by case for now, with the first openly transgender athlete having applied and been approved for this upcoming season.

At every other level, right up to very high level state competitions, trans athletes can just nominate their gender and play based on that. It is literally just the above four listed competitions that are up for discussion at this point, in relation to Australian basketball.

 

[Koldo]

Because every sport will have a top tier competition by definition.
If you're telling me that there are so many sports in Brazil that exist AND have various breakdowns of the competitors into classes beyond gender, and are team sports (ie. Basketball is fundamentally different to boxing) and keeping in mind we're talking about the elite level...

Well...let's just say I'm open to hearing more.

I am saying there are a LOT of sports played in Brazil that essentially nobody cares about. Why even have any category for them, at all, if popularity is a necessity?