Transgender athlete

[Koldo]

It would. It's not our issue that you don't understand the game you're talking about.

Hey, has this become a game where we can all make empty claims?

 

[Augustus]

It would would have been better if you didn't act as if you were merely repeating what you have quoted before, rather than intentionally leaving out the last bit. I expect more from you

I really think this discussion is beyond you and you are just trying to save face now.

Second, nothing else on that quote has relevancy. Any given player could choose to play in the open category if that's what he wants and if he is picked by a team.

Again it seems pointless to explain this to someone who didn’t grasp it the first 5 times.

But just in case:

The rules will vary from country to country because there is no way to enforce rules globally and people on the cusp of the 2 categories will have to adapt to radically different roles depending on if they are the smallest or the biggest guy in the league.

Also if the NBA introduced mini league, Canada could just create CNBA full of American teams and become the elite competition.

Hey, has this become a game where we can all make empty claims?

He offered to post your ideas on a basketball forum to see which of us is full of ****

 

[Koldo]

So...if they don't qualify for your magic score, they have to play a lower level? Regardless of how they measure up against the opponent on the floor?
Or we're just saying that the genetic freak can't play in the lower league because they're too good? Because competition takes care of that. They dont play in the lower league because they are too busy playing in the top league.

I think you have this weird idea that you can divide top level basketball into 2, 3 or 4 divisions, and end up with increased fairness. Strange idea. The top 100 players are still the top 100.



It does. You're going on and on about biological characteristics making life unfair for short men, I guess. I am one, in relative terms, and it's a nonsense argument. Meanwhile this is a thread about transgender athletes, which is something that impacts on women, and transgender athletes. Not men. Short or otherwise.

You suggest we are being disingenuous because we ONLY care about gender, and nothing else in terms of 'fairness'. But any system...including the one you are proposing...would pick certain traits as ways to equalise competition. For me, I'd pick gender, and try to work out ways to include transgender athletes in female competitions in a controlled and measured fashion. You want to pick a bunch of convoluted measures which have very dubious links to actual performance when you can just watch players compete and work out who's better.
Maybe we just have tiers based on game impact, and let players play at the level to which they can rise to?



It failed because very few people were interested in short man basketball as a spectator sport, and even as a participant sport most short guys would rather make big guys look stupid.
I have no idea why my opinion isn't relevant or considered informed by you. You've picked the one topic (basketball) that I live and breathe, and I've limited myself to Australian basketball examples exactly because I'm a qualified and accredited coach in the women's game, I spend huge amounts of time involved, I've played for over 32 years, etc.
Find someone else who has even a passing familiarity with the game, or at least realise that I know something of what I speak. Disagree with me if you like, but it's strange that you would question my credibility on this topic whilst having no understanding of the game at all.
Colour me confused.



Umm...I didn't say that. Are you really just trying to take a contrary position because 'virtue signalling'? What I said was...
Where a trans athlete can be included in women's competitions without it being carte blanche to all trans athletes without consideration, and where that athlete doesn't have clear undue advantage, I'm for it.

If your point is that trans athletes don't have clear undue advantage, then include them in female competitions. But leave the assessment of whether they do have clear undue advantage to someone who understands the sport, and more importantly to people who understand the medical impact of the various drugs and treatments trans athletes have to go through.
This would include, for example, when the athlete transitioned. It's a science I am sure we will get better at over the years.

If the trans athlete happens to be 'kinda fast and strong for a woman', then I think it has less impact on a team sport like basketball than it would in women's MMA. But I'd defer to the experts on that. So you will note if you read what I've said through this entire thread that I have never once suggested that I can call advantages a trans athlete may or may not have as 'undue', 'unsafe', or 'unfair'.


Like women's basketball? I agree.

1) I am not saying that people wouldn't be able to play in the open category because of their score. It is open, after all. I am saying the "genetic freaks" wouldn't be able to play in other categories.

Here's something you are not taking into consideration: There is a limited number of players that can play in any given category.

There are a lot of good players, outside the NBA, that would have room to shine if the rules didn't allow "genetic freaks" to have so much of an advantage.

