Women's Sports

[Augustus]

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

The science and fairness question is the same.

Transwomen competing in the female category is unfair for the same reason men competing in it is.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Selective fairness is not fairness. It is paying lip service.

 

[exchemist]

Selective fairness is not fairness. It is paying lip service.

If you think that then you should argue for the abandonment of separate categories for women in sport. But you won't.

 

[Koldo]

If you think that then you should argue for the abandonment of separate categories for women in sport. But you won'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.

My genuine preference is illustrated by the right side of this image:

But I just don't care anymore. Because almost no one cares about fairness. At this point, I only want to be the voice to point out the hypocrisy of those that pay lip service to fairness in sports. I want to be the voice that asks for consistency.

 

[Koldo]

The science and fairness question is the same.

Transwomen competing in the female category is unfair for the same reason men competing in it is.

It is more complicated than that because there is gender-affirming healthcare and hormone levels involved too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.



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

Cool, thanks for the clarifications.
I agree that injuries (physical and even mental in some cases) are inherent risks, and in some sorts are particularly egregious.
And if you're referring to professional sports as 'highly competitive' then that makes sense.

I would push back on the 'There is NOTHING healthy...' part, as I think it depends on the sport. I'd also say at the point of professionalism, you're comparing it to 'a real job', many of which can also cause health issues. For example, my brother in law is a roof plumber. It's hard comparing a potential 40 year career on rooves and the associated back and skin cancer issues he has with the more acute injuries he probably would have suffered if he played competitive basketball at a professional level. Both have problematic health outcomes.

But I get your point. My ankles are a mess, and that's from non-professional sports. But it's helped my cardio-vascular health compared to not playing sports (I hate the gym with a passion).

 

[Callisto]

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

More organizations are choosing not to cave to radical activist ideology and are upholding division based on sex in sports. Inevitably, the question that remains is what to do with trans athletes, either have them continue to compete within their biological sex (as they've always done) or consider the feasibility of transgender divisions.

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.

It's absolutely about fairness. Women are losing opportunities, scholarships, and income when displaced by non-biological women.

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

By that line of reasoning, there should be no attempt at fairness at all. In reality, grouping competitors by shared traits (age, sex, disability) ensures a fair baseline to build from.

(edited to fix an incomplete sentence)

 

[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.

Then the onus is on the other athletes and the governing boards to raise the question and evaluate the nature of this "unfairness". E.g., Doping in sports is clearly unfair and is continually addressed. If there is something specific regarding ethnicity or specific genes an athlete has, then that would have to be considered as well.

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 have a solid chance of winning, again there are criteria that need to be met in order to qualify in the first place. You seem to balk at the idea of barring athletes from competing against those of the opposite sex yet state it's "unfair" for a male athlete who's on the higher range of performance to compete against his own sex. If it's feasible for a male to be too good to play against other males, then that supports the argument that males should not compete in female sports either.

 

[Koldo]

More organizations are choosing not to cave to radical activist ideology and are upholding division based on sex in sports. Inevitably, the question that remains is what to do with trans athletes, either have them continue to compete within their biological sex (as they've always done) or consider the feasibility of transgender divisions.

But transgender divisions aren't feasible, and making transwomen play against cisgender males will result in the former almost always losing if they have taken any steps towards transitioning. In other words, either transwomen or cisgender women are getting screwed with this solution.

It's absolutely about fairness. Women are losing opportunities, scholarships, and income when displaced by non-biological women.

You claim that it is about fairness, but then the very next sentence which is supposed to elaborate on how it is about fairness has nothing to do with fairness.

By that line of reasoning, there should be no attempt at fairness at all. In reality, grouping competitors by shared traits (age, sex, disability) ensures a fair baseline to build from.

(edited to fix an incomplete sentence)

Or, we can stop thinking that dividing people by age, sex and disability is sufficient to create fairness.

