Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
So we can't predict that men will continue to be faster and stronger than women, even though that has always been the case?One eyed Jack wrote: »This is my point though - we don’t know the outcome, because we can only base any assessments on hindsight, as opposed to being able to predict with any degree of accuracy how in the future mixed competitions would be configured to make the competition fair to all participants regardless of their sex or gender identity.
We haven’t relegated women to amateurs only endeavours, they are still competing with men at professional levels and are on equal parity with men in terms of prize money and sponsorship opportunities and all the rest of it, so the idea that they wouldn’t qualify simply doesn’t arise - they aren’t going to qualify if the sports are maintained as they are, there’s no argument on that score, but what I’m suggesting is that the rules of the sports could be changed, or the qualifying criteria could be changed, to give participants a fair chance at competing regardless of their sex or gender.
I’m not suggesting that people don’t compete to win either, my point was that the vast majority of people participating in any sport will never reach the level of elite status in the sport, and they still participate in the sport because they want to, so that’s why I just don’t know where this idea that anyone would give up the sport because they simply cannot win, is coming from? You’re posting about best times and all the rest of it, but how many athletes in the world who compete against Usain Bolt will ever beat him? They’re all aware of his times, yet they don’t just hang up their expensive runners sponsored by Nike or whoever, even though they know they will never even come close to his time.
Women’s sports aren’t dead not because they aren’t competing against men, but because women themselves enjoy the sport and have made a career for themselves in the sport, albeit as short lived as men’s careers in any sport. It’s like any domain, whether it be sports, academia, medicine, science, technology, etc - just because we aren’t all Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates doesn’t mean people simply give up what they’re passionate about, they still have the ability to maintain a good standard of living for themselves by having equal opportunities as everyone else when they are not subject to unfavourable treatment on any one of the nine grounds of unlawful discrimination.
The whole point is that these changes in Irish Law will have little to no effect on Irish society as it is now, but for future generations of children who are transgender or gender non-conforming, it will hopefully be one less thing they have to worry about, as there would hopefully be no stigma against people who are transgender or gender non-conforming in Irish society, they will be regarded equally as anyone else, and they will be encouraged to participate in sports not just for recreational or health reasons, but they will be able to compete on an equal basis as anyone else in whatever they choose to do with their lives, whether it be a career in sports or anything else. The point being that they won’t face the same discrimination as the current generation, in the same way as people of this generation don’t face the same discrimination as previous generations in Irish society.
I’m certain that people will think of new ways to discriminate against other groups of people in society who are in some way different from them though, quite likely on the basis that they are natural born humans as opposed to humans who are the product of assisted human reproduction or some other standard by which they may regard themselves as superior.
You think that competing alongside men will suddenly change biology?
Can you defend that position with any facts?
Female athletes in many sports struggle to support themselves within gender based leagues, if you remove that protection then they all simply go away.
Sure they can continue to play footie in the park, but you are telling us they can maintain careers somehow, when they struggle to do it today.
Your argument that the rules of all sports should change to give everyone an equal opportunity is absurd and is contrary to the whole point of the endeavour. Who is going to watch any sport where everyone is handicapped down to the worst competitors? Where does that stop exactly? Can you explain how it would work in any sense?0 -
Yes but I'm not proposing that trans women be banned from women's rugby.
You effectively are, since all the trans women would be in their own League, due to your collision logic. Interestingly all the women would also be in their own League, almost like having a separate League for trans people, but that's discriminatory right?
0 -
So we can't predict that men will continue to be faster and stronger than women, even though that has always been the case?
You think that competing alongside men will suddenly change biology?
Can you defend that position with any facts?
Female athletes in many sports struggle to support themselves within gender based leagues, if you remove that protection then they all simply go away.
Sure they can continue to play footie in the park, but you are telling us they can maintain careers somehow, when they struggle to do it today.
