Women's Sports

[Koldo]

Your argument is so confused it follows from your logic.

There is nothing confusing about it. What's confusing people is how they want to simplify my position into either being in favor or against women's categories, but I just don't fit the mold.

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 have only been arguing in favor of fairness in sports in certain cases. You absolutely don't care if a male athlete dominates his sport category due to his physical advantage over others, for example.

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

Not really. For some, it is a matter of bigotry indeed. For others, just to cite one example, they absolutely won't accept any rule change because they lick the boots of tradition. I don't claim to know what is going on within everyone's mind.

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

I am not even against them...
I want consistency.

There is no comparable difference within male/female competition.

Can lead a horse to water…

The fact that something is unfairer than than something else doesn't mean the latter is fair. The fact you only care about the cases where you see an extreme difference is exactly the selective outrage I am criticizing.

 

[Koldo]

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.

What makes anyone deserving of an opporturnity in the first place?

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.

And how do you proceed to establish a common thresold? If granted the power to do it from scratch, how would you know where to draw the boundaries?

 

[Callisto]

What makes anyone deserving of an opporturnity in the first place?

And how do you proceed to establish a common thresold? If granted the power to do it from scratch, how would you know where to draw the boundaries?

Are you admitting you have no clue what you're talking about? That's what your questions imply.

Either you know perfectly well what criteria are and how sporting organizations determine qualifications or you don't. And if you don't then perhaps don't attempt to debate a subject you're lacking knowledge in?

 

[Koldo]

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.


That's because it resides in your mind.

Defending consistency on using fairness to justify creating categories/changing rules is "illogical or nonfactual or unrealistic or simply wrong" then...

Apparently the topic is worth of debating and gained traction in the internet... But no one is actually defending one of the two possible positions because it is "illogical or nonfactual or unrealistic or simply wrong".

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Koldo]

Are you admitting you have no clue what you're talking about? That's what your questions imply.

Either you know perfectly well what criteria are and how sporting organizations determine qualifications or you don't. And if you don't then perhaps don't attempt to debate a subject you're lacking knowledge in?

I have asked you how YOU would draw the boundaries to establish the common thresold you were talking about (to then eventually proceed to ask you to justify your choices).

What does this have to do with how sport organizations do it right now?

 

[Callisto]

Defending consistency on using fairness to justify creating categories/changing rules is "illogical or nonfactual or unrealistic or simply wrong" then...

You've yet to demonstrate this alleged inconsistency.

Apparently the topic is worth of debating and gained traction in the internet... But no one is actually defending one of the two possible positions because it is "illogical or nonfactual or unrealistic or simply wrong".

Are there one or more opposing positions? It's a debate. You're just championing a position that doesn't bear up, that's all. You seem to have difficulty when recognizing that "fairness" doesn't mean everyone takes the gold and that "debate" doesn't mean all positions will have the same level of support.

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly the point being made. Sex-segregated sports ensure athletes of the same sex have the chance to acquire a piece of cake. That goes out the window when athletes of the opposite sex are allowed entry, dominate the field, and take the cake for themselves.

 

[Callisto]

I have asked you how YOU would draw the boundaries to establish the common thresold you were talking about (to then eventually proceed to ask you to justify your choices).

Most of the regulations in place in various sports are fine. However, the question is when those regulations are ignored or bend to accommodate athletes that don't fit the base criteria (sex, age, disability).

What does this have to do with how sport organizations do it right now?

See above.

 

[F1fan]

I played in sports almost all my life up until 55 when I had to quit because of so many injuries I accumulated over the years. If one is so worried about getting hurt, maybe they should just stick to playing Parcheesi. Needless to say, I don't fall for nonsensical political correctness regardless as to which side spouts it.

@wellwisher ruined what could have been an interesting discussion with his far right wing disinformation. I don't even read his comments any more, why waste time explaining the disinformation that the far right believe?

Despite him trying to set up a true set of facts about human biology he went on to his usual nonsense. It's true that male athletes have an inherent advantage with size, strength, and hormones. I've been a competitive cycling for 40 years now, and I have been in races with women even though cycling is segregated. In the USA women are allowed to race with men if they are categorized above the men's category they want to compete. So a Cat 2 woman can race Cat 3 men. This gives them the opportunity to compete at higher levels since there are fewer women racing bikes than men. I've been in numerous races with women and have been beaten twice. Women can be pretty bad ***. There's no way I am able to beat a world class female cyclist. I'm pretty good at a regional level, but not world class, even women. I just never had the biology that world class athletes have. Of the top teir athletes of any sport there are many, many thousands of amatuers who aren't in the same league, and that's just the lottery of biology.

