Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well you don't really. As I said the chips can fall where they fall.

There are plenty of men in the 70-80kg weight class and plenty of women too. Obviously very few , maybe zero, cis women will be safe competing against a 140kg cis male, but equally how many cis men are safe competing against a 140kg cis man in rugby?

Ok, so what level do you think women would be playing at in a mixed league? You found 2 men who you reckon they could compete against, how low down the ranks before all the players in the league are 75kg or under?

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so what level do you think women would be playing at in a mixed league? You found 2 men who you reckon they could compete against, how low down the ranks before all the players in the league are 75kg or under?

Greebo I'll answer your questions as soon as you answer the ones I've put to you.

I don't see the point in a one sided thing where I answer all your questions and you ignore mine.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

Show me what sports are equal? I think the exception rather than the rule is preferred in these scenarios.

Pay, opportunity, participation numbers are alll down in most sports. And yes pay is down because there isn't enough money on the game, but I'm sure that could be corrected if we, I dunno, promoted womens sports in the first place..

I opened the argument with the point that better performers are paid more, that's not inequality in sport anymore than it is in any profession I'm afraid.

How you think pay, opportunity or participation for women will increase by letting men play with them is beyond me. You don't seem to realise that men will take all the better paid jobs, since they will be better. Assuming of course you allow the men to compete equally.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Greebo I'll answer your questions as soon as you answer the ones I've put to you.

I don't see the point in a one sided thing where I answer all your questions and you ignore mine.

I answered your question in post 5574, you yourself proved that 72kg men can play and compete against larger men. What you haven't done is show that women can do so.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Who's to say? Biology says.
You can have all the training, support, funding in the world, men will still be stronger, faster, bigger, have more muscle and denser bones than women.

Yes, women's sports are less popular because the quality is lower than men. That's not sexist or any other term you want to use, it's just plain old fact.

Women's rugby is a great example, they stupidly use the same size ball as men do, despite having smaller hands, and so cannot have the same handling skills. That's ignoring all the other factors already listed.

No it’s not a fact, it’s an opinion on the quality of women participating in sports compared to men participating in sports.

And as for your rugby example, it’s really not a great one. Any women I know who play rugby have no problem handling bigger balls.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

I answered your question in post 5574, you yourself proved that 72kg men can play and compete against larger men. What you haven't done is show that women can do so.

So to clarify, your answer is that it is safe for a 72kg cis man to play against a 140kg cis man.

Further to this you believe this is proved by the fact that a 72kg cis man currently DOES play against 140kg cis men.

Can you also answer about the safety of trans women playing against cis women?

I will answer your Qs once we have been clear about your answer to my Qs

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not a fact, it’s an opinion on the quality of women participating in sports compared to men participating in sports.

And as for your rugby example, it’s really not a great one. Any women I know who play rugby have no problem handling bigger balls.

So why do young males use smaller balls?
Why are the skill levels so different in male and female rugby?
https://www.scrumqueens.com/news/should-women-play-smaller-ball

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

So to clarify, your answer is that it is safe for a 72kg cis man to play against a 140kg cis man.

Further to this you believe this is proved by the fact that a 72kg cis man currently DOES play against 140kg cis men.

Can you also answer about the safety of trans women playing against cis women?

I will answer your Qs once we have been clear about your answer to my Qs

It's the peak of the game, the 72kg is choosing to play against 140kg men.

You are forcing women to play against whatever men happen to fall down to that division, rather than letting them play against their equals.

I have already explained multiple times that it's not simply a weight issue, I listed of some basic examples of the other differences. Women are smaller than men, weaker than men, slower than men. It would be a ridiculous spectacle, similar to the relay race shown earlier.

Did I mention safety at any stage? I don't believe so. In any case, trans women would have the same advantages over women that men would have.

I've answered your questions multiple times now, it would be nice if you could reciprocate?

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

It's the peak of the game, the 72kg is choosing to play against 140kg men.

You are forcing women to play against whatever men happen to fall down to that division, rather than letting them play against their equals.

I have already explained multiple times that it's not simply a weight issue, I listed of some basic examples of the other differences. Women are smaller than men, weaker than men, slower than men. It would be a ridiculous spectacle, similar to the relay race shown earlier.

Did I mention safety at any stage? I don't believe so. In any case, trans women would have the same advantages over women that men would have.

I've answered your questions multiple times now, it would be nice if you could reciprocate?

Except you don't answer my questions.

I asked you was it safe for 140kg cis men to play against 72kg cis men.

Your answer is that 72kg cis men choose to play.

How is that answering if it is safe? Whether someone chooses to play or not has no impact on whether it will be safe to do so. If I choose to jump off a cliff does that make it safe?