Your argument that the rules of all sports should change to give everyone an equal opportunity is absurd and is contrary to the whole point of the endeavour. Who is going to watch any sport where everyone is handicapped down to the worst competitors? Where does that stop exactly? Can you explain how it would work in any sense?
I'm not sure OEJ is saying remove all gender barriers and let it be a free for all tho? Presumably there would be some sort of classification, just not gendered (OEJ can clarify, I'm not proposing here, just trying to understand).0 -
Any classification is going to have men at the top and women at the bottom, due to the numerous biological reasons that have already been explained. You can't transition your way around inconvenient biological facts.I'm not sure OEJ is saying remove all gender barriers and let it be a free for all tho? Presumably there would be some sort of classification, just not gendered (OEJ can clarify, I'm not proposing here, just trying to understand).0 -
Advertisement
-
Any classification is going to have men at the top and women at the bottom, due to the numerous biological reasons that have already been explained. You can't transition your way around inconvenient biological facts.
Don't think I suggested otherwise?
But in that case wouldn't it be fairer to allow stronger women to break beyond the limits placed on them by categorising based on sex or even gender? There must already be an overlap of strong women and weak men?
What about sports where there is traditionally no women's leagues due to lack of interest? Women there would get more opportunities if they could become professional and play in the "traditionally men's" categories?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »How, in your opinion, is it a red herring?
Seems an entirely reasonable point to make when people say they are concerned that women’s sports would be dead if men were permitted to participate in women’s competitions and women were permitted to participate in men’s competitions. In reality very little would actually change as there isn’t a hope in hell of a critical mass point being reached, let alone the idea that men who just aren’t good enough to compete in men’s competitions would want to compete with women, knowing they would be eviscerated on social media, whether their fellow competitors were supportive of them or not.
How women are treated already in women’s sports is an entirely salient point to bring up if the concerns are about women’s welfare?
Edited to add context - It was a direct response to suicide circus’ point that “for some reason” trans men (not a term I use myself) participating in men’s leagues doesn’t seem to come up. As you pointed out, I do bring it up, so I was surprised at suicide circus’ claim that it never comes up, and I brought it up again, in the same way that all the other issues have been brought up repeatedly, and addressed repeatedly. I wouldn’t have brought it up at all in this thread because this thread is about Gender Identity in Modern Ireland, and I’ve pretty much stuck to that context, in spite of there being repeated attempts to bring in issues from a broader international context.
Suggesting I’m introducing a red herring by making a point about how women are treated already in women’s sports, or how women are treated already in women’s prisons, I’m making the point that people who raise these issues with regard to women’s rights, safety and welfare being under threat from men, and therefore they are simply being disingenuous, as those issues have absolutely zero, nothing to do with recognising the equal status of people who are transgender in Irish society, and you’re keeping shtum about their whole boatload of red herring?
It’s difficult to take an accusation like that seriously tbh when you’re prepared to ignore the bad faith discussion that I’ve been incredibly tolerant of up to this point.
It’s still whataboutary. And a false dilemma. And not related to the thread. Also a diversion.0 -
Don't think I suggested otherwise?
But in that case wouldn't it be fairer to allow stronger women to break beyond the limits placed on them by categorising based on sex or even gender? There must already be an overlap of strong women and weak men?
What about sports where there is traditionally no women's leagues due to lack of interest? Women there would get more opportunities if they could become professional and play in the "traditionally men's" categories?
So you want the best women in the world to slum it out in the semi pro or amateur leagues? That's somehow better for women then having their own league that they can be the best in?
If there is no interest I don't see how you think women are going to be able to compete and succeed professionally. I'd suggest that's little more than a nice pipedream. Look at the struggles that women only sports go through, soccer, golf or WNBA for example.0 -
So you want the best women in the world to slum it out in the semi pro or amateur leagues? That's somehow better for women then having their own league that they can be the best in?
If there is no interest I don't see how you think women are going to be able to compete and succeed professionally. I'd suggest that's little more than a nice pipedream. Look at the struggles that women only sports go through, soccer, golf or WNBA for example.