2) Elaborate an argument as to why gender ought to be the only relevant factor when trying to equalize a competition and I will tear it apart in a minute.

3) There are many sports where hardly anyone watches. I don't see this as a reason for a category to fail. Something else must have happened.

4) I really am asking you: How exactly do you figure out whether the advantage a trans athlete is undue or not? Focus on the term 'undue'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hey, has this become a game where we can all make empty claims?

Just because you have no knowledge of the topic at hand doesn't make my claims empty.
It's a game where you are somehow talking about a height restricted league for men, because...I actually don't know why.

 

[Koldo]

The quoted part of my post used the example of a male player. It had nothing to do with women's basketball, women, or transgender athletes. Glass houses and all that.

It is in the last part...

"Meanwhile the 6'1" female players don't need to worry, since they won't be in ANY of the top level competitions."

 

[Koldo]

I'm selectively outraged because I don't care that people like me...like...exactly like me, 6 foot tall basketball players...are excluded from the NBA. Whereas we should all feel much more included if there was a short man NBA?
That's selective outrage?

C'mon, mate...this is a nonsense burger.

Kyrie Irving is 16 inches shorter than Tacko Fall, and would absolutely dominate him.
Meanwhile you couldn't name a single female player who should be in the NBA. Women need their own competition so that they can compete against other women (which apparently you don't disagree with). The question is where, when and how should transgender athletes be included in that restricted competition.
The rest of your height-focused pontificating has nothing to do with the OP at all, so I'm really lost why you want to pursue that point in relation to a sport you have no interest in.

Tell you what...

If you like, I can post an OP for you on a basketball forum I spend a lot of time on. It's where my username comes from (which is basketball related).
Give me a paragraph, and I'll put it up in good faith, and see what other people actually invested in basketball see. Perhaps I'm on an island here.

1) Kyrie is not a short man. He is tall! You are comparing two tall men to say height is not very impactful because the shorter man is a better player on this case. I can only imagine your reaction if I were to compare two male athletes and point out that the one with the least testosteron is not the best one, and then argue that this example shows testosteron doesn't provide a significant advantage.

2) Either it is important to have fair competitions or it is not. If it is not, then let transwomen freely play in the women's category. If it is, then let's adjust the sports (or categories) to make fairer competition. I have been saying this for quite some time. This is why I mentioned height in the first place.

 

[Koldo]

Height is genetic, not biological. Again; what are some of the other biological advantages people seem to not care about?

By biological, I am definitely including genetics. Re-read everything I have said with this in mind.

 

[Koldo]

Again; short men are not excluded from playing competitive basketball, they are just not getting paid millions to play at the professional level like some of the tall guys; big difference. Nobody is entitled to be able to play in the NBA.

Is there a league, in your country, for short men to play competitively with and against their peers?

 

[Koldo]

I really think this discussion is beyond you and you are just trying to save face now.


Again it seems pointless to explain this to someone who didn’t grasp it the first 5 times.

But just in case:

The rules will vary from country to country because there is no way to enforce rules globally and people on the cusp of the 2 categories will have to adapt to radically different roles depending on if they are the smallest or the biggest guy in the league.

Also if the NBA introduced mini league, Canada could just create CNBA full of American teams and become the elite competition.



He offered to post your ideas on a basketball forum to see which of us is full of ****

1) ROFL. Not only have you intentionally left out one part of the original quote in your second post, but you are now accusing me of trying to save face when I pointed out what you have done.

2) Oh, poor little athletes that would have to adapt to different rules if they wanted to play in other countries, by willfully joining closed categories, rather than the open one. My heart is broken because of that. There are tears all over my face right now.

3) How exactly would the creation of a "mini" league impact the NBA's open category?

4) Do you intend to appeal to popularity if my opinion is not popular?

 

[Koldo]

Just because you have no knowledge of the topic at hand doesn't make my claims empty.
It's a game where you are somehow talking about a height restricted league for men, because...I actually don't know why.

Claiming that creating a category for short men would radically change the game is an empty claim.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) I am not saying that people wouldn't be able to play in the open category because of their score. It is open, after all. I am saying the "genetic freaks" wouldn't be able to play in other categories.