 

[Koldo]

Then the onus is on the other athletes and the governing boards to raise the question and evaluate the nature of this "unfairness". E.g., Doping in sports is clearly unfair and is continually addressed. If there is something specific regarding ethnicity or specific genes an athlete has, then that would have to be considered as well.

Great. But who is actively raising that question and looking for solutions? No one. Because pretty much no one actually cares about fairness.

They all have a solid chance of winning, again there are criteria that need to be met in order to qualify in the first place. You seem to balk at the idea of barring athletes from competing against those of the opposite sex yet state it's "unfair" for a male athlete who's on the higher range of performance to compete against his own sex. If it's feasible for a male to be too good to play against other males, then that supports the argument that males should not compete in female sports either.

I am argumenting in favor of consistency. If it is fairness that justifies creating and keeping women's categories, then let's seek fairness across the entire board.

 

[Callisto]

But transgender divisions aren't feasible, and making transwomen play against cisgender males will result in the former almost always losing if they have taken any steps towards transitioning. In other words, either transwomen or cisgender women are getting screwed with this solution.

A new division or competing in their biological sex are the two fairest options, upending women's divisions is not. Whether a transgender division would be feasible comes down to financing and marketing which subsequently leads to growth in demand. Transgender is nothing new and trans athletes of the past would have had to compete in the division for their biological sex. All athletes make sacrifices in order to achieve their sports goals, all athletes weigh what is the most important thing for them. So just as athletes have to choose between their sport vs. where they'd prefer to live, pursuing/ending relationships, or passing on various other opportunities, this would be another potential choice to make. Like all other considerations, it's an individual decision.

Further, per the trans community, "transgender" is not exclusive to gender dysphoria and does not requires medical remedies, identifying alone as a gender is sufficient. This means there can be trans athletes who don't have dysphoria, who have only socially transitioned. They would also be forced to medically transition if they wanted to compete against the opposite natal sex.

But one thing is clear, the answer is not to strip biological females of hard-won opportunities and destroy female records just to accommodate another category of athlete.

You claim that it is about fairness, but then the very next sentence which is supposed to elaborate on how it is about fairness has nothing to do with fairness.

Not what I said.

Or, we can stop thinking that dividing people by age, sex and disability is sufficient to create fairness.

On what planet?

 

[Callisto]

Great. But who is actively raising that question and looking for solutions? No one. Because pretty much no one actually cares about fairness.

It's already a topic of debate and discussion. You have access to the internet, I suggest do some searches.

I am argumenting in favor of consistency. If it is fairness that justifies creating and keeping women's categories, then let's seek fairness across the entire board.

The inconsistency seems to only occur in your mind.

 

[Augustus]

Selective fairness is not fairness. It is paying lip service.

Going from the idea that all humans are not equally athletic to “therefore we should let people drive cars in ultramarathons” is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard.

You are arguing against any attempts that drop below perfect fairness after all as that would be selective fairness.

It is more complicated than that because there is gender-affirming healthcare and hormone levels involved too

The science is pretty unequivocal on the retained advantages and that they “level up” many competitors post transition.

It’s like saying it’s fair if ultramarathon runners use cars, as long as they don’t drive faster that 10km/h and don’t travel more than 10km.

But again you are against trying to create fairer competition in general so the science should be irrelevant to you.

 

[Estro Felino]

I guess Miss Trunchbull would defeat most men at javelin and hammerthrow.

She's a cis woman, btw..

 

[Koldo]

A new division or competing in their biological sex are the two fairest options, upending women's divisions is not. Whether a transgender division would be feasible comes down to financing and marketing which subsequently leads to growth in demand. Transgender is nothing new and trans athletes of the past would have had to compete in the division for their biological sex. All athletes make sacrifices in order to achieve their sports goals, all athletes weigh what is the most important thing for them. So just as athletes have to choose between their sport vs. where they'd prefer to live, pursuing/ending relationships, or passing on various other opportunities, this would be another potential choice to make. Like all other considerations, it's an individual decision.