No I don't want that. I don't have any solutions when it comes to sports, I'm just a spectator as it were.
But your last point is true. The sporting world is already entirely unfair towards women in many sports. Maybe a different system would be more fair (I just don't know what that different system would be, and we won't figure it out for every sport on boards.ie).
Maybe this isn't a 'trans issue' as such, but a general fairness issue?
Just because the strongest people are grouped together, would that necessarily make it the 'best'? It depends on the sport I guess (obviously for some sports, yes).0 -
So we can't predict that men will continue to be faster and stronger than women, even though that has always been the case?
You think that competing alongside men will suddenly change biology?
Can you defend that position with any facts?
Female athletes in many sports struggle to support themselves within gender based leagues, if you remove that protection then they all simply go away.
Sure they can continue to play footie in the park, but you are telling us they can maintain careers somehow, when they struggle to do it today.
Your argument that the rules of all sports should change to give everyone an equal opportunity is absurd and is contrary to the whole point of the endeavour. Who is going to watch any sport where everyone is handicapped down to the worst competitors? Where does that stop exactly? Can you explain how it would work in any sense?
I’m not arguing that we change biology, I’m arguing that we change the rules of the sport which prohibit men from competing with women, and women from competing with men. That’s not changing biology, it’s not even changing the sport, it’s changing the qualifying criteria of who is permitted to participate in the sport and at what level they are permitted to compete. You’re making the same arguments that were made against women participating in sport at all over 100 years ago, and in spite of resistance, they’ve come as far as they have up to this point. I’m making the point that instead of making it more difficult for women to compete on an equal level with men, the only thing that’s stopping them is not biology, but the rules of the governing bodies of the various sports.
Where do all the men go today that aren’t Usain Bolt? That’s what we would expect to see if your argument that women will go away because they aren’t able to compete on the same level as men were to have any weight behind it. Not only have men who aren’t able to compete at elite levels not gone away, but women haven’t just gone away either. It’s not for their protection that women aren’t permitted to participate in sports with men, in reality it’s simply that you wouldn’t want to watch it.
Essentially you’re being a dog in a manger about it - you want to maintain segregation in sports and claim that it’s for women’s protection that their opportunities to participate on an equal level with men are limited, which limits their exposure, which limits their audience, which limits their sponsorship opportunities.
Whoever wants to, will watch it, and whoever wants to, will participate in it, and there won’t be any barriers to their participation. Biology isn’t the barrier, the rules made up by men and how the sports are designed and have developed is the barrier, entirely man-made barriers, overcome by man-made technology which contributes to the development of any sport. Take any sport, and tell me technology hasn’t contributed to it’s development. Sports have developed massively in the last 100 years. Y’know what hasn’t changed? Biology.
Biology will still remain the same, but the participation rates among various groups in society will change, if the rules are changed to stem the decline in participation in sports across the board among young people. Or, we could keep doing what we’re doing and expect different results. Even the governing bodies of sports acknowledge that they need to change and develop and grow, but they just don’t want to, because even they aren’t able to predict what might happen to the sport if people were recognised as having equal status in sports in the same way as they have been recognised as having equal status in society for decades now. The labour market hasn’t changed all that much, men still have jobs and so on, but the nature of employment has changed, in the same way as the nature of sports as we know it today would be changed. It would in all likelihood maintain the same audience too, only the audience, like the sports participants, would be more diverse.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I’m not arguing that we change biology, I’m arguing that we change the rules of the sport which prohibit men from competing with women, and women from competing with men. That’s not changing biology, it’s not even changing the sport, it’s changing the qualifying criteria of who is permitted to participate in the sport and at what level they are permitted to compete. You’re making the same arguments that were made against women participating in sport at all over 100 years ago, and in spite of resistance, they’ve come as far as they have up to this point. I’m making the point that instead of making it more difficult for women to compete on an equal level with men, the only thing that’s stopping them is not biology, but the rules of the governing bodies of the various sports.