Which would make no difference to anything. The genetic freaks and whichever of the 'normies' are good enough would play in the top league. NBA for America, NBL for Australia.
They then wouldn't be playing in the second league. So you're left with the next tier down of players. And below that, the next tier down.

As I've mentioned previously, there are already various subcategories of basketball played at various levels. The only competitions I was talking about here are elite, and sub-elite. And, as I've mentioned previously, those aren't casual terms. They have a specific meaning. In Australian terms, they mean the NBL (which would be the open league you're suggesting anyone can play in). The WNBL (the top women's league, which you've suggested would remain a women's league), the NBL1 (a little higher than state level, not quite national) for both men and women.

So the long and short of it is you seem to be suggesting to replace the NBL1 men's competition with one where you are banned if you are too genetically gifted. Although if you're too genetically gifted you'd be playing in the NBL anyway...right?

Here's something you are not taking into consideration: There is a limited number of players that can play in any given category.

There are a lot of good players, outside the NBA, that would have room to shine if the rules didn't allow "genetic freaks" to have so much of an advantage.

My examples have been Australian ones, so NBL. And of course there are a lot of good players outside the NBA. But no one wants to watch a competition that deliberately excludes the best of the players outside the NBA because 'height'.

2) Elaborate an argument as to why gender ought to be the only relevant factor when trying to equalize a competition and I will tear it apart in a minute.

You're talking ideology, and I'm talking utility, so I have no doubt in your own mind you'd 'tear my argument apart'.
As you've been at pains to state, you actually don't care about whether your ideas would ever be implemented, and you clearly know two-fifths of bugger-all about basketball.

But first of all, you're setting up a strawman.

1. They shouldn't be 'the only relevant factor'. It depends entirely on the sport. Women jockeys compete directly against men, and the idea of segregating based on gender is unrequired.
2. For certain sports, there are safety considerations which mean that there are more considerations than gender. Simplest example is combat sports and their weight divisions.
3. For certain sports (eg. basketball) there are commonly large numbers of different competition structures, so that all people can access competitions suited to them. This would include age-restricted competitions, mixed-gender competitions (they are not the same as open competitions), height-restricted competitions, walking basketball, all abilities basketball and wheelchair basketball.

That all not withstanding, you don't start with a national elite competition, and then drive it down. You start from the grassroots level, and grow. So the simple answer around why gender should be the relevant factor in dividing out competitions at the elite level is because that's what has been popular and effective in growing the game from it's inception. If you want to add a height-restricted league, and you think it can be some sort of accepted elite level program, then it gets the same chance the women's competition got. Grow it from the ground up. Invest time, get volunteers, development programs, coaches, excite your players, get sponsors, etc, etc.

I won't hold my breath, but that's the path. It's not an easy path, and it was tough for the men. And it was certainly tough for the women. It still is. Perhaps old man basketball, like I play, will become a televised, elite level sport, where the best of the over 30s are recognised. But I think not. I think we'll keep playing in front of 5 people, and paying for the privilege because we love the game.

3) There are many sports where hardly anyone watches. I don't see this as a reason for a category to fail. Something else must have happened.

No one wanted to play? Much like 9 foot ring competitions, where less athletic players could dunk in games, it's ultimately a pretty poor simulation of the game. Doesn't feel much like real basketball at all.
You don't have to explain that competitions can survive without audiences. I'm playing in an over 30s league, and our average crowd size is about 5 people. Each of the players pays to play.

That's not much relevant to running an elite or sub-elite competition with paid players, and requiring crowds for revenue, btw.
Basketball (much like soccer) is also a strongly international game. Various leagues need to innovate to try and attract talent. The NBL is competing with leagues throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc, for talent, as has developed innovative programs like the Next Stars program to remain relevant and attractive.

4) I really am asking you: How exactly do you figure out whether the advantage a trans athlete is undue or not? Focus on the term 'undue'.

I really am saying to you, I have never claimed to be able to tell. I have only suggested that it's appropriate to have a process and professionals checking that. I'm not those professionals.
I have spelt this out pretty clearly multiple times. I also linked to the Basketball Victoria guidelines, and said I was in agreement with trans athletes being able to self-nominate at lower levels. I've also been AT PAINS to demonstrate that 'lower levels' is not the same as 'low levels'. In Australia it is literally only the top two tiers of women's competition where trans athletes need to go through an approval process. The first trans athlete to go through this will be approved this week.

