Second Captains

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

Gender is as straight forward as it gets. Scientific and measurable. The issues arise with all the social constructs around it and the fear of offence to a minority.
Leglislate as I have outlined above. Job done. There's absolutely no other way.

So where does that leave Caster Semenya?

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

So where does that leave Caster Semenya?

The scientific and measurable piece should cover any and all eventualities.

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

The scientific and measurable piece should cover any and all eventualities.

Is there a scientific measure of what a woman or man is?

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Is there a scientific measure of what a woman or man is?

There are measurements that can be used - yes.
Fairly black and white stuff really.
But again, why being up the outlier?

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

There are measurements that can be used - yes.
Fairly black and white stuff really.
But again, why being up the outlier?

Black and white wise is Caster Semenya a man or a woman?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Dots1982 wrote: »

Black and white wise is Caster Semenya a man or a woman?

Come on, 99.99% of people fit into a born male or female category. Should women's sport be ruined because of that tiny minority of people? Trans sports athletes are different to hermaphrodites and if you are being honest about this you wouldn't try conflate the two of them together.

Being born in a male body at birth should exclude you from being able to compete in women's sport at a later date. That's my sincerely held opinion and have seen no valid argument to really counter it.

Baggly

How many would it take then? .5%? 1%? 50%?

Either all women can compete or they can't. It's, apparently, black and white.

I don't have the answer by the way. I just don't like the contention it's cut and dry OR it doesn't matter because it's a minority.

Arghus

kippy wrote: »

There are measurements that can be used - yes.
Fairly black and white stuff really.
But again, why being up the outlier?

Because it's in the case of the outliers that the issue lies.

Dots1982

The point is I don’t think it’s as black and white as was contended by kippy. Here’s the podium from the last olympics-

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

The point is I don’t think it’s as black and white as was contended by kippy. Here’s the podium from the last olympics-

It has to be black and white. Whether you and others think its not is irrelevant.
For the purposes of competing in sport, scientifically measurable definitions of male and female must by used. As mentioned above anything else is chaos.

CS is a female, however heruch greater than normal for a female levels of testosterone should negate her from.competing with other females in authorised events.
Black and white.

simonw

kippy wrote: »

It has to be black and white. Whether you and others think its not is irrelevant.
For the purposes of competing in sport, scientifically measurable definitions of male and female must by used. As mentioned above anything else is chaos.

CS is a female, however heruch greater than normal for a female levels of testosterone should negate her from.competing with other females in authorised events.
Black and white.

If I was an elite athlete with much lower natural levels of testosterone, should I be allowed take injections to get up to the same level as everyone else? Surely in the name of a level playing field that should be ok? This is the grey area...

Baggly

kippy wrote:

CS is a female, however heruch greater than normal for a female levels of testosterone should negate her from.competing with other females in authorised events. Black and white.

What's the point at which women should be banned? How much testosterone (naturally occuring) determines whether someone should be allowed to compete with other people of the same gender?

Robert McGrath

kippy wrote: »

It has to be black and white. Whether you and others think its not is irrelevant.
For the purposes of competing in sport, scientifically measurable definitions of male and female must by used. As mentioned above anything else is chaos.

CS is a female, however heruch greater than normal for a female levels of testosterone should negate her from.competing with other females in authorised events.
Black and white.

At what height should unusually tall women be banned from women’s basketball in authorised events?

jaykay74

kippy wrote: »

It's not rocket science and the logic has already been outlined already.
If you're born a male, you compete with males, if you are born a female you compete with females.
If you are born a male but later go through a process and identify as a female, you compete with people in the same boat.
If you are born a female but later go through a process and identify as a male you compete with people in the same boat.
It's possible to scientificly define all of the above categories.

kippy wrote: »

It has to be black and white. Whether you and others think its not is irrelevant.
For the purposes of competing in sport, scientifically measurable definitions of male and female must by used. As mentioned above anything else is chaos.

CS is a female, however heruch greater than normal for a female levels of testosterone should negate her from.competing with other females in authorised events.
Black and white.

But she was born a woman and has a womb and can have kids or (I have no idea about womb/kids ? ) I thought you said black and white ?

jackal

I think there is a huge difference between sport and everyday life in this issue.

Doing someone the courtesy of treating them as their identified gender in everyday life, does no harm to anybody, if all parties are acting in good faith.

However in sport, and certain other circumstances, this courtesy disenfranchises the vast majority of naturally born females, and therefore does do harm to people.

Trans athletes should of course be able to compete at sport, but not at the expense of the sex they identify with. A third, "open" category is the obvious answer.

kippy

jaykay74 wrote: »

But she was born a woman and has a womb and can have kids or (I have no idea about womb/kids ? ) I thought you said black and white ?