Where do all the men go today that aren’t Usain Bolt? That’s what we would expect to see if your argument that women will go away because they aren’t able to compete on the same level as men were to have any weight behind it. Not only have men who aren’t able to compete at elite levels not gone away, but women haven’t just gone away either. It’s not for their protection that women aren’t permitted to participate in sports with men, in reality it’s simply that you wouldn’t want to watch it.
Essentially you’re being a dog in a manger about it - you want to maintain segregation in sports and claim that it’s for women’s protection that their opportunities to participate on an equal level with men are limited, which limits their exposure, which limits their audience, which limits their sponsorship opportunities.
Whoever wants to, will watch it, and whoever wants to, will participate in it, and there won’t be any barriers to their participation. Biology isn’t the barrier, the rules made up by men and how the sports are designed and have developed is the barrier, entirely man-made barriers, overcome by man-made technology which contributes to the development of any sport. Take any sport, and tell me technology hasn’t contributed to it’s development. Sports have developed massively in the last 100 years. Y’know what hasn’t changed? Biology.
Biology will still remain the same, but the participation rates among various groups in society will change, if the rules are changed to stem the decline in participation in sports across the board among young people. Or, we could keep doing what we’re doing and expect different results. Even the governing bodies of sports acknowledge that they need to change and develop and grow, but they just don’t want to, because even they aren’t able to predict what might happen to the sport if people were recognised as having equal status in sports in the same way as they have been recognised as having equal status in society for decades now. The labour market hasn’t changed all that much, men still have jobs and so on, but the nature of employment has changed, in the same way as the nature of sports as we know it today would be changed. It would in all likelihood maintain the same audience too, only the audience, like the sports participants, would be more diverse.No I don't want that. I don't have any solutions when it comes to sports, I'm just a spectator as it were.
But your last point is true. The sporting world is already entirely unfair towards women in many sports. Maybe a different system would be more fair (I just don't know what that different system would be, and we won't figure it out for every sport on boards.ie).
Maybe this isn't a 'trans issue' as such, but a general fairness issue?
Just because the strongest people are grouped together, would that necessarily make it the 'best'? It depends on the sport I guess (obviously for some sports, yes).
Same answer to both of you.
If you removed gender segregation today you would end up with natural segregation by gender at both the top and bottom of any ranking. Sure there would be overlap in the middle/bottom, but no one is paying to watch them.
Sport isn't unfair, the best are the best, it's not about strongest or any other single facet. Biologically men are faster, fitter, leaner, more dense and yes stronger.
The only way you change this is to discriminate against men by somehow handicapping them against those who aren't as good as them.
Of course the audience would be the same, it would be the same men at the top, all you would change is that you'd push women even further down from where they are today.
Bringing the labour market into the conversation is just yet another tiresome red herring. Unless you believe that women are somehow inferior to men in the labour market?
As for technology...I have no idea what point you are trying to make about gender difference here?
Finally, I'm not arguing against women in sport, I'm bloody well arguing for them, trying to protect them and their livelihoods from your ridiculous gender free utopia, which demonstrably ignores the biological differences that exist between men and women.0 -
Finally, I'm not arguing against women in sport, I'm bloody well arguing for them, trying to protect them and their livelihoods from your ridiculous gender free utopia, which demonstrably ignores the biological differences that exist between men and women.
Your are arguing to protect womens livelihoods based around the rules that exist currently and making assumptions about a new system and the problems that it may cause. This does little to improve women's participation in sports or increase their pay as a result (but instead 'protect' them by keeping them at the same lower levels that they are currently allowed).
I'm saying maybe there is another way, but a few people on a forum aren't going to do much about it. It would be up to sporting bodies to do that research. It's interesting tho that they haven't. Maybe if as much time was spent campaigning for positive change that would provide equality to all then the world of sport would be in a better position for men and women at all levels.0 -
Same answer to both of you.