Further, per the trans community, "transgender" is not exclusive to gender dysphoria and does not requires medical remedies, identifying alone as a gender is sufficient. This means there can be trans athletes who don't have dysphoria, who have only socially transitioned. They would also be forced to medically transition if they wanted to compete against the opposite natal sex.

But one thing is clear, the answer is not to strip biological females of hard-won opportunities and destroy female records just to accommodate another category of athlete.

Because cisgender women are more deserving of those opporturnities, right?

Not what I said.

Read again.

On what planet?

On what planet dividing by age, sex and disability is sufficient to create fairness?

 

[Koldo]

It's already a topic of debate and discussion. You have access to the internet, I suggest do some searches.

Anything and everything is a topic of debate in the internet. But when has this topic ever gained traction? Just check this topic on this forum. Who else is defending my position?

The inconsistency seems to only occur in your mind.

Because I am not biased I can see the inconsistency.

 

[Koldo]

Going from the idea that all humans are not equally athletic to “therefore we should let people drive cars in ultramarathons” is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard.

Ridiculous strawman.

You are arguing against any attempts that drop below perfect fairness after all as that would be selective fairness.

Nope. This is not it. The problem here is the hyprocrisy of people declaring they want fairness in sports but only in certain cases. Absolute fairness can't be achieved, obviously. But that's no excuse to refuse to try to achieve something close to it.

The science is pretty unequivocal on the retained advantages and that they “level up” many competitors post transition.

It’s like saying it’s fair if ultramarathon runners use cars, as long as they don’t drive faster that 10km/h and don’t travel more than 10km.

But again you are against trying to create fairer competition in general so the science should be irrelevant to you.

Obviously the science is relevant. But the very first question that must be answered has nothing to do with the sciences: Should two athletes endowned with different physical capabilities, to the point that the outcome of a match/game is almost certain, be competing against each other?

If the answer is no, that involve re-thinking sports in general, including rules and divisions.

 

[Augustus]

Ridiculous strawman.

Your argument is so confused it follows from your logic.

But that's no excuse to refuse to try to achieve something close to it

Case in point. This is exactly what I have been arguing for and you have been arguing against though.

People do care about fairness, and try to achieve it in multiple ways, this is simply one of them.

You just don’t seem to understand that point and think it’s just bigotry.

Should two athletes endowned with different physical capabilities, to the point that the outcome of a match/game is almost certain, be competing against each other?

This is exactly the reason for open and female categories that you are so adamantly against.

There is no comparable difference within male/female competition.

Can lead a horse to water…

 

[Callisto]

Because cisgender women are more deserving of those opporturnities, right?

Because women deserve the opportunities that are there for women, just like men are deserving of the opportunities provided for them.

The person claiming favoritism is you transwomen are more deserving of opportunities than women so women should just shut up and roll over. There's a word for that.

Read again.

On what planet dividing by age, sex and disability is sufficient to create fairness?

On this one. I get that you struggle with understanding fairness begins with establishing a common baseline and that individuals of a group will vary beyond that threshold. And that competition itself is two or more individuals striving for a common goal that can't be shared - i.e., someone will inevitably take 1, 2, 3. What makes it fair is a baseline for entry, a common threshold like shared biological sex (or age etc.) + demonstrated level of proficiency in order to qualify; which ensures competitors are starting off on an even playing field. Somehow the fact participants' results will range in excellence is "unfair" to you. But that's your personal issue, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

 

[Callisto]

Anything and everything is a topic of debate in the internet. But when has this topic ever gained traction? Just check this topic on this forum. Who else is defending my position?

Because people don't defend a position they deem illogical or nonfactual or unrealistic or simply wrong? Those are the usual reasons arguments go unsupported.

Because I am not biased I can see the inconsistency.

That's because it resides in your mind.