She did not, I suppose, have clear and undue advantage over the people she'll be playing against. So good for her.

Here is an article outlining some of the high level research and current thoughts on what general advantages trans athletes have, and which are myths. There is a concept in the article of 'meaningful competition'. Basically, it's not really about whether an athlete has a minor advantage over another, but whether their inclusion prevents meaningful competition. That's a pretty high bar, and I would envisage most trans athletes would be able to pass scrutiny. Their advantages would be minor (within the normal advantages some women have over others) or in some cases uncertain.

However, if someone was just commencing transition, for example, I think it would be reasonable to suggest they have undue advantage over other female competitors.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Claiming that creating a category for short men would radically change the game is an empty claim.

Oh my sweet Lord. You know NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME. How do you even judge what's an empty claim?
Just because I'm saying it?

Can you describe a basketball offence. Like any.
What offence would you run as a coach if your team was all 6 footers?
What defence would you run as a coach if your team was all 6 footers?
Same question, but now your team is a mixture of 6 footers upto 6'10" players (let's call it a 'normal' team)

Do you run the same offence in each case? Why?
Do you run the same defence in each case? Why?
Do you think running a drop half court defence is radically different from a full court zone trap? I kinda do.
Do you think running a 5 out motion is radically different to a double post offence?

I have played for 32 years and still play. I am a short man in basketball terms. I'm an accredited coach. I spend 5 days a week coaching junior girls. I watch more basketball than most people on a basketball website, nevermind a religious forum. But sure...my claims are empty because they don't fit your half-baked idea to equalise basketball that you just thought up on the spot. People probably haven't tried it, because they were too busy worshipping the status quo. Apart from when they did try height-restricted leagues, and no one much was interested.

 

[metis]

Wikkipedia an objective source? Really?

I often use it because it has no affiliation with either a political or religious body. If you have what you think is more objectively accurate, then maybe post it.

Sexual attraction! What on Earth does sexual attraction have to do with this conversation?

If you have to ask, then this would help explain why you take the stance that you do. Hint: We're speaking in large part of "gender issues" that especially deal with athletes that are transgender.

Bye

 

[Koldo]

Which would make no difference to anything. The genetic freaks and whichever of the 'normies' are good enough would play in the top league. NBA for America, NBL for Australia.
They then wouldn't be playing in the second league. So you're left with the next tier down of players. And below that, the next tier down.

As I've mentioned previously, there are already various subcategories of basketball played at various levels. The only competitions I was talking about here are elite, and sub-elite. And, as I've mentioned previously, those aren't casual terms. They have a specific meaning. In Australian terms, they mean the NBL (which would be the open league you're suggesting anyone can play in). The WNBL (the top women's league, which you've suggested would remain a women's league), the NBL1 (a little higher than state level, not quite national) for both men and women.

So the long and short of it is you seem to be suggesting to replace the NBL1 men's competition with one where you are banned if you are too genetically gifted. Although if you're too genetically gifted you'd be playing in the NBL anyway...right?

I didn't ever mention, as part of my suggestion, any of current leagues being replaced. I am suggesting the creation of a new category where innate biological characteristics that provide a significant advantage are not a thing, or at least, as less of a significant advantage as possible.

The creation of this category would make a difference to highly skilled athletes that can't compete properly against the "genetic freaks".

My examples have been Australian ones, so NBL. And of course there are a lot of good players outside the NBA. But no one wants to watch a competition that deliberately excludes the best of the players outside the NBA because 'height'.

Once again, another person claiming to speak for everyone. I wasn't aware there were so many of those in here.

No one wanted to play? Much like 9 foot ring competitions, where less athletic players could dunk in games, it's ultimately a pretty poor simulation of the game. Doesn't feel much like real basketball at all.
You don't have to explain that competitions can survive without audiences. I'm playing in an over 30s league, and our average crowd size is about 5 people. Each of the players pays to play.

That's not much relevant to running an elite or sub-elite competition with paid players, and requiring crowds for revenue, btw.
Basketball (much like soccer) is also a strongly international game. Various leagues need to innovate to try and attract talent. The NBL is competing with leagues throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc, for talent, as has developed innovative programs like the Next Stars program to remain relevant and attractive.

Source for no one wanting to play?

I really am saying to you, I have never claimed to be able to tell. I have only suggested that it's appropriate to have a process and professionals checking that. I'm not those professionals.
I have spelt this out pretty clearly multiple times. I also linked to the Basketball Victoria guidelines, and said I was in agreement with trans athletes being able to self-nominate at lower levels. I've also been AT PAINS to demonstrate that 'lower levels' is not the same as 'low levels'. In Australia it is literally only the top two tiers of women's competition where trans athletes need to go through an approval process. The first trans athlete to go through this will be approved this week.

She did not, I suppose, have clear and undue advantage over the people she'll be playing against. So good for her.

Here is an article outlining some of the high level research and current thoughts on what general advantages trans athletes have, and which are myths. There is a concept in the article of 'meaningful competition'. Basically, it's not really about whether an athlete has a minor advantage over another, but whether their inclusion prevents meaningful competition. That's a pretty high bar, and I would envisage most trans athletes would be able to pass scrutiny. Their advantages would be minor (within the normal advantages some women have over others) or in some cases uncertain.

However, if someone was just commencing transition, for example, I think it would be reasonable to suggest they have undue advantage over other female competitors.

I find the concept of 'meaningful competition', at least when talking about top-notch athletes, largely unachievable because most teams and athletes can't really compete for the first place. Many of them actually feel a huge sense of achievement when they reach 3rd place in a tournament since they know it is highly unlikely they would be able to get any farther than that. Worse yet, even games completely centered around skills don't make for a 'meaningful competition'.

The overarching point is getting lost here though. Where are the people who support creating a league for short men? Why do I only hear disapproval? I am not talking about the millionaires that might fund those teams. I am talking about the average Joes in here that reject the entire idea, just because. They absolutely would not support the creation of a fair league for short men, no matter if someone is willing to pay for it, because they don't care about having fair competitions. And yet, if transwomen can participate in the women's competitions and make the unfairness even more prevalent, they suddenly get annoyed by having an unfair game.... which was always unfair to begin with. It is hypocrisy.

 

[Koldo]

Oh my sweet Lord. You know NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME. How do you even judge what's an empty claim?
Just because I'm saying it?

Can you describe a basketball offence. Like any.
What offence would you run as a coach if your team was all 6 footers?
What defence would you run as a coach if your team was all 6 footers?
Same question, but now your team is a mixture of 6 footers upto 6'10" players (let's call it a 'normal' team)

Do you run the same offence in each case? Why?
Do you run the same defence in each case? Why?
Do you think running a drop half court defence is radically different from a full court zone trap? I kinda do.
Do you think running a 5 out motion is radically different to a double post offence?

I have played for 32 years and still play. I am a short man in basketball terms. I'm an accredited coach. I spend 5 days a week coaching junior girls. I watch more basketball than most people on a basketball website, nevermind a religious forum. But sure...my claims are empty because they don't fit your half-baked idea to equalise basketball that you just thought up on the spot. People probably haven't tried it, because they were too busy worshipping the status quo. Apart from when they did try height-restricted leagues, and no one much was interested.

Are you going to substantiate that claim now or just keep appealing to authority?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) Kyrie is not a short man. He is tall! You are comparing two tall men to say height is not very impactful because the shorter man is a better player on this case. I can only imagine your reaction if I were to compare two male athletes and point out that the one with the least testosteron is not the best one, and then argue that this example shows testosteron doesn't provide a significant advantage.

I don't remember saying he was short. I said he is 16 inches shorter than Tacko Fall, but is a substantially better player. He is 186.6cm, which is a grand total of 1.6 cm taller than your magical height cutoff. Your idea of assigning weightings to physical measurements is flawed. And...I've played basketball for 32 years, I'm not suggesting for a moment that 'height is not very impactful'. I'm suggesting that 'taller is better' is a flawed measure. Context and skill matters.