If you removed gender segregation today you would end up with natural segregation by gender at both the top and bottom of any ranking. Sure there would be overlap in the middle/bottom, but no one is paying to watch them.
Sport isn't unfair, the best are the best, it's not about strongest or any other single facet. Biologically men are faster, fitter, leaner, more dense and yes stronger.
The only way you change this is to discriminate against men by somehow handicapping them against those who aren't as good as them.
Do we handicap men who are better than other men today? You’ve yet to address that point. Where do all the men go today who aren’t as good in sports as the men who are at elite levels in any sport? Clearly some men have biological advantages over other men, and there’s no doubt that some men would have biological advantages over women, but the point is not that they wouldn’t be able to compete, the point is that they aren’t permitted to compete against men, and men aren’t permitted to compete against them.Bringing the labour market into the conversation is just yet another tiresome red herring. Unless you believe that women are somehow inferior to men in the labour market?
It’s precisely because I know that women aren’t inferior to men in the labour market that I bring up the labour market as a useful domain to compare sports to. They are different domains, and similar arguments as you’re making were historically used to maintain the labour market as men’s domain, while women were restricted to the domestic domain for their own protection. Again pretty much the same arguments about the biological advantages of men and the biological limitations of women were used to maintain barriers imposed by men! Can you explain why you think it’s a red herring to compare the evolution of the nature of employment with the nature of the evolution of sports?As for technology...I have no idea what point you are trying to make about gender difference here?
Yes you do, you’re not stupid. You’re well aware that the greatest contribution to the development of sports has been technology, as biology hasn’t changed in such a short span of time. Society has changed though, and sporting bodies and organisations are well aware that they too need to change in order to maintain their dominance in any sport. The last thing they want is other organising bodies with more open competitions gaining any foothold in society.Finally, I'm not arguing against women in sport, I'm bloody well arguing for them, trying to protect them and their livelihoods from your ridiculous gender free utopia, which demonstrably ignores the biological differences that exist between men and women.
Protecting them from what though? Equal opportunities to earn as much in sports as their male counterparts. They don’t need protection, they need promotion, in the same way men’s sports are promoted in society. Imagining anyone needs protection is regarding oneself as being in a position to provide that protection, when all it’s doing in reality is infantilising people under the pretext that maintaining their lower status is for their own protection like you’re doing those people a favour. It sounds like very much the opposite of what you’re suggesting - maintaining artificial barriers in an attempt to maintain your own dominant position in society. That has nothing to do with biology.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Protecting them from what though? ...
Among other things, to protect women from being beaten up by male-born trans MMA fighters and boxers in the ring.
To protect female-born athletes from being beaten by male-born transgender athletes, who preserve their male advantages of bone and muscle density even though identifying as female.
Examples? Just Google: Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox or Hannah Mouncey0 -
JamesFlynn wrote: »Among other things, to protect women from being beaten up by male-born trans MMA fighters and boxers in the ring.
To protect female-born athletes from being beaten by male-born transgender athletes, who preserve their male advantages of bone and muscle density even though identifying as female.
Examples? Just Google: Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox or Hannah Mouncey
On the 7:00 minute mark Fallon Fox (a transwoman) knees a Erika Newsome to the head KO'ing her.
Is it too much to ask to not have this happen again?
It's also worth noting Erika Newsome didn't even know Fox was trans at the time of the fight.0 -
JamesFlynn wrote: »Among other things, to protect women from being beaten up by male-born trans MMA fighters and boxers in the ring.
To protect female-born athletes from being beaten by male-born transgender athletes, who preserve their male advantages of bone and muscle density even though identifying as female.
Examples? Just Google: Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox or Hannah Mouncey
but what has OEJ said that would't fix that? About rules for fairness for all?
Is it possible that there is something to be explored here? Or are we going back to the cycle of posting transwomen outrunning/fighting/jumping opponents again? Because if the answer is "Just put it back the way it was" - I think we may be too far gone for that to work.0 -
Your are arguing to protect womens livelihoods based around the rules that exist currently and making assumptions about a new system and the problems that it may cause. This does little to improve women's participation in sports or increase their pay as a result (but instead 'protect' them by keeping them at the same lower levels that they are currently allowed).