 

[Koldo]

You've yet to demonstrate this alleged inconsistency.

There is inconsistency in justifying the creation of women's category on the grounds of fairness (it would be unfair to let an athlete dominate a category due to a physical advantage, right?) and at the same time allowing the likes of Phelps to dominate a category due to a physical advantage.

Are there one or more opposing positions? It's a debate. You're just championing a position that doesn't bear up, that's all. You seem to have difficulty when recognizing that "fairness" doesn't mean everyone takes the gold and that "debate" doesn't mean all positions will have the same level of support.

Strawman. I have never said that everyone should take the Gold.

Exactly the point being made. Sex-segregated sports ensure athletes of the same sex have the chance to acquire a piece of cake. That goes out the window when athletes of the opposite sex are allowed entry, dominate the field, and take the cake for themselves.

But segregating by sex is not sufficient. As you have already mentioned there are other factors that must be taken into consideration, such as age. What I am saying is that sex, age and disability, are not sufficient either. We need more than that to ensure fairness.

 

[Koldo]

Most of the regulations in place in various sports are fine. However, the question is when those regulations are ignored or bend to accommodate athletes that don't fit the base criteria (sex, age, disability).

See above.

How did you reach the conclusion they are fine?

 

[Callisto]

There is inconsistency in justifying the creation of women's category on the grounds of fairness (it would be unfair to let an athlete dominate a category due to a physical advantage, right?) and at the same time allowing the likes of Phelps to dominate a category due to a physical advantage.

No. Just, no.

Strawman. I have never said that everyone should take the Gold.

Untrue. You've consistently railed about the "unfairness" of competitors losing. Phelphs ranks high among already elite male athletes is "unfair".

But segregating by sex is not sufficient.

It's not sufficient but it's most definitely a primary cornerstone.

As you have already mentioned there are other factors that must be taken into consideration, such as age.

Age-segregation is a different division, parasports is another division, women's divisions and men's divisions are two more examples.

What I am saying is that sex, age and disability, are not sufficient either. We need more than that to ensure fairness.

They are the base upon which additional criteria within that category are added:

For parasports, competitors need to have disabilities, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For U14 sports, competitors need to be under the age of 14, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For male division, sports competitors need to be males, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For female division, sports competitors need to be females, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For transgender divisions to exist, competitors would need to be transgender, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

Ignoring the fundamental criterion for any division isn't an option. Doing so invalidates designating a division in the first place.

 

[Koldo]

No. Just, no.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you are not supposed to debate.

Untrue. You've consistently railed about the "unfairness" of competitors losing. Phelphs ranks high among already elite male athletes is "unfair".

I have NEVER said that it is unfair for competitors to lose per se. Where are you getting this from?
It is obvious that in a competition there will be winners and losers.

It's not sufficient but it's most definitely a primary cornerstone.

And I have never said otherwise.

Age-segregation is a different division, parasports is another division, women's divisions and men's divisions are two more examples.

Exactly.

They are the base upon which additional criteria within that category are added:

For parasports, competitors need to have disabilities, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For U14 sports, competitors need to be under the age of 14, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For male division, sports competitors need to be males, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For female division, sports competitors need to be females, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

For transgender divisions to exist, competitors would need to be transgender, adding any other criteria is pointless if that basic criterion isn't met.

Ignoring the fundamental criterion for any division isn't an option. Doing so invalidates designating a division in the first place.

And therefore?

 

[Augustus]

I am not even against them...
I want consistency.

What is the consistency you wish to see? Describe what you think is the right thing to do.

Your argument just seems incoherent to everyone else.

The fact that something is unfairer than than something else doesn't mean the latter is fair.

In open competition the best man wins.

In female competition, the best female wins.

That’s pretty fair.

Put the 500 ranked male in the female competition, he will win and the best female will not have a chance.

Seems unfair to me.

 

[Callisto]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you are not supposed to debate.

Incorrect. There's no sense in wasting time on an absurd comment.

I have NEVER said that it is unfair for competitors to lose per se. Where are you getting this from?

From every post you've made whinging about Phelps.

It is obvious that in a competition there will be winners and losers.

And I have never said otherwise.

Your posts show otherwise, and how unfair it all is.

Exactly.


And therefore?

derp.

 

[metis]

@wellwisher ruined what could have been an interesting discussion with his far right wing disinformation. I don't even read his comments any more, why waste time explaining the disinformation that the far right believe?

Despite him trying to set up a true set of facts about human biology he went on to his usual nonsense. It's true that male athletes have an inherent advantage with size, strength, and hormones. I've been a competitive cycling for 40 years now, and I have been in races with women even though cycling is segregated. In the USA women are allowed to race with men if they are categorized above the men's category they want to compete. So a Cat 2 woman can race Cat 3 men. This gives them the opportunity to compete at higher levels since there are fewer women racing bikes than men. I've been in numerous races with women and have been beaten twice. Women can be pretty bad ***. There's no way I am able to beat a world class female cyclist. I'm pretty good at a regional level, but not world class, even women. I just never had the biology that world class athletes have. Of the top teir athletes of any sport there are many, many thousands of amatuers who aren't in the same league, and that's just the lottery of biology.

Well said, imo.

BTW, I'd be more than willing to join you with your cyclist races, but I can't find a tricycle big enough for me.

 

[metis]

@F1fan , I also want to mention the fact that a truly "conservative" position would be to let local school districts, individual college conferences, individual professional sports leagues, and organizations like the Olympic Committee make decisions on such matters and not politicians. The likes of DeSantis is much more compatible with Marxist methodology than actual political conservatism.

 

[exchemist]

I played in sports almost all my life up until 55 when I had to quit because of so many injuries I accumulated over the years. If one is so worried about getting hurt, maybe they should just stick to playing Parcheesi. Needless to say, I don't fall for nonsensical political correctness regardless as to which side spouts it.

Same here, rowing in my case. For a number of years I was also involved in coaching or coxing women’s crews. Occasionally, if they were a crew member short I would sub in for training outings, as I can row both sides. They always said the boat ran easier and faster, though I had to be careful not to pull the boat round off the start. And I’m only 67kg. There is just no doubt in my mind that a boat with a transwoman in it would be deeply resented by the other competitors. The unfair advantage is self-evident.

 

[Koldo]

What is the consistency you wish to see? Describe what you think is the right thing to do.

Your argument just seems incoherent to everyone else.

Is fairness what we want to see in sports? Or do we create/keep categories just because we don't see a particular kind of person winning (such as cisgender women, for example)?

If it is fairness that we seek, then let's work towards reducing unfairness across the board and not be hypocrites that only defend fairness sometimes. Let's create (or at least speak in favor of) categories or rules that reduce the impact of physical/genetical advantage between competitors. If having a physical advantage that allows one to dominate a competition is unfair, then it is always unfair. Not only when it is men vs. women.

If however we just want to keep women's categories because we want to see cisgender women winning (rather because of fairness per se), then let's just not claim that our justification for keeping those categories is grounded on a concept of fairness.

In open competition the best man wins.

In female competition, the best female wins.


That’s pretty fair.

Let's try this way: You are giving me two statements, and a third one with a conclusion about the first two. How did you reach this conclusion?

Premise 1: In open competition, the best man wins. (This is incorrect in a multitude of ways, but I am gonna be generous and interpret what you are saying in a very strict way so as to allow it to be true)
Premise 2: ???
Conclusion: That's pretty fair.

What's premise 2? And how do you get your conclusion from 1 and 2?

Put the 500 ranked male in the female competition, he will win and the best female will not have a chance.

Seems unfair to me.

Once again, kindly explain how you got your conclusion from your first statement.
You are skipping an essential part that needs to be brought to light.

 

[Koldo]

Incorrect. There's no sense in wasting time on an absurd comment.

From every post you've made whinging about Phelps.

Your posts show otherwise, and how unfair it all is.

derp.

I am afraid that is all you have to offer, right? Only short sentences, lacking of any substance whatsoever.
I shouldn't have expected more. This is a lesson I should learn.

 

[Koldo]

Same here, rowing in my case. For a number of years I was also involved in coaching or coxing women’s crews. Occasionally, if they were a crew member short I would sub in for training outings, as I can row both sides. They always said the boat ran easier and faster, though I had to be careful not to pull the boat round off the start. And I’m only 67kg. There is just no doubt in my mind that a boat with a transwoman in it would be deeply resented by the other competitors. The unfair advantage is self-evident.

I think that's THE sad part about it. If rather than a transwoman, there was a cisgender woman that somehow managed to have loads of strength and stamina because of her unique genetics, to the point that she dominated the entire scene for years, no one would be saying a thing about her having an unfair advantage. Rather than that, everyone would be applauding her for something she was born with.