Women's Sports

[Twilight Hue]

Elite born male athletes will always win against elite born female athletes (in athletic sports)

100% of the time.

That’s the point.

Glad we agree on that, and you realise why the Phelps gambit sucks as an argument

(CPAC) say eventually they will be pushed out of their own sports and only be able to spectate from the sidelines.

'Women are going to be watching their own sports from the sidelines,’ student-athlete warns at CPAC

A female student-athlete warned that women will soon be watching their own sports from the sidelines because males who identify as female are being allowed to compete in women s sports and they re

www.christianpost.com

 

[Callisto]

He is not just at the high end. He is an outlier.

Then are you asserting he shouldn't compete at all? The athletes who stand the best chance of competing against him at all are other males, not females or children, or the disabled. Yet you act as though he's somehow other than a high-performing male athlete. That means they either need to create another division or bar him from ever competing since he doesn't fit within the existing division.

If after grouping up by similarities you notice a few people win consistently, what conclusion do you reach? Obviously that there is something off with your grouping. Those few guys obviously are not that similar to the rest.

No, the only thing off is you trying to say he's something other than a high-performing male competitor. This might be the case if he never lost a race in his life. But he has which means, once again, yet again, he falls within the higher range of male performance.

 

[exchemist]

I didn't miss that. What I am saying is that Phelps was an outlier to the "performance and physical range within which individuals of the same sex fall into". Just like a transwomen is going to be (or rather, may be) an outlier when she competes in women's league. If nobody cared about the existence of an outlier like Phelps, why are people suddenly caring about transwomen being outliers?



I think we ought to be consistent. Either we care about fairness or we do not care about fairness. As for me, I wouldn't care if Phelps competed against children, because I see it as a losing battle to try to convince people that sports should be fair.

Because it could seriously damage a number of women’s sports where strength is a factor.

 

[Koldo]

How do you figure that,

Regularly pushing your body to it's limits comes with a high risk of musculoskeletal injuries. There is nothing healthy about going through multiple injuries.

and what do you mean by 'highly competitive', as opposed to just 'competitive'?

I am referring to having a sport as a job, rather than playing for fun in the weekend.

 

[Koldo]

Then are you asserting he shouldn't compete at all? The athletes who stand the best chance of competing against him at all are other males, not females or children, or the disabled. Yet you act as though he's somehow other than a high-performing male athlete. That means they either need to create another division or bar him from ever competing since he doesn't fit within the existing division.

This is exactly the discussion that should be had back in 2003. How do we deal with an outlier to produce fairness? Too late now though. Did anyone care? Nope. Why? Because people don't actually care about fairness in general when it comes down to sports.

No, the only thing off is you trying to say he's something other than a high-performing male competitor. This might be the case if he never lost a race in his life. But he has which means, once again, yet again, he falls within the higher range of male performance.

I have absolutely no idea how you came up with this arbitrary standard of fairness. Your premise here is that it is only unfair for someone to compete within a given group if and only if this person wins 100% of the time. What the heck is the basis for this premise? Why would I not reject it?

 

[Koldo]

Because it could seriously damage a number of women’s sports where strength is a factor.

Damage?
You mean that having an outlier damages a sport?

 

[Callisto]

This is exactly the discussion that should be had back in 2003. How do we deal with an outlier to produce fairness? Too late now though. Did anyone care? Nope. Why? Because people don't actually care about fairness in general when it comes down to sports.

How is it too late? Phelps is simply an elite male athlete. How is it not fair that he competes against other males, is he outside the species, something other than male?

Again I ask you, how do you define fairness?

I have absolutely no idea how you came up with this arbitrary standard of fairness. Your premise here is that it is only unfair for someone to compete within a given group if and only if this person wins 100% of the time. What the heck is the basis for this premise? Why would I not reject it?

It's not arbitrary nor was that my premise, I'm questioning yours. For at least the third time I ask, how do you define fairness?

 

[Koldo]

How is it too late? Phelps is simply an elite male athlete. How is it not fair that he competes against other males, is he outside the species, something other than male?

Because being able to consistently win at world level entails that either a miracle happened or he had a very significant advantage over the other competitors. If someone has a very significant advantage over others, there is no fairness.