I'm saying maybe there is another way, but a few people on a forum aren't going to do much about it. It would be up to sporting bodies to do that research. It's interesting tho that they haven't. Maybe if as much time was spent campaigning for positive change that would provide equality to all then the world of sport would be in a better position for men and women at all levels.
The only reason women have these livelihoods is because of segregation! Men are better than women in most sporting disciplines, biology isn't fair.
So you honestly believe that dropping women from being at the pinnacle to being also rans will increase participation? Honestly?
I guess there must be a huge groundswell of support from biological females for removal of segregation that you can share, considering they have been at this for far longer then transwomen?0 -
JamesFlynn wrote: »Among other things, to protect women from being beaten up by male-born trans MMA fighters and boxers in the ring.
To protect female-born athletes from being beaten by male-born transgender athletes, who preserve their male advantages of bone and muscle density even though identifying as female.
Examples? Just Google: Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox or Hannah Mouncey
I’m aware of exceptional examples already, I don’t need to google them. I take it your point is to protect people from being injured in sports. Then the point should be an argument to protect all people in sports rather than setting up publicity stunts like that where competitors are clearly mismatched in the first place, let alone allowing the fight to get to the point where a participant had their skull almost crushed just to make a point.
The fact is that women do take risks and do sustain injuries in sports, and in spite of this, it doesn’t put them off participating in the sport, but what can be done, is to reduce the risk of injury for all people participating in the sport while at the same time ensuring that the sport is fair for all people who want to participate in the sport. Take for example women’s rugby, they suffer concussions at higher rates than the men’s game, and the reason for it isn’t as a consequence of their biology -
Concussion risks in rugby may be even greater for women than for men
Rugby concussion: Swansea University study into protecting women
This is the case being referred to in the Guardian article btw -
Rugby World Cup winner Steve Thompson reveals he has dementia and joins landmark legal case
EDIT: Full Disclosure - I have zero interest in MMA as a sport, but I did as you suggested do a google search, but I searched for similar injuries in men’s MMA competitions. It didn’t take long to find a litany of examples, and according to Joe Rogan, this is the worst example of an injury he’s ever seen in the sport -
A year after gruesome crushed forehead, 'Cyborg' Santos discusses MMA future0 -
The only reason women have these livelihoods is because of segregation! Men are better than women in most sporting disciplines, biology isn't fair.
So you honestly believe that dropping women from being at the pinnacle to being also rans will increase participation? Honestly?
I guess there must be a huge groundswell of support from biological females for removal of segregation that you can share, considering they have been at this for far longer then transwomen?
Let me try again.
Put trans people aside for a moment.
There are issues with equality in sport in general, right?
Is it possible that there is a system that could be devised that grouped people not strictly by gender, but on some other basis?
I'm asking and exploring that as an Idea, not saying I've got it all figured out..
Like at least on this issue there seems to be agreement- ensuring fairness for all.0 -
Let me try again.
Put trans people aside for a moment.
There are issues with equality in sport in general, right?
Is it possible that there is a system that could be devised that grouped people not strictly by gender, but on some other basis?
I'm asking and exploring that as an Idea, not saying I've got it all figured out..
Like at least on this issue there seems to be agreement- ensuring fairness for all.
You mean like for example a strength test where people that have approx. the same level of strength are categorized? Sounds reasonable at a glance.
The problem would be that for a lot of sports the sport itself is how the fastest or strongest people are determined.0 -
Advertisement
-
You effectively are, since all the trans women would be in their own League, due to your collision logic. Interestingly all the women would also be in their own League, almost like having a separate League for trans people, but that's discriminatory right?
It's very unlikely that this would be the case.