I assume at this point you are not going to answer the actual questions I've asked and there's no point pushing you on it.

As for your Qs about performance, well you claim you never talked about safety so I will answer by saying I never talked about performance.

But if you ever do decide to answer my Qs about safety I will happily answer your Qs on performance.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

So why do young males use smaller balls?
Why are the skill levels so different in male and female rugby?
https://www.scrumqueens.com/news/should-women-play-smaller-ball

Your point originally was about the stupidity in your opinion of women using the same size balls as men and how they don’t have the same handling abilities. I don’t know how you’re carrying out that assessment but I have to assume it’s based upon experience rather than there being any actual data you can show to demonstrate your opinion has any validity. I’m basing my judgment on my own experience too, and even from your own link - the England Women’s team manager was more concerned with it making for a better spectacle, whereas the Wasps Ladies Director of Rugby saw no reason for it and thinks there are bigger issues within the sport which need to be addressed -

I don’t see why we should have a smaller ball when we play to the same laws and on the same-sized pitch as the men. Football don’t change the ball, cricket wickets are 22 yards long, hockey has the same stick – whether men or women. There are no differences in the laws we play to and if you change that, they could change other laws for us. It messes with the purity of the game.

I can see the point in a smaller ball in junior rugby but not for seniors. There are guys with small hands and girls with small hands – I don’t think the ball makes any difference. Players are used to a size five and can offload it and kick it. I don’t think things should be changed on the basis of gender.

There are things of more importance to invest our energy and time into, like the Tyrrells Premier 15s competition or why the ball-in-play time during the World Cup was 10% higher than in the men’s game. Why not look at that instead of what size ball we’re using?

Young males and young girls use smaller balls because they’re not at the same level as adults playing the game. There’s no reason they couldn’t use the same size balls as adults, and like you said in an earlier post - there’s a lot more to it such as the type of ball used in the game and whether or not gloves are used, and even depending upon the weather conditions -


Rugby: Gloves Or Not, What Is The Best Way To Hold Onto The Ball?

Rugby ball


Even when I first read your point about ladies supposedly inferior ball handling skills, apart from my first thought being “ahhh man, seriously?”, I thought “well someone had better have a word with the Irish ladies GAA players down under at the moment”, they’re not having much trouble handling oddly shaped balls either -


Last weekend she scored four goals in GWS’s 56-11 win over Richmond Tigers, and she was also named as one of the inter-change players on the Team of the Week.

“During the first six weeks of the season we were on the road a lot. The league is semi-professional and some of our staff have other jobs, so it was difficult. We stayed in six different hotels and were on numerous flights. But since returning to Sydney and having a normal routine it has been better.”


Cora Staunton continues to turn back time but there will be no Mayo return

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

well you claim you never talked about safety

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?
If you can show me where I brought up safety I'll answer your questions, again.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except you don't answer my questions.

I asked you was it safe for 140kg cis men to play against 72kg cis men.

Your answer is that 72kg cis men choose to play.

If you want a more in depth answer then you are going to need to define what you mean by "safe"?
Is it safe to drive small cars when other people have big cars?

The important aspect is choice, if a 72Kg male wants to play rugby at the elite, professional level, they accept that they will be playing against people who are larger than they are. A 72Kg professional male player is an outlier, its not the norm.

A 72Kg female would be around average weight, you want to put them up against the biggest, fastest, strongest men and expect them to compete? Its just not possible or realistic I'm afraid.

In 2014 the average size for a male english player was 105KG, how many female players do you think will be in a position to compete at this level?

What you are others are pushing for is *more* segregation based on criteria other than sex. What you fail to realise is that whatever criteria you pick will result in the the men at the top and the women mostly at the bottom half, because biology gives men advantages over women.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your point originally was about the stupidity in your opinion of women using the same size balls as men and how they don’t have the same handling abilities. I don’t know how you’re carrying out that assessment but I have to assume it’s based upon experience rather than there being any actual data you can show to demonstrate your opinion has any validity. I’m basing my judgment on my own experience too, and even from your own link - the England Women’s team manager was more concerned with it making for a better spectacle, whereas the Wasps Ladies Director of Rugby saw no reason for it and thinks there are bigger issues within the sport which need to be addressed -

I wonder what would make it a better spectacle? Perhaps if it was more skillful?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see why we should have a smaller ball when we play to the same laws and on the same-sized pitch as the men. Football don’t change the ball, cricket wickets are 22 yards long, hockey has the same stick – whether men or women. There are no differences in the laws we play to and if you change that, they could change other laws for us. It messes with the purity of the game.

I can see the point in a smaller ball in junior rugby but not for seniors. There are guys with small hands and girls with small hands – I don’t think the ball makes any difference. Players are used to a size five and can offload it and kick it. I don’t think things should be changed on the basis of gender.