Again I ask you, how do you define fairness?



It's not arbitrary nor was that my premise, I'm questioning yours. For at least the third time I ask, how do you define fairness?

To put it simple: A fair game/match is one where all competitors involved have a solid chance of winning if they have trained properly.

 

[Callisto]

Because being able to consistently win at world level entails that either a miracle happened or he had a very significant advantage over the other competitors. If someone has a very significant advantage over others, there is no fairness.

Ridiculous. Phelps is simply on the higher end of the performance range for male swimmers. There are other athletes in other sports who represent the upper range for their sex in those sports as well. It's as if you don't comprehend performance isn't uniform but is an ambit with people landing at either end and every point in between.

To put it simple: A fair game/match is one where all competitors involved have a solid chance of winning if they have trained properly.

They all had an equal chance. They all go through the same physical development, supported by comparable training and career trajectory to meet the minimum requirements established by the given governing body in order to qualify. It's to be expected some will perform better than others and to varying degrees. Phelps is not the first nor the last to win multiple competitions. There are and will always be new athletes to come along and surpass previous athletes. He's not the demigod you seem to see him as.

 

[Koldo]

Ridiculous. Phelps is simply on the higher end of the performance range for male swimmers. There are other athletes in other sports who represent the upper range for their sex in those sports as well. It's as if you don't comprehend performance isn't uniform but is an ambit with people landing at either end and every point in between.

By this standard, transwomen winning consistently is just another case of higher end of the performance too.

They all had an equal chance. They all go through the same physical development, supported by comparable training and career trajectory to meet the minimum requirements established by the given governing body in order to qualify. It's to be expected some will perform better than others and to varying degrees. Phelps is not the first nor the last to win multiple competitions. There are and will always be new athletes to come along and surpass previous athletes. He's not the demigod you seem to see him as.

The way you are establishing whether someone had equal chances at winning is completely flawed. You are ignoring the massive genetical discrepancies between males which lead to completely different outcomes.

The irony is that you do see those genetic discrepancies when it comes down to the difference men and women. But you simply dismiss them among members of the same group.

 

[exchemist]

Damage?
You mean that having an outlier damages a sport?

Having a whole class of people with an inbuilt advantage does, certainly, which is why there is a such a thing as women's sports.

To apply your reasoning, one would not have women's sport categories at all: the women should just compete against the men and if they get beaten, say, 80% of the time by male athletes, they should just accept it.

Is that what you are arguing for? What do you think women would have to say about that?

 

[Koldo]

Having a whole class of people with an inbuilt advantage does, certainly, which is why there is a such a thing as women's sports.

To apply your reasoning, one would not have women's sport categories at all: the women should just compete against the men and if they get beaten 80% of the time, say, by men, they should just accept it.

Is that what you are arguing for?

I am arguing for consistency. Either we care about fairness in sports or we don't. Both ways work for me.

It is unfair that some people have a massive biological advantage over others. If we care about fairness, cis women should only compete with cis women, but that also entails adjusting for/excluding the outliers, for example. Right?

 

[Callisto]

By this standard, transwomen winning consistently is just another case of higher end of the performance too.

Incorrect. Transwomen are biological males competing in divisions established for biological females.

The way you are establishing whether someone had equal chances at winning is completely flawed. You are ignoring the massive genetical discrepancies between males which lead to completely different outcomes.

Each division has requirements athletes must be capable of in order to qualify. If there are recurring measurable factors that are giving individuals unfair advantages then that would need to be evaluated and suggest greater limitations imposed. So far, you're claiming Phelps is an outlier, an anomaly. So you're either suggesting he's an aberration or cause to revisit and establish additional limitations on who can compete.

The irony is that you do see those genetic discrepancies when it comes down to the difference men and women. But you simply dismiss them among members of the same group.

Not at all, you're just being obtuse. The divisions are sex-segregated and that's the primary distinction that determines who should be competing (if at all) in what division. Athletes are either one or the other.

There is a feasible range of performance for those who belong to the given group (in this case, biological sex). Beyond that, it goes back to discerning whether someone is an aberration within that group (as you're suggesting re: Phelps) or whether the performance expectations for that group need to be reevaluated, including whether to put greater limitations on who can qualify.

 

[exchemist]

I am arguing for consistency. Either we care about fairness in sports or we don't. Both ways work for me.

It is unfair that some people have a massive biological advantage over others. If we care about fairness, cis women should only compete with cis women, but that also entails adjusting for/excluding the outliers, for example. Right?

So are you in favour in retaining women's categories in sport, or not?

 

[Koldo]

Incorrect. Transwomen are biological males competing in divisions established for biological females.

Even if true, it is irrelevant if those in power agree to allow transwomen to play.

Each division has requirements athletes must be capable of in order to qualify. If there are recurring measurable factors that are giving individuals unfair advantages then that would need to be evaluated and suggest greater limitations imposed. So far, you're claiming Phelps is an outlier, an anomaly. So you're either suggesting he's an aberration or cause to revisit and establish additional limitations on who can compete.

More importantly, I am saying this debate simply didn't happen. Why? Because people don't care. But suddenly when it comes down to transwomen this becomes an issue. Let's be honest, this is not about fairness.

Not at all, you're just being obtuse. The divisions are sex-segregated and that's the primary distinction that determines who should be competing (if at all) in what division. Athletes are either one or the other.
There is a feasible range of performance for those who belong to the given group (in this case, biological sex). Beyond that, it goes back to discerning whether someone is an aberration within that group (as you're suggesting re: Phelps) or whether the performance expectations for that group need to be reevaluated, including whether to put greater limitations on who can qualify.

A feasible range of performance that doesn't ensure fairness, considering how huge it is.

 

[Augustus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...nd-place-finish-girls-race-draws-backlash.amp
Edit: Actually, I take that back since you have mentioned elite specifically. It is going to be very tricky to address this because there are not many elite trans athletes in the first place.

There is a century of data on elite male and female completion data though.

It is easy to identify elite male and elite females athletes.

Do you have any doubt that every single one if the elite males would beat every single one of the elite females?

Do you have any doubt that it wouldn’t even be close eternity the worst male and the best female?

( if it helps make up your mind, the world 100m women’s record is about the same as the 14 year old boys record. I guess you can work out why)

 

[Koldo]

So are you in favour in retaining women's categories in sport, or not?

I don't care. Just don't say that keeping/creating the women's league is necessary to achieve fairness and then dismiss all other cases of unfairness as irrelevant. Just be consistent. Either one cares about fairness in sports or one doesn't.

 

[Koldo]

There is a century of data on elite male and female completion data though.

It is easy to identify elite male and elite females athletes.

Do you have any doubt that every single one if the elite males would beat every single one of the elite females?

Do you have any doubt that it wouldn’t even be close eternity the worst male and the best female?

( if it helps make up your mind, the world 100m women’s record is about the same as the 14 year old boys record. I guess you can work out why)

But this is not about regular elite male athletes competing against elite female athletes, right?

 

[Augustus]

Let's be honest, this is not about fairness.

Let’s be honest, it’s about fairness. Not for every Fix news republican perhaps, but there is core debate among sports scientists and administrators acting in good faith that is certainly about fairness.

Anyone who is so badly informed that they don’t understand this can be dismissed out of hand due to ignorance.

It’s the same reason drug cheats get banned, or ultra marathon runners who use cars get banned or the Paralympics has lots of classes so disabled people can compete fairly with those who have similar disabilities.

They don’t just stick all disabled folk in the same competition and say “if you don’t like it, take up flower arranging”.

Fairness in sport matters, as does safety, and if you can’t understand that you are too badly informed to take seriously.

 

[exchemist]

I don't care. Just don't say that keeping/creating the women's league is necessary to achieve fairness and then dismiss all other cases of unfairness as irrelevant. Just be consistent. Either one cares about fairness in sports or one doesn't.

So you can't or won't say. And I know why. It's because, although you won't admit it, you know it would be indefensible to propose scrapping women's categories of sport. Women would be furious. It would doom them to being second class athletes.

A man transitioning to being a woman still has a man's physique and may have male levels of hormones and a male metabolism too. Admitting such people into women's sport would be like allowing men who requested it to compete with the women. It is obvious this can't be acceptable to women.