To answer this and some of the previous posts in the same vein.
Yes, I said black and white.
Set a range, measure said range - move on.
"It's possible to scientificly define all of the above categories."


There's no room for grey areas or emotion.

kippy

Robert McGrath wrote: »

At what height should unusually tall women be banned from women’s basketball in authorised events?

Thanks for the strawman, but I'm not biting.

Baggly

kippy wrote: »

To answer this and some of the previous posts in the same vein.
Yes, I said black and white.
Set a range, measure said range - move on.
"It's possible to scientificly define all of the above categories."


There's no room for grey areas or emotion.

We have a range. If you have female genitals, you are female. If you dont, you arent. Its a binary range, but a range nonetheless.

jaykay74

kippy wrote: »

To answer this and some of the previous posts in the same vein.
Yes, I said black and white.
Set a range, measure said range - move on.
"It's possible to scientificly define all of the above categories."


There's no room for grey areas or emotion.

But you said and I quote directly " if you are born a female you compete with females.". Do you think CS was not born a female or do you disagree with your point quoted & bolded ?

kippy

jaykay74 wrote: »

But you said and I quote directly " if you are born a female you compete with females.". Do you think CS was not born a female or do you disagree with your point quoted & bolded ?

I covered my point by saying these can be defined scientifically with this specific case in mind as I knew it would be brought up.

Lots of people hurling from the ditch here with plenty ideas but absolutely no solutions.

The ONLY solution is the one I and others have outlined. Everything else is hot air.

Brock Turnpike

Thread: derailed.

kippy

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Thread: derailed.

I'm done on this topic derailment - apologies.

Singer

The only thing that is certainty with defining what who is or is not a woman athlete is that there aren't easy black and white answers. People who insist that there is are generally ill informed and/or have biases. Given that female elite sport has not and likely will never be ruined by transgender athletes competing, erring on the side of inclusion seems reasonable to me as the societal and personal benefits of participating in sport are pretty good. The third category idea seems like a cop-out, it effectively excludes these athletes from their sport as there'd only be very small numbers of people competing in that category.

jaykay74

.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

I think what should be discussed is what a ****ing mess of an interview that was.

“Shur it hasn’t happened at elite level sport so forget about it...” “...this shouldn’t even be a discussion”.

Yeah but some girls are getting the actual shít beaten out of them at college level in the states in contact sports. Not to mention the amount of M to F athletes at this level dominating their particular fields.

kippy

Singer wrote: »

The only thing that is certainty with defining what who is or is not a woman athlete is that there aren't easy black and white answers. People who insist that there is are generally ill informed and/or have biases. Given that female elite sport has not and likely will never be ruined by transgender athletes competing, erring on the side of inclusion seems reasonable to me as the societal and personal benefits of participating in sport are pretty good. The third category idea seems like a cop-out, it effectively excludes these athletes from their sport as there'd only be very small numbers of people competing in that category.

I have to address this.
Did anyone say there were "easy" black and white answers?
I have no bias and am as well informed as the next person.
No one is stopping anyone for participating in sports.
There are lots of athletes that compete in sports that very small numbers of athletes compete in.

There have to be black and white distinctions - definable and measurable.

Again - anything else is a cop out.

Arghus

Lads the easiest way to think of it is this:

It's black and white: except when it's not.

Arghus

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I think what should be discussed is what a ****ing mess of an interview that was.

“Shur it hasn’t happened at elite level sport so forget about it...” “...this shouldn’t even be a discussion”.

Yeah but some girls are getting the actual shít beaten out of them at college level in the states in contact sports. Not to mention the amount of M to F athletes at this level dominating their particular fields.

Is it that prevalent? I know there are examples of M to F athletes competing and winning the odd thing here and there but what are the actual numbers.

Not that I think that really changes a lot: the debate is still the same regardless if it's one case or ten thousand, but it's still good to know the actual figures.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Arghus wrote: »

Is it that prevalent? I know there are examples of M to F athletes competing and winning the odd thing here and there but what are the actual numbers.

Not that I think that really changes a lot: the debate is still the same regardless if it's one case or ten thousand, but it's still good to know the actual figures.

Good point to be fair. The thing for me is it only takes one to give an awful hiding to a girl. I can’t remember the article I read on it but when I find it again I’ll posy it up.

The way I see it is this. Imagine you’ve a 15 or 16 year old girl competing in mma/boxing or something similar in a ring with a similar age boy. There’s a reason why men and women compete against their own genders.

You don’t want to be the parent that says your girl isn’t fighting a man. You’re the bad guy. You’ll be the guy everyone gangs up on.

tomwaits48

jackal wrote: »

I cannot stand her contributions either. They get her on when there is a touchy subject knowing she will say the PC things.

+1 cannot stand her. she's infuriating.