The reason is because women have smaller hands, I thought I made that clear?
Guys with smaller hands than women or women with smaller hands than men are outliers. You cant keep relying on outliers to prove a point.
The "points" raised in that quote are frankly pathetic. "They are used to it"? "they can kick it" Seriously?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are things of more importance to invest our energy and time into, like the Tyrrells Premier 15s competition or why the ball-in-play time during the World Cup was 10% higher than in the men’s game. Why not look at that instead of what size ball we’re using?

Wonder why the ball is in play more? Could it be skill related?
Maybe the league would be more successful if it was a better spectacle?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Young males and young girls use smaller balls because they’re not at the same level as adults playing the game. There’s no reason they couldn’t use the same size balls as adults, and like you said in an earlier post - there’s a lot more to it such as the type of ball used in the game and whether or not gloves are used, and even depending upon the weather conditions -

So children use smaller balls becuase they have smaller hands, but women dont use smaller balls, because the have smaller hands?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rugby: Gloves Or Not, What Is The Best Way To Hold Onto The Ball?

Rugby ball

I wonder are the women wearing mens or ladies sized gloves?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even when I first read your point about ladies supposedly inferior ball handling skills, apart from my first thought being “ahhh man, seriously?”, I thought “well someone had better have a word with the Irish ladies GAA players down under at the moment”, they’re not having much trouble handling oddly shaped balls either -


Last weekend she scored four goals in GWS’s 56-11 win over Richmond Tigers, and she was also named as one of the inter-change players on the Team of the Week.

“During the first six weeks of the season we were on the road a lot. The league is semi-professional and some of our staff have other jobs, so it was difficult. We stayed in six different hotels and were on numerous flights. But since returning to Sydney and having a normal routine it has been better.”


Cora Staunton continues to turn back time but there will be no Mayo return

What point do you think this proves? Because she can score that means she wouldnt be more skillful with a ball that she could control more? More whataboutery I'm afraid.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?
If you can show me where I brought up safety I'll answer your questions, again.

The whole debate about trans women in contact sports has been about safety and not performance.

If you only want to talk about performance that's up to you. I will continue to discuss safety as I have from the beginning.

If you want a more in depth answer then you are going to need to define what you mean by "safe"?
Is it safe to drive small cars when other people have big cars?

The important aspect is choice, if a 72Kg male wants to play rugby at the elite, professional level, they accept that they will be playing against people who are larger than they are. A 72Kg professional male player is an outlier, its not the norm.

A 72Kg female would be around average weight, you want to put them up against the biggest, fastest, strongest men and expect them to compete? Its just not possible or realistic I'm afraid.

In 2014 the average size for a male english player was 105KG, how many female players do you think will be in a position to compete at this level?

What you are others are pushing for is *more* segregation based on criteria other than sex. What you fail to realise is that whatever criteria you pick will result in the the men at the top and the women mostly at the bottom half, because biology gives men advantages over women.

I don't have to define "safe". All I need to ask is that if you have safety concerns for cis women vs trans women, do those safety concerns exist for Cis men playing rugby?

If you don't have any safety concerns for women's rugby (which is traditionally what is being debated) then it's fine. I would consider that to be the answer to my question.

If the important aspect is choice as you claim, then it's fine for trans women to participate against cis women. For example, the RFU allows for trans women to play in English rugby. Any cis woman therefore has a choice to play or not knowing she could be up against a possibly bigger and stronger woman. Since she has the choice, by your criteria it is fine.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

The whole debate about trans women in contact sports has been about safety and not performance.

Thats incorrect. Several posters, myself included, have spoken, from day 1, about how allowing trans women play in womens sports will deny biological women places and livelihoods.

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you only want to talk about performance that's up to you. I will continue to discuss safety as I have from the beginning.

So you will focus on safety and ignore all the other impacts?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't have to define "safe". All I need to ask is that if you have safety concerns for cis women vs trans women, do those safety concerns exist for Cis men playing rugby?

Again, I didnt bring up safety.
Of course there are safety concerns in any sport, but when you get to the top levels if you are good enough, you are big enough.

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you don't have any safety concerns for women's rugby (which is traditionally what is being debated) then it's fine. I would consider that to be the answer to my question.

If the important aspect is choice as you claim, then it's fine for trans women to participate against cis women. For example, the RFU allows for trans women to play in English rugby. Any cis woman therefore has a choice to play or not knowing she could be up against a possibly bigger and stronger woman. Since she has the choice, by your criteria it is fine.