Many pro women rugby players are in the 80-90kg weight class and fairly muscular. You really think they couldn't play with a 70kg cis man or trans woman?0 -
nolivesmatter wrote: »You mean like for example a strength test where people that have approx. the same level of strength are categorized? Sounds reasonable at a glance.
The problem would be that for a lot of sports the sport itself is how the fastest or strongest people are determined.
Wouldn't have to be a strength test. There could be research into what biological factors actually contribute to safety.
So for example it could be researched into the effects of a 120-140kg individual colliding with a 100-120kg individual, or a 80-100kg individual.
It could be researched into what effect bone density of either person has on the above.
Then broad league criteria could be set up.
Can someone explain to me why it's a travesty in terms of safety for a trans woman to play with cis women but it's grand for a 140kg cis male to play with a 70kg cis male?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Take for example women’s rugby, they suffer concussions at higher rates than the men’s game, and the reason for it isn’t as a consequence of their biology
...
Concussion risks in rugby may be even greater for women than for men
Why quote an article that contradicts exactly what you are claiming?
"higher concussion rate in women could also be attributed to the whiplash effect, given that women have comparatively weaker neck muscles than men"
If you want to construct a new system for sports whereby for example, rugby or soccer teams would be restricted by ranges of weight, bone and muscle density, then good luck with that.
I think it would ruin sports as we know it but who knows, in 50 years, it might be the norm if you get your way.
In the meantime, we should stop male-born athletes from beating and beating up female-born athletes.0 -
It's very unlikely that this would be the case.
Many pro women rugby players are in the 80-90kg weight class and fairly muscular. You really think they couldn't play with a 70kg cis man or trans woman?
Underage rugby in New Zealand is divided by weight not age, as it is here. There are, certainly, “options” out there.“It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis
0 -
JamesFlynn wrote: »Why quote an article that contradicts exactly what you are claiming?
"higher concussion rate in women could also be attributed to the whiplash effect, given that women have comparatively weaker neck muscles than men"
I generally tend to link to the full article so that posters can read it for themselves rather than take one line out of context as you have just done to pretend that refutes the claim I made. I linked two articles just to provide a fuller context. I admit I didn’t account for the fact that posters wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between cause and correlation. Mea culpa.JamesFlynn wrote: »If you want to construct a new system for sports whereby for example, rugby or soccer teams would be restricted by ranges of weight, bone and muscle density, then good luck with that.
I think it would ruin sports as we know it but who knows, in 50 years, it might be the norm if you get your way.
The system you’re referring to exists already and has done for decades now. Science and technology has enabled the development of testing methods at the molecular level to determine whether or not a competitor is eligible to compete in any given competition. As it turns out, that same testing is being used to exclude women from competing against women, whereas the same strict criteria don’t apply to men’s competitions. It hasn’t ruined sports for women, many of whom in spite of knowing they will undergo testing are still willing to submit to it in order to be able to compete.
An example of ruining a sport would be the changes made to the sport in the mid-90’s which increased the risk to competitors of developing all sorts of conditions, but governing bodies didn’t care about the risks to the players, they were more interested in generating revenue from entertaining the average armchair sports fan -
They are part of the first generation to have played an entire career of full-time rugby union, after the game turned professional in the mid-1990s. Their claim is that the governing bodies have failed in their duty of care, having not acted upon the known risks of head injury, particularly after professionalism led to a clear intensification in the sport’s dynamics.
They really did ruin the sport. And yet, as it is, it’s one of the fastest growing sports among women. At some point the governing bodies will be forced to take action, if not in the interests of players welfare, then they’ll have to be forced when they start to feel it in their pockets following legal decisions which will compel them to take responsibility for players welfare if they’re going to regard the sport as a professional enterprise as opposed to an amateur hobby.
I’ve no doubt you also read in the same article you’re quoting from, this absolute nugget -
The link between concussion and early onset dementia shows it is not an injury to be taken lightly, yet it is not known why women are more prone to concussion. Dr Grey, who is leading the SCORES project at UEA (which stands for Screening Cognitive Outcomes after Repetitive head impact Exposure in Sport), a study looking at the cognitive function of former professional athletes compared to non-sporting professionals, said hormonal difference between the two sexes could be an explanation.
