Transgender athlete

[Koldo]

Endomorph body type has not even been an exception! At least a few short guys have made it in the NBA; if you gonna claim height, you gotta claim some of the other things I mentioned also.

I just listed some; you are just refusing to acknowledge it.

In other words, you don’t have an answer. How about if we just leave things as they are and only have the best allowed in professional sports.

I was talking about the likes of Muggsy being the exception.

Once again, I am not refusing to acknowledge that other factors can play a major role. I, however, don't have the knowledge to assess to what extent those traits are impactul.

If you want to only allow the best to play professional sports, do you mean to do away with women leagues?

 

[Kfox]

Absolute equality is not possible. Small height differences wouldn't make much of a difference.

7 inches is not a small height difference. How much of a height difference do you find acceptable?

 

[Kfox]

I was talking about the likes of Muggsy being the exception.

But Muggsy and Spud were able to play with guys over 7 feet tall! If that is where the money is, should they be allowed to play in those games? Or would you restrict them to the short team that doesn’t pay much?

Once again, I am not refusing to acknowledge that other factors can play a major role. I, however, don't have the knowledge to assess to what extent those traits are impactul.

Well if you had the knowledge, you would know they are impactful. The way I see it, if you aren’t gonna restrict on those other factors, you shouldn’t restrict on height either.

If you want to only allow the best to play professional sports, do you mean to do away with women leagues?

I would have no problem getting rid of any league that does not make money; that includes women's basketball league. Currently men’s basketball financially supports women's basketball because not enough people want to watch woman’s basketball, however there are enough women in power that want woman’s basketball so we have it. If we go with your suggestion of multiple subpar player leagues, who is going to financially support these teams?

 

[Augustus]

False equivalence. Obviously being the fastest is the entire point of 100m.

I’m largely being silly as your idea is so ludicrous.

But being fast is more genetic than anything.

A small guy can build skills and become good at basketball. I’ve seen many people who I used to be better than become better than me at many sports.

I’ve never seen anyone become fast who wasn’t fast to start with.

As a kid you knew your speed rank versus friends and that basically never changed. I had several friends who became professional sportsmen, much fitter and better trained than me.

If I was faster than them aged 10, then I was almost certainly faster than them aged 18.

I’ve seen awful players become very good, never a slow person become fast.

In theory, eventually at least, we could work out what characteristics make people physiologically incapable of running a sub X seconds 100m.

Size, muscle composition, VO2 max, hematocrit levels etc.

Small people can become good at basketball, wrong physiology means you can never become fast.

So an Olympic 100m for slower people makes as much sense, in theory, as a small guy NBA.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would have no problem getting rid of any league that does not make money; that includes women's basketball league. Currently men’s basketball financially supports women's basketball because not enough people want to watch woman’s basketball, however there are enough women in power that want woman’s basketball so we have it. If we go with your suggestion of multiple subpar player leagues, who is going to financially support these teams?

I'm sure you're talking about the US here (which is fine). Worth noting the situation varies from country to country. Our leagues here have different ownership structures entirely, and the women's game has become a lot more commercially viable in the last few years.
Largest crowd in this past season was 7,681, which sounds small I'm sure, but is almost a perfect match to the average men's crowd. Sure, that's peak versus average, but the salary costs for the players, the level of administrative overhead, etc, are substantially less.

 

[Koldo]

But Muggsy and Spud were able to play with guys over 7 feet tall! If that is where the money is, should they be allowed to play in those games? Or would you restrict them to the short team that doesn’t pay much?

Well if you had the knowledge, you would know they are impactful. The way I see it, if you aren’t gonna restrict on those other factors, you shouldn’t restrict on height either.

I would have no problem getting rid of any league that does not make money; that includes women's basketball league. Currently men’s basketball financially supports women's basketball because not enough people want to watch woman’s basketball, however there are enough women in power that want woman’s basketball so we have it. If we go with your suggestion of multiple subpar player leagues, who is going to financially support these teams?

As I have said, they should be allowed in the open category if that's what they wish.

You haven't presented to what extent those physical traits you have mentioned are impactful. I have no qualms on creating rules that balance those factors if you can show them to be both particularly impactful and that some individuals are born with these advantages, whereas others can't do anything about it.

Whoever wants to support those categories would support them. It should however be an olympic category.

 

[Koldo]

I’m largely being silly as your idea is so ludicrous.

But being fast is more genetic than anything.

A small guy can build skills and become good at basketball. I’ve seen many people who I used to be better than become better than me at many sports.

I’ve never seen anyone become fast who wasn’t fast to start with.

As a kid you knew your speed rank versus friends and that basically never changed. I had several friends who became professional sportsmen, much fitter and better trained than me.

If I was faster than them aged 10, then I was almost certainly faster than them aged 18.

I’ve seen awful players become very good, never a slow person become fast.

In theory, eventually at least, we could work out what characteristics make people physiologically incapable of running a sub X seconds 100m.

Size, muscle composition, VO2 max, hematocrit levels etc.

Small people can become good at basketball, wrong physiology means you can never become fast.

So an Olympic 100m for slower people makes as much sense, in theory, as a small guy NBA.

Athletics is fundamentally different from soccer, volleyball and basketball. There is little skill involved in athletics (which doesn't mean there is none involved). The entire point of a 100 meters run is to reward the fastest 100 meters runner. It is essentially a reward for best biology (as far as being a 100 meters runner goes). There isn't even room to make it a skill game. Unlike soccer, volleyball and basketball.

 

[Augustus]

Athletics is fundamentally different from soccer, volleyball and basketball. There is little skill involved in athletics (which doesn't mean there is none involved). The entire point of a 100 meters run is to reward the fastest 100 meters runner. It is essentially a reward for best biology (as far as being a 100 meters runner goes). There isn't even room to make it a skill game. Unlike soccer, volleyball and basketball.

Once you start making arbitrary fairness classes in pro sports that never had them, they are all equally illogical.

Biological sex is not arbitrary. It makes sense so half the population can enjoy sports more, in general. Every sport across the board.

Making sports more accessible to women is good and anyone who disagrees really doesn’t deserve the time of day.

Remaking sports based on nonsense categories that absolutely no one wants except people who hate sports, but want transwomen to compete in them, is inane.

 

[Koldo]

Once you start making arbitrary fairness classes in pro sports that never had them, they are all equally illogical.

Biological sex is not arbitrary. It makes sense so half the population can enjoy sports more, in general. Every sport across the board.

Making sports more accessible to women is good and anyone who disagrees really doesn’t deserve the time of day.

Remaking sports based on nonsense categories that absolutely no one wants except people who hate sports, but want transwomen to compete in them, is inane.

It is not half of the population that plays competitively though. If anything, what I am suggesting would allow MORE people to play competitively.

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about what I am suggesting: Evaluate what traits disproportionaly affect a given sport, and then either adjust the rules accordingly to improve fairness, or create a new category If that is more feasible.

You are merely calling it arbitrary because of a knee jerk reaction to defend the status quo, which is a fairly typical response.

Making sports more accessible to everyone willing to put some real effort is a great goal, which should not be restricted to women alone. It is this exact mentality that enables paralympic games, which I think no one is going to criticize the existence, I gather?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying but I wanted to be certain. The problem here is that you are not taking into consideration those that are being excluded from the competition because they don't have the innate traits required to be among the best, given the current rules.

There might be thousands, for example, of highly skilled basketball players that would love to play in the NBA, but since many of them are short they don't have what it takes to play in the NBA, because the current rules screw them. But since those players don't make it to the NBA, they don't show up in your graphics.

I think the easier way to make you see the problem here is thus: Imagine that trans women, that underwent male puberty, are allowed to play in any given sport's women category. Imagine also that undergoing male puberty gives them a significant advantage. Given this scenario, it is easy to conceive that eventually every athlete in the olympics playing in that women's category is going be a trans woman. (It might not happen but it is not far-fecthed depending on the sport). This would entail that the difference between athletes in that category is going to be small, but cisgender women suddenly are no longer competitive to participate in the olympics. This is exactly what is going on with short people that play basketball. Why is it a problem if cisgender women are no longer competitive if it is alright for short basketball players to be excluded? Why the double standard?

It's not a double standard but a mere recognition that being tall has much less impact or represents a less comprehensive advantage when looking at the spectrum of biological advantages than having undergone male puberty. The latter doesn't just give an advantage in terms of one variable like height; it covers multiple biological metrics that effectively exclude the majority of cis women from having a realistic chance of winning against a biologically male athlete or increase their risk of injury during competition (e.g., in boxing). On average, it also renders the advantages in one variable (e.g., strength) large enough to vastly undermine competition.

I'm not sure why this point is contentious in the first place. Women's sports weren't created by accident; they exist because a significant amount of empirical evidence demonstrates that overlooking the biological differences between men and women would render the sports either non-competitive or outright dangerous.

 

[Kfox]

As I have said, they should be allowed in the open category if that's what they wish.

Which means all of the good players will be in the NBA and all the sub-par players will be in the other league. Who is going to finance them? Because they definitely will not be financed through ticket sales at the games nobody will attend, and what good is having a professional team that nobody wants to watch? I would rather go to the local park and watch neighborhood kids play for free than pay to watch a bunch of short old guys who aren’t good enough for the NBA.

You haven't presented to what extent those physical traits you have mentioned are impactful.

And you haven’t presented to what extent height is impactful, you only said that it was the only one you are aware of

I have no qualms on creating rules that balance those factors if you can show them to be both particularly impactful and that some individuals are born with these advantages, whereas others can't do anything about it.

I’m sure you don’t. I was only explaining why I think your ideas are bad; obviously you think they are good, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

Whoever wants to support those categories would support them. It should however be an olympic category.

I doubt the olympic committee would be willing to present a sport nobody wants to watch.

 

[Koldo]

It's not a double standard but a mere recognition that being tall has much less impact or represents a less comprehensive advantage when looking at the spectrum of biological advantages than having undergone male puberty. The latter doesn't just give an advantage in terms of one variable like height; it covers multiple biological metrics that effectively exclude the majority of cis women from having a realistic chance of winning against a biologically male athlete or increase their risk of injury during competition (e.g., in boxing). On average, it also renders the advantages in one variable (e.g., strength) large enough to vastly undermine competition.

I'm not sure why this point is contentious in the first place. Women's sports weren't created by accident; they exist because a significant amount of empirical evidence demonstrates that overlooking the biological differences between men and women would render the sports either non-competitive or outright dangerous.

As I have said to another person here: The fact that undergoing male puberty provides an unfairer advantage than height, in basketball, doesn't suddenly make height a fair advantage.

Short players, barring a few exceptions, also aren't competitive when playing against tall players.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As I have said to another person here: The fact that undergoing male puberty provides an unfairer advantage than height, in basketball, doesn't suddenly make height a fair advantage.

Short players, barring a few exceptions, also aren't competitive when playing against tall players.

I'm thinking of this in terms of minimizing unfairness. We won't have perfection, but that doesn't mean we should throw away all restrictions either.

 

[Koldo]

Which means all of the good players will be in the NBA and all the sub-par players will be in the other league. Who is going to finance them? Because they definitely will not be financed through ticket sales at the games nobody will attend, and what good is having a professional team that nobody wants to watch? I would rather go to the local park and watch neighborhood kids play for free than pay to watch a bunch of short old guys who aren’t good enough for the NBA.


And you haven’t presented to what extent height is impactful, you only said that it was the only one you are aware of

I’m sure you don’t. I was only explaining why I think your ideas are bad; obviously you think they are good, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

I doubt the olympic committee would be willing to present a sport nobody wants to watch.

1) There is an underlying premise here that short players that can't compete with tall players are bad players, in the sense they would be bad playing the game even if competing with other short people. This is unfounded. Why are you worried about who is going to finance it? Am I saying it is going to come out of your pocket or something? Why do you care?

2) Literally just check the list of NBA players and their height. The shortest player has the average height of an adult male in the US. The average height of a NBA player is MUCH higher than the height of an average male adult in the US. Tell me now that height is not very impactful with a straight face and that this is just a coincidence.

3) Apparently you are unaware that there are olympic games that barely anyone watches.

 

[Koldo]

I'm thinking of this in terms of minimizing unfairness. We won't have perfection, but that doesn't mean we should throw away all restrictions either.

Since it is possible to further minimize unfairness, there is no reason to refrain from even trying. Right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is one of the most bemusing threads I've seen on RF in my entire time here.
It's akin to watching wombats arguing with plates of jelly about whether the Muppets should be remade as anime.

 

[Augustus]

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about what I am suggesting: Evaluate what traits disproportionaly affect a given sport, and then either adjust the rules accordingly to improve fairness, or create a new category If that is more feasible.

Like fast twitch muscle fibres etc. for sprinting (if we could measure them accurately with new technology)?

Yet you rejected this idea despite it being a more impactful metric than height as it basically amounts to a 100m sprint for slow people.

Most sports probably don’t even have a key metric, football for example.

You are merely calling it arbitrary because of a knee jerk reaction to defend the status quo, which is a fairly typical response.

Making sports more accessible to everyone willing to put some real effort is a great goal, which should not be restricted to women alone. It is this exact mentality that enables paralympic games, which I think no one is going to criticize the existence, I gather?

It’s not a knee jerk reaction. It’s genuinely a ludicrous idea.

How many people do you think refuse to play basketball when they want to simply because they are too short?

It doesn’t increase inclusion really, it simply reduces the chance you will play at a higher level.

Small guy NBA and slow guy Olympic sprinting create more problems than they solve. Making a handful of sports slightly fairer but still massively unfair does nothing except create new sports no one really wants to watch.

Disability sport makes it possible to play sport when otherwise it might be impossible, it also redefines attitudes towards disability and encourages others to take up sports.

These are qualitatively different.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Since it is possible to further minimize unfairness, there is no reason to refrain from even trying. Right?

Trying is fine. Unworkable suggestions that would create more problems than they would solve (if they even solved anything) wouldn't be fine.

 

[Koldo]

Trying is fine. Unworkable suggestions that would create more problems than they would solve (if they even solved anything) wouldn't be fine.

Sure. I am not saying otherwise. Let's just not label something as unworkable because it is different from usual.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure. I am not saying otherwise. Let's just not label something as unworkable because it is different from usual.

We could label them unworkable because they are unworkable though, right?