If you'd prefer, consider Fairleigh Dickinson University in the recent March Madness.

2) Either it is important to have fair competitions or it is not. If it is not, then let transwomen freely play in the women's category. If it is, then let's adjust the sports (or categories) to make fairer competition. I have been saying this for quite some time. This is why I mentioned height in the first place.

We have fair competitions. The best players compete at the top level, regardless of anything. Other players can access all sorts of controlled and inclusive competitions. Simple and workable.

Would you allow a transwoman who has transitioned in the last month to play freely in the top level women's competition. Perhaps you would. I wouldn't. It's not trans athletes competing in women's competitions that I have any issue with. It's what you mean by 'freely', and the fact that you are very inexact when speaking about this stuff.

 

[Augustus]

ROFL. Not only have you intentionally left out one part of the original quote in your second post, but you are now accusing me of trying to save face when I pointed out what you have done.

1 sentence at the end that was copied on a phone in no way changed the point in context.

But some people always try to quibble as an excuse to avoid the topic.

3) How exactly would the creation of a "mini" league impact the NBA's open category?

Probably not at all because it would fail.

Small guys nearly good enough for NBA would play in normal leagues in other countries.

It would be a 3rd rate competition that would die out in a year or 2 after haemorrhaging money like the NFL imitators (and NFL has fewer games and is massively more popular so should be easier to support a 2nd league)

Oh, poor little athletes that would have to adapt to different rules if they wanted to play in other countries, by willfully joining closed categories, rather than the open one. My heart is broken because of that. There are tears all over my face right now.

Again, making a league no one watches is not a workable idea.

The rules prevent the best small guys playing in the league if they want to get to the NBA, win an Olympic medal etc.

They have other options.

Do you intend to appeal to popularity if my opinion is not popular?

No, I’m incredibly confident it’s a dumb idea and that “not good enough to play with the big guys” small man NBA will not be successful.

That makes it unworkable and thus a pointless addition to the debate.

Asking people who like basketball if they like the idea would be evidence for you, no one else needs it though as it obviously bad.

Relentlessly arguing for a pro sport that not even you think would be popular requires a special type of logic

 

[Kfox]

It is a selective outrage, because, for example, essentially no one here cares if short men are being excluded from competitive basketball. Even though we all know tall players have a major advantage over short players.

Again; short men are not excluded from playing competitive basketball, they are just not getting paid millions to play at the professional level like the tall guys

By biological, I am definitely including genetics. Re-read everything I have said with this in mind.

Fair enough; as long as you recognize there is a big difference between biology and genetics, and recognize the problem people have with what you are saying is based on you attempting to conflate the two. If you want to make your point pretending biology and genetics are the same,. that's your choice but the problem people are expressing is based on biological males playing sports against biological females, not genetically gifted people playing against those who are not genetically gifted for the sport.

Is there a league, in your country, for short men to play competitively with and against their peers?

Yes! It's called the city league. Anybody can play in it.

 

[Kfox]

I often use it because it has no affiliation with either a political or religious body. If you have what you think is more objectively accurate, then maybe post it.

I asked for your opinion; not a 10 page source that you agree with; I don't have time to do that much reading. How about just giving me your opinion.

If you have to ask, then this would help explain why you take the stance that you do. Hint: We're speaking in large part of "gender issues" that especially deal with athletes that are transgender.

Bye

Again; what does athletes and the transgender issue have to do with sexual attraction?

 

[Augustus]

The overarching point is getting lost here though. Where are the people who support creating a league for short men? Why do I only hear disapproval? I am not talking about the millionaires that might fund those teams. I am talking about the average Joes in here that reject the entire idea, just because. They absolutely would not support the creation of a fair league for short men, no matter if someone is willing to pay for it, because they don't care about having fair competitions. And yet, if transwomen can participate in the women's competitions and make the unfairness even more prevalent, they suddenly get annoyed by having an unfair game.... which was always unfair to begin with. It is hypocrisy.

Again this logic is obviously fallacious, see if you can understand in this form this time:

“Unless you also support radical changes to a sport, it’s hypocritical to oppose the use of performance enhancing drugs in that sport”