She wont have a choice, the trans women will take all the top spots, by nature of biological superiority over the women. (bigger, strong, faster, etc, etc)

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats incorrect. Several posters, myself included, have spoken, from day 1, about how allowing trans women play in womens sports will deny biological women places and livelihoods.


So you will focus on safety and ignore all the other impacts?



Again, I didnt bring up safety.
Of course there are safety concerns in any sport, but when you get to the top levels if you are good enough, you are big enough.



She wont have a choice, the trans women will take all the top spots, by nature of biological superiority over the women. (bigger, strong, faster, etc, etc)

I'm no more ignoring all other impacts than you are ignoring safety.

Can I take it you currently have no safety concerns for cis women playing trans women in sport then? Or at least any more than cis men playing each other?

So by choice you do not mean the choice of competing but you actually mean the likelihood of succeeding? I've never heard anyone describe the likelihood of succeeding as being a "choice" before but ok....

So why does the 72kg cis male have a "choice" given that there's so many bigger and stronger than him?

Am I getting this right?

A 72kg cis male has a choice but a 72kg cis female has no choice?

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...
Even when I first read your point about ladies supposedly inferior ball handling skills, apart from my first thought being “ahhh man, seriously?”, I thought “well someone had better have a word with the Irish ladies GAA players down under at the moment”, they’re not having much trouble handling oddly shaped balls either -


Last weekend she scored four goals in GWS’s 56-11 win over Richmond Tigers, and she was also named as one of the inter-change players on the Team of the Week.

“During the first six weeks of the season we were on the road a lot. The league is semi-professional and some of our staff have other jobs, so it was difficult. We stayed in six different hotels and were on numerous flights. But since returning to Sydney and having a normal routine it has been better.”


Cora Staunton continues to turn back time but there will be no Mayo return

Cora Staunton is a freak of nature and I don't mean that in a bad way.
She was playing against adult females on county teams when she was 14.

How many 14 years old girls do you know that would physically stack up against women in their 20s ?

She was always physically strong and she has always been skillful.

Down through the years she even played the odd rugby match (different shaped ball to Gaelic or soccer) and she scored tries.

Using her for your argument is ridiculous.

BTW I can't believe the numpties that argue throwing a transwoman, that grew up and physically went through puberty to maturity as a male, in against women who grew up as females is physically ok.

Couldn't care less if I am not using the approved gender or sex descriptors here.

And it is not down to freaking safety as a reason for not allowing transwomen in womens sports.
It is down to physical attributes or has the salient facts that men are faster and stronger than women slipped some peoples minds.

Any dude that is in the top 200 of tennis players in the world would beat all the top female tennis players.
So if Federer, Nadal or Djokovic declared themselves transwomen and went on the womens tour they could knock out a number of grand slam wins well into their forties and claim the all time number of wins.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm no more ignoring all other impacts than you are ignoring safety.

Can I take it you currently have no safety concerns for cis women playing trans women in sport then? Or at least any more than cis men playing each other?

This is thread about gender identity and your argument is based on general dangers in sports, I'm really not sure what more you want me to say?

LLMMLL wrote: »

So by choice you do not mean the choice of competing but you actually mean the likelihood of succeeding? I've never heard anyone describe the likelihood of succeeding as being a "choice" before but ok....

You don't make choices based on the likely outcome? You dont reject options (i.e choose) that clearly wont work out for you?

Given the apparent numbers of transgender people, its likely to imagine that there will be at least 15 amongst them who are transgender women who will play rugby. They will displace 15 women who wanted to play rugby, they will also likely annihilate any other women only teams them come up against. Do you think this will affect the decision to play rugby for any young women?

LLMMLL wrote: »

So why does the 72kg cis male have a "choice" given that there's so many bigger and stronger than him?

Because, as you have so kindly proven, a very small number of lighter men can still compete with heavier men....because they are men.
You have yet to prove or even begin to convince anyone that a woman could do the same thing.

It's pretty simple, you either acknowledge that men have innate biological advantages that cannot be overcome or you dont. Do you accept this or not? If not, why not?

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

Cora Staunton is a freak of nature and I don't mean that in a bad way.
She was playing against adult females on county teams when she was 14.

How many 14 years old girls do you know that would physically stack up against women in their 20s ?

She was always physically strong and she has always been skillful.

Down through the years she even played the odd rugby match (different shaped ball to Gaelic or soccer) and she scored tries.

Using her for your argument is ridiculous.

I know you don’t mean it in a bad way, but that’s the whole point of elite athleticism - they are freaks of nature, absolute outliers among the general population of athletes, never mind the general population itself. Your opinion reminds me of what Will Carling (who was no shrinking violet himself) had to say about Jonah Lomu after running into him at the World Cup in ‘95 -

’I am hoping not to come across him again. He's a freak - and the sooner he goes away the better'


Lomu wasn’t called The Beast for nothing

It’s true, I don’t know too many 14 year old girls that would physically stack up to women in their 20’s, and that’s exactly the point. That’s why using an exceptional example of an athlete who could play with men if she wanted, is exactly the point.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I can't believe the numpties that argue throwing a transwoman, that grew up and physically went through puberty to maturity as a male, in against women who grew up as females is physically ok.

Couldn't care less if I am not using the approved gender or sex descriptors here.

And it is not down to freaking safety as a reason for not allowing transwomen in womens sports.
It is down to physical attributes or has the salient facts that men are faster and stronger than women slipped some peoples minds.

Any dude that is in the top 200 of tennis players in the world would beat all the top female tennis players.
So if Federer, Nadal or Djokovic declared themselves transwomen and went on the womens tour they could knock out a number of grand slam wins well into their forties and claim the all time number of wins.

Nobody has argued that athletes be mismatched. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will beat everyone, not just women, but men too, so using them as examples to suggest that women couldn’t compete with men is just stupid. You’re also ignoring the most obvious point you’re making yourself in that not only are the women’s and men’s competitions played differently in any sport, but traditionally concessions have been made in the women’s games which are completely unnecessary IMO. Women and men are socialised differently outside of sports, they train differently in sports, but elite athletes will always be able to out-compete their competitors. It’s precisely that which separates them from their competitors, not their gender or sex, but a whole combination of factors and having the opportunities which enable them to develop and realise their potential.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know you don’t mean it in a bad way, but that’s the whole point of elite athleticism - they are freaks of nature, absolute outliers among the general population of athletes, never mind the general population itself. Your opinion reminds me of what Will Carling (who was no shrinking violet himself) had to say about Jonah Lomu after running into him at the World Cup in ‘95 -

Will Carling was 90KG, thats below average.

Your bog standard 90KG, 6'2" male players is going to appear as a freak to 99% of the female players they play with.
There are female freaks too, much larger and stronger than the average female player, Safi N'Diaye for example is 101Kg, a giant of a female player, still smaller than the average male player.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, I don’t know too many 14 year old girls that would physically stack up to women in their 20’s, and that’s exactly the point. That’s why using an exceptional example of an athlete who could play with men if she wanted, is exactly the point.

Whatever this point is, its eluding me I'm afraid. Who is this exceptional athlete who could compete with the elite men?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has argued that athletes be mismatched. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will beat everyone, not just women, but men too, so using them as examples to suggest that women couldn’t compete with men is just stupid. You’re also ignoring the most obvious point you’re making yourself in that not only are the women’s and men’s competitions played differently in any sport, but traditionally concessions have been made in the women’s games which are completely unnecessary IMO. Women and men are socialised differently outside of sports, they train differently in sports, but elite athletes will always be able to out-compete their competitors. It’s precisely that which separates them from their competitors, not their gender or sex, but a whole combination of factors and having the opportunities which enable them to develop and realise their potential.

The male elite athletes will always, ALWAYS beat the female elite, BECAUSE they are men.
Non elite male athletes will beat the elite females, its been shown many times. The current junior boys 100m record would have won the female olympic gold every year since its existence.

10.05 is the minimum time you need to even qualify for the mens 100m, the womens record is 10.49.
Are you telling me that every male sprinter is getting better opportunities than every female sprinter?

Your comments against how women train are frankly disgusting. Women train just as hard as men do, but they will never overcome biology.

*YOU* are arguing that they be mismatched by removing the gender based segregation and allowing men to compete directly against women.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Your comments against how women train are frankly disgusting. Women train just as hard as men do, but they will never overcome biology.

*YOU* are arguing that they be mismatched by removing the gender based segregation and allowing men to compete directly against women.

Ahh stop with the fake disgust, it’s ridiculous. I didn’t say women don’t train as hard as men do, i said they train differently, and there are unnecessary concessions made in the women’s games that have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with how both women and men are perceived in society - women crashing into each other or knocking seven bells out of each other is generally perceived as unladylike behaviour, whereas men doing the same thing is regarded as exciting and intense and all the rest of it.

There’s plenty of women still playing sports and want to compete against men, but it would make for uncomfortable viewing for armchair sports fans, and that’s apart from the fact that men’s sports have traditionally been far more promoted than women’s sports. It’s only in recent years that women’s sports have gained any traction in the media, but this is hardly enough to stem the decline in participation among young people of both sexes in all sports, and you’re claiming that a group which represents 0.5% of any given population would upset that ever so delicate imbalance between women’s and men’s competitions so much so that women would just stop competing altogether in spite of all evidence which suggests that argument is completely without foundation?

Like I said before - personal preference for whatever you want to watch on tv is fine, but when you try to argue that science supports your point of view - it doesn’t.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh stop with the fake disgust, it’s ridiculous.

Its not fake, I think its a disgrace that what you are proposing will result in the extinction of elite female sports.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say women don’t train as hard as men do, i said they train differently, and there are unnecessary concessions made in the women’s games that have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with how both women and men are perceived in society - women crashing into each other or knocking seven bells out of each other is generally perceived as unladylike behaviour, whereas men doing the same thing is regarded as exciting and intense and all the rest of it.

What are these concession you speak of?
Women are crashing into each other all day every day, perhaps you arent aware of womens sports? Katie Taylor ring any bells?
Perhaps its *your* views on women in society that are stuck in the past?

There’s plenty of women still playing sports and want to compete against men, but it would make for uncomfortable viewing for armchair sports fans, and that’s apart from the fact that men’s sports have traditionally been far more promoted than women’s sports.

Which women want to compete against men exactly? Can you share any links to back this up?
Women want their own, well funded leagues, they do not want to have to complete directly against men!

Women vs men would be unfcomfortably watching becuase they women would get annihilated, again, did you not see the relay clip posted earlier?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s only in recent years that women’s sports have gained any traction in the media, but this is hardly enough to stem the decline in participation among young people of both sexes in all sports, and you’re claiming that a group which represents 0.5% of any given population would upset that ever so delicate imbalance between women’s and men’s competitions so much so that women would just stop competing altogether in spite of all evidence which suggests that argument is completely without foundation?

Smaller, slower, weaker loses against bigger, faster, stronger. Doesnt matter if thats men vs women or girls vs boys.

Are you now going back on your earlier idea of mixed gender sports and only focussing on mixed transgender sports? sorry, its getting hard to keep track of what argument you are making as your long posts tend to, shall we say, wander.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like I said before - personal preference for whatever you want to watch on tv is fine, but when you try to argue that science supports your point of view - it doesn’t.

So biology isn't a science now?

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

So biology isn't a science now?

Cathy Newman called and wants her strawman back.

I didn’t say biology isn’t a science, I said science doesn’t support your opinion. Biology doesn’t govern nature, biology doesn’t govern the criteria or rules of any sports conceived and developed by humans. Biology doesn’t govern society or standards in society or social mores that have existed only for the last 200 years or so. Before then, throughout human history there are exceptional examples of both men’s and women’s achievements, however men’s achievements are traditionally given greater recognition because they are regarded as being of greater value in society. Women traditionally have not received the same recognition for their achievements because they were not permitted to participate equally in society which was geared towards men retaining their dominant position in society.

It’s been evidenced in many domains besides just sports that women’s contributions to society are every bit as important as men’s contribution to society. The same arguments used by men to restrict women’s participation in sports were used to restrict women’s participation in employment, and were used to restrict women’s equal participation in society. Their claims for justifying restrictions placed on women’s equal status in society were based upon the prevailing opinion at the time, supported by what was just bad science, which was used in many different contexts to justify unjust and unreasonable discrimination against many groups in society based upon arbitrary criteria which were completely without foundation in science. In recent years it’s only because of actual science and people having to prove themselves as having equal status that a small group of men’s control of society has been wrestled from their grasp, which has made for a better society in which everyone is regarded as having equal status and equal importance in society.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cathy Newman called and wants her strawman back.

I didn’t say biology isn’t a science, I said science doesn’t support your opinion. Biology doesn’t govern nature, biology doesn’t govern the criteria or rules of any sports conceived and developed by humans. Biology doesn’t govern society or standards in society or social mores that have existed only for the last 200 years or so. Before then, throughout human history there are exceptional examples of both men’s and women’s achievements, however men’s achievements are traditionally given greater recognition because they are regarded as being of greater value in society. Women traditionally have not received the same recognition for their achievements because they were not permitted to participate equally in society which was geared towards men retaining their dominant position in society.

Its not that they are just given greater recognition, its that they are greater.
Look at every Olympic record and show me where, for a given shared discipline, women are better than men?
This doesnt denigrate womens achievements, their achievements shoudl be compared to their peers, you want to remove this from them, somehow in the name of fairness.

Female athletes dont try and make this argument, I have no idea why you are trying to make it.

It’s been evidenced in many domains besides just sports that women’s contributions to society are every bit as important as men’s contribution to society. The same arguments used by men to restrict women’s participation in sports were used to restrict women’s participation in employment, and were used to restrict women’s equal participation in society. Their claims for justifying restrictions placed on women’s equal status in society were based upon the prevailing opinion at the time, supported by what was just bad science, which was used in many different contexts to justify unjust and unreasonable discrimination against many groups in society based upon arbitrary criteria which were completely without foundation in science. In recent years it’s only because of actual science and people having to prove themselves as having equal status that a small group of men’s control of society has been wrestled from their grasp, which has made for a better society in which everyone is regarded as having equal status and equal importance in society.

What on earth any of the above rhetoric has to do with the current conversation is beyond me. Is there *any* chance you can limit your points to the discussion at hand rather than continuously trying to divert the conversation?
We have had technlological advances in sports, contributions to society, etc, etc.

No one is saying that women are less important or have lower status, well other than you of course.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

This is thread about gender identity and your argument is based on general dangers in sports, I'm really not sure what more you want me to say?

My argument is about the safety of trans women in sports. What's the issue with that?

I simply want you to clarify your opinion on safety of trans women in sports but for some reason you are unwilling to do so.

You don't make choices based on the likely outcome? You dont reject options (i.e choose) that clearly wont work out for you?

Absolutely because in all cases I HAVE the choice. As do cis women who may face trans women in sports. It's bizarre to say that a 72kg man has the choice but a 72kg woman doesn't because you believe shed choose not to participate.

Given the apparent numbers of transgender people, its likely to imagine that there will be at least 15 amongst them who are transgender women who will play rugby. They will displace 15 women who wanted to play rugby, they will also likely annihilate any other women only teams them come up against. Do you think this will affect the decision to play rugby for any young women?

There's.no evidence that it currently is affecting cis women's decisions. Unless you'd like to provide some evidence about falling numbers in women's rugby.

Because, as you have so kindly proven, a very small number of lighter men can still compete with heavier men....because they are men.
You have yet to prove or even begin to convince anyone that a woman could do the same thing.

Thats hardly proof of anything. women are not allowed compete with men in rugby. It's like saying if they banned anyone under 80kg from taking part then a 72kg cis man is not capable of competing against heavier men because it's not currently happening. But clearly if a 72kg man is allowed compete then he is capable of competing.

Either way it has nothing to do with my argument as I am talking about safety, not performance.

JamesFlynn

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh I wont be campaigning for a change in sports. The only thing I'd campaign against is applying rules that treat trans women the same as men and similarly for transmen.

Well at least you are clear in prioritising men's rights to participate in women's sports over the health and safety of women.

You could take the position that the issue is a bit more nuanced, but there doesn't seem to be much nuance around when this topic is discussed.

So the ideological position is - if a male-born wants to identify as a woman and compete against female-born rugby players or boxers, then that's his (now her) right to take, regardless of the safety implications to the women athletes.

Fair enough. I don't think the issue is that simple.

But I'm surely happy I'm a man these days - we get all the rights, even the rights of women if we want!

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not that they are just given greater recognition, its that they are greater.

...

No one is saying that women are less important or have lower status, well other than you of course.

Have you made up your mind yet which argument you want to stick with?

LLMMLL

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Well at least you are clear in prioritising men's rights to participate in women's sports over the health and safety of women.

You could take the position that the issue is a bit more nuanced, but there doesn't seem to be much nuance around when this topic is discussed.

So the ideological position is - if a male-born wants to identify as a woman and compete against female-born rugby players or boxers, then that's his (now her) right to take, regardless of the safety implications to the women athletes.

Fair enough. I don't think the issue is that simple.

But I'm surely happy I'm a man these days - we get all the rights, even the rights of women if we want!

Well if you completely misrepresent everything I say then yes my misrepresented views do lack nuance. But since they're not my actual views that's not much of an issue.

My actual views simply expressed that any safety concerns should be grounded in science, not in anti-trans hysteria, and this scientific view of safety should be applied to all athletes, not just trans athletes.

I also pointed out that if this was done there would be issues for cis people in sports as it's unlikely to be all that safe for 140kg and 70kg rugby players to play together.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you made up your mind yet which argument you want to stick with?

Oh dear.
As you well know, what I said was that men are greater than women at the sports that both play.
The evidence for this is every record you might care to reference.
Only you seem to believe that this makes women less important and/or of lower status.
Just in case that wasn't enough you also want to take away their ability to be professional athletes by forcing them to directly compete with men.

I guess those who fear that the transgender movement might negatively impact biological women might be on to something after all.

JamesFlynn

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if you completely misrepresent everything I say then yes my misrepresented views do lack nuance. But since they're not my actual views that's not much of an issue.

My actual views simply expressed that any safety concerns should be grounded in science, not in anti-trans hysteria, and this scientific view of safety should be applied to all athletes, not just trans athletes.

I also pointed out that if this was done there would be issues for cis people in sports as it's unlikely to be all that safe for 140kg and 70kg rugby players to play together.

Allowing male-born athletes to compete against female-born athletes without changing rules around weight/bone-density/strength will of course be more dangerous to women.

There's nothing anti-trans about that - it's a measurable scientific observation and common sense. To protect women's safety there would need to be a change in sports' current participation rules.

I don't think I've misrepresented your position but others can be the judge:

LLMMLL wrote: »

"Oh I wont be campaigning for a change in sports. The only thing I'd campaign against is applying rules that treat trans women the same as men and similarly for transmen."

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh dear.
As you well know, what I said was that men are greater than women at the sports that both play.
The evidence for this is every record you might care to reference.
Only you seem to believe that this makes women less important and/or of lower status.
Just in case that wasn't enough you also want to take away their ability to be professional athletes by forcing them to directly compete with men.

I guess those who fear that the transgender movement might negatively impact biological women might be on to something after all.

That’s not what you said. I referenced both men’s and women’s achievements throughout history, and you still brought it back to sports which were conceived and developed by men for men, at a time when women simply weren’t regarded as being equal status to men. You want to talk about the Olympics, then at least you should familiarise yourself with the history of the modern Olympic revival -


Female athletes were excluded from the first modern Olympic Games in 1896 because its founder, Pierre de Coubertin, felt their participation would be inappropriate.

“No matter how toughened a sportswoman may be, her organism is not cut out to sustain certain shocks,” the French educator and historian said then.

See 120 years of struggle for gender equality at the Olympics


Women were quite literally on the back foot from the inception of the Games, so you won’t have heard of women like Alice Milliat (and had it not been for her efforts, you wouldn’t have heard of many more!) -


In opposition, women took matters into their own hands. Frenchwoman Alice Milliat believed that women should have the same opportunity as men. She created the International Women’s Sport Federation, and in 1921 organised the first Women’s Olympiad which took place in Monaco. Five nations took part; Great Britain, Switzerland, Italy, Norway and France. The aim was to make organisations such as the IOC and the International Amateur Athletics Association take women seriously.

The main outcome of the first Women’s Olympiad was to irritate the IOC, who demanded the women change the name of their competition. From then on, it was called the Women’s World Games, and was held every four years from 1922 until 1934. The first event held in 1922 was a one-day track and field event. The timing of the Games, every four years, was a clear sign of the women’s intentions to rival the Olympic Games.

The Women’s World Games were a success. More nations took part, and there was positive media and big crowds. Following this, increasing numbers of women’s events and women themselves were allowed to take part in the Olympic Games.

Disappointingly, it may merely have been a way to control their participation in sport rather than an acknowledgement that they belonged. Even in 1931, when 14 women’s events were scheduled for the next Olympic Games, the new IOC head Baillet-Latour said he hoped that one day women could be completely excluded from the Olympic Games.

In 1934 Milliat issued a challenge to the IOC and said that her organisation would give up the Women’s World Games if women’s athletics were fully included in the Olympics Games, and if women were represented on the IOC. Whilst Milliat ultimately did disband the Women’s World Games when the first part of this request was met, it was not until 1981 that the first two women were appointed to the IOC. As of 2014 just under a quarter of the IOC members are women.


Women & the Olympic Games: "uninteresting, unaesthetic, incorrect"


While you might think you have a slam dunk of a point referring constantly to records in the men’s events, it’s pretty easy to set records in the men’s events when only men are permitted to compete and women are excluded from participating with men. See I’m not arguing and have never argued that anything should be taken away from anyone, but rather that equal opportunities should be granted to everyone, regardless of their sex or gender. It would have the opposite effect of what you’re suggesting, that women would not wish to participate, or that there would be no professional elite women athletes. There would, and they would gain equal recognition for their achievements as men receive recognition for their achievements.

It can’t possibly have escaped your attention that elite athletes whatever their sex or gender are training and competing almost from the moment they’re out of nappies. They don’t just happen to get an idea into their heads as adults to suddenly start competing with the idea of making it to the Olympics or the World Games in their chosen sport. Nobody is forcing anyone in, or out of anything. The idea is to include everyone, rather than attempt to exclude people from participating in competitions using some fairly shìtty studies that fly in the face of scientific evidence, arguing that they’re trying to make the sport fair to everyone, by relying on outdated nonsense attitudes that just don’t stand up to any kind of cursory examination. I don’t need the scientific evidence, but for the love of Christ don’t present some shìte and call it scientific evidence when it falls far short of it. That’s just disrespectful.

Those who fear anyone might negatively impact anything, aren’t onto anything only their own paranoia fuelled nonsense. Their fears shouldn’t be the determining factor of anyone else’s human rights and it shouldn’t fall to other people to constantly have to prove they are not a threat, or that they as a starting point should have equal status in society, or in your beloved sports competitions.