It has been suggested that “women are more vulnerable to head trauma at a certain time of the month,” he said. Although this hasn’t been substantiated, Dr Grey added: “We can’t fully understand the difference or conclusively give a reason why until more research is done.” Dr Grey urged more women to join his study, saying: “It is likely, given what we know, that women are more prone to get sports-related dementia than men.”JamesFlynn wrote: »In the meantime, we should stop male-born athletes from beating and beating up female-born athletes.
Absolutely, I wouldn’t be keen to encourage that sort of behaviour at all, it’s one of the reasons I have no interest in MMA (it’s a sport for Conor McGregor wannabes IME), though I do have an interest in combat sports generally. Just reading the other day about Jack Woolley for example, first Irish taekwondo representative at the Olympic Games apparently, a sport I still take something of a passing interest in -
‘I’m going there to win’ – Jack Woolley makes history as first Irish taekwondo representative at Olympics
I do hope he doesn’t get the absolute snot beaten out of him by his competitors for getting ideas above his station, in the same way I would hope that any female competitor wouldn’t beat the absolute snot out of a male competitor just to prove they can.0 -
-
Thanks for the entertaining reply Jack, and that was an interesting few paragraphs on Tae Kwon Do in the Olympics and the advent of professionalism in Rugby in the 1990s. Irrelevant diversion but entertaining and I agree with some of your points on professionalism.
A genuine question - do you believe it is fair and just that :
a female-born MMA athlete should have to face a male-born MMA athlete like Fallon Fox
in a cage and fight them at risk of death
to pursue their profession?
If not, how under your ideology could this be prevented?
Answer please based on the real world that we all live in, not under some utopian future where we categorise sport participation based on skeletal structure and bone / muscle density.0 -
Instead of blindly copying from twitter, here is a link to the article in full where it tragically details seven such attacks from the period 2010-2018.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da7876a4-92d6-11ea-b833-0d83599da676?shareToken=ed1439d1a2d2820a1985461b78e272da
Tougher sentences are need for all perpetrators of abuse. Even more tragically there was a shocking total of 124 attacks across the female prison system in that time.0 -
Even more tragic numbers:
11 transgender prisoners were attacked in 2019 alone.
Terrible situation altogether.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-527481170 -
Advertisement
-
JamesFlynn wrote: »A genuine question - do you believe it is fair and just that :
a female-born MMA athlete should have to face a male-born MMA athlete like Fallon Fox
in a cage and fight them at risk of death
to pursue their profession?
If not, how under your ideology could this be prevented?
Answer please based on the real world that we all live in, not under some utopian future where we categorise sport participation based on skeletal structure and bone / muscle density.
Ok James seeing as it’s a genuine question and all, the short answer is no, I don’t think that particular mismatch was either fair or just, I think it was a disgraceful publicity stunt which showed a complete disregard for the safety of a competitor who was well out of their depth. It’s made worse by the fact that a knee to the skull in the way it was done should not be permitted in the sport, in the same way as a knee to the skull left a hole in a veteran male fighter of the sport. It’s not even a question of females having a softer skeletal structure than men, a knee to the head while holding the head in position to drive the full force of the impact is going to cause a concussion, no question about it, whether a fighter is male, female and regardless of any other characteristics such as their levels of training or any of the rest of it. It’s just an incredibly dangerous move.
My real world answer is that all bets are off in a situation where a person feels their life is in danger, knee to the skull of their opponent(s) wouldn’t be out of order, certainly more effective than attempting a toe into the general vicinity of their genitals (rarely effective in putting down their opponent) or trying to take them out at the knees. Real world scenarios are rarely ever so simplistic either, and even trained fighters can be beaten by someone who has no regard for fairness and is just intent on killing their opponent.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement