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

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No quotas and men dominate, have quotas and the standard drops across the board. A lot (and in my opinion the majority) will not want to be tackling women on the sports field, and won't do so with the force and intensity they would against another man. Thus, everyone loses out.

Throwing every excuse at the idea again Cteven, and contradictory ideas into your argument to try and justify exclusion rather than working on ideas to include as many people as possible who want to participate in sports and have an equal opportunity to participate as anyone else. And they ARE just excuses, if excuses were a sport you’d be laden down with medals, so that’s something at least.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52355891-brenda-is-a-sheep

Oh dear...

Essentially telling kids that if a predator (a wolf, which is used in a lot of folk tales and lore to teach kids about predators) says that they are not a predator that you should believe them.

So a book telling kids to ignore what they see and instead go with what they are being told. Isn't that gaslighting?

How the hell did this book not raise a while load of red flags is astounding.

Ahh here, it’s a daft book, I’ll be among the first to admit it. But going at it with the gusto of an anti-theist and presenting not just an alternative interpretation, but impugning the book as literally the opposite of its intent is frankly just as ridiculous tbh. I’d be about as inclined to buy it as I would Maria Shrivers effort, not because I disagree with her ideas, but simply because it’s not even worth entertaining. If someone doesn’t like the book, fine, leave it on the shelf, but review bombing just perpetuates daftness and prejudice from all sides.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

That, along with her memory of her childhood, means that she knows a substantial amount about gender dysphoria.

If you don't take Stella seriously then, surely, you can take Keira Bell seriously.

As for Asperger syndrome, the name 'Asperger' is shorthand for it.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying - as a qualified psychiatrist there’s no doubt she would know a lot about gender dysphoria, which is why I’m perplexed as to why she wrote that crap when she knows it’s a load of crap!

Why would I take Kiera Bell seriously? I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about Kiera Bell as an individual. I do know that for the people who wanted to challenge transgender ideology she has served a useful purpose, it’s those people whom I have an issue with, but Kiera Bell herself? Not at all.

Asperger isn’t short for it, it’s the recognition that it is a medical diagnosis is why people leave off the “Syndrome” part, because they’re not comfortable with the idea, it’s definitely not as cute as being able to refer to children who have been diagnosed with the condition as “aspies”, in the same way as one might refer to children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria as “baby homosexuals”.

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh here, it’s a daft book, I’ll be among the first to admit it. But going at it with the gusto of an anti-theist and presenting not just an alternative interpretation, but impugning the book as literally the opposite of its intent is frankly just as ridiculous tbh. I’d be about as inclined to buy it as I would Maria Shrivers effort, not because I disagree with her ideas, but simply because it’s not even worth entertaining. If someone doesn’t like the book, fine, leave it on the shelf, but review bombing just perpetuates daftness and prejudice from all sides.

Having worked with kids and had to go through safeguarding training... this book is at odds with safeguarding.

Again, if it was a non predator animal, it would be a completely different message. That is the big issue with the book.

It is getting review bombed, because of the way it has promoted its message.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Having worked with kids and had to go through safeguarding training... this book is at odds with safeguarding.

Again, if it was a non predator animal, it would be a completely different message. That is the big issue with the book.

It is getting review bombed, because of the way it has promoted its message.

Show of hands anyone who didn’t work with children and hasn’t had to sit through the dross that is Children First? Anyone? Anyone?

I’m betting even the writer of the book has done it at some point in their life -


"I'm an award-winning children's book author and illustrator from Edinburgh. I love making up stories, print-making and cutting and sticking. My favourite things to draw are eyebrows.

I have an MA in Children's Book Illustration from Cambridge School of Art and a BA in Costume Design from Wimbledon College of Art. I used to work in theatre, but now spend my days in my Edinburgh studio with views of the hills.

One day I will manage to write a book about my very favourite animal - the duck.

I am represented by Paul Moreton at Bell Lomax Moreton."


I can only imagine what she’ll write about ducks - if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a platypus :pac:

Nah man, honestly of all the things I’d be concerned about regarding child safety and that book, I’d be far more concerned for anyone who imagines children are stupid as SOME adults.

(Had to insert SOME in there, because there’s always someone ready to pounce with the notall hashtag)

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, that’s what I’m saying - as a qualified psychiatrist there’s no doubt she would know a lot about gender dysphoria, which is why I’m perplexed as to why she wrote that crap when she knows it’s a load of crap!

What evidence do you have for saying it's crap?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I take Kiera Bell seriously? I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about Kiera Bell as an individual. I do know that for the people who wanted to challenge transgender ideology she has served a useful purpose, it’s those people whom I have an issue with, but Kiera Bell herself? Not at all.

What evidence is there of her being used? It was her decision to go to court.

Keira Bell is living proof that the Tavistock approach to gender dysphoria is a disaster.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Asperger isn’t short for it, it’s the recognition that it is a medical diagnosis is why people leave off the “Syndrome” part, because they’re not comfortable with the idea, it’s definitely not as cute as being able to refer to children who have been diagnosed with the condition as “aspies”, in the same way as one might refer to children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria as “baby homosexuals”.

Why would they be uncomfortable with knowing it's a syndrome? Treatment of conditions on the autistic spectrum doesn't involve changing from male to female (and vice versa).

There are many biological females who are in the same predicament as Keira Bell. Some were interviewed for The Sunday Times Magazine earlier this year. One of them recalled being encouraged to transition by an older transgender person.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Throwing every excuse at the idea again Cteven, and contradictory ideas into your argument to try and justify exclusion rather than working on ideas to include as many people as possible who want to participate in sports and have an equal opportunity to participate as anyone else. And they ARE just excuses, if excuses were a sport you’d be laden down with medals, so that’s something at least.

Every opportunity to compete? U16s are allowed play for Barcelona, do you want to hazard a guess as to why they don't get to play in the team?

Also as far as I know there is nothing which prohibits women from playing association football with men. They actually have had a female referees officiate mens games on numerous occasions so there is nothing in the laws referring to gender. Want to hazard a guess as to why no woman has ever played for a team in the men's champions league? Hint, biology.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence do you have for saying it's crap?

I linked to it in my previous response? The statistics she quotes are pie in the sky nonsense, much like the 4,000% rise in girls attending gender clinics. At first glance the statistics are of course frightening, like 90% “growing out of it” and 4,000% rises in 10 years, but Stella would know that the diagnostic criteria have changed over 30 years.

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there of her being used? It was her decision to go to court.

I don’t doubt that it was her decision to go to court, prompted by supporters of anti-trans ideology. Now don’t get me wrong, I have issues with a lot of the trans ideology myself, but the politics of the whole thing between trans and anti-trans ideology means that they need a figurehead, like the way Greta Thunberg is being used - hardly a peep about her now, and the same will be true of Kiera Bell, because figureheads of any movement are discarded once they have fulfilled their purpose. There’s plenty of other examples throughout history to choose from. That’s why I said I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Kiera Bell, it’s more the people behind her that are using her to further their own political beliefs I have issues with.

political analyst wrote: »

Keira Bell is living proof that the Tavistock approach to gender dysphoria is a disaster.

Oh don’t be so dramatic, she really isn’t proof of any such nonsense.

political analyst wrote: »

Why would they be uncomfortable with knowing it's a syndrome? Treatment of conditions on the autistic spectrum doesn't involve changing from male to female (and vice versa).

There are many biological females who are in the same predicament as Keira Bell. Some were interviewed for The Sunday Times Magazine earlier this year. One of them recalled being encouraged to transition by an older transgender person.

Because it reminds them that this is a medical condition and not just a social movement which happens to be observed primarily among middle class white people with progressive values.

I know there are many biological females who find themselves in similar positions to Kiera Bell, and there are many more adults who do not find themselves in similar positions to Kiera Bell who were patients at Tavistock who would say they have benefitted from the treatment. If you’re going to suggest that Kiera Bell is a legitimate example to support your argument, then you also have to acknowledge the numbers of people who consider the treatment as life saving. I’m not gone on putting it in those terms myself, but that’s what they say of their experience!

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Every opportunity to compete? U16s are allowed play for Barcelona, do you want to hazard a guess as to why they don't get to play in the team?

That’s all I’d be doing, is hazarding a guess, and I don’t mean this in a bad way or anything but you could be talking about anything there, and nothing immediately comes to mind to connect Barcelona, sports and U16’s with the idea that everyone should be given the opportunity to compete, especially as I said I have no issue with organisations or governing bodies setting the qualifying criteria for the sports they oversee.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Also as far as I know there is nothing which prohibits women from playing association football with men. They actually have had a female referees officiate mens games on numerous occasions so there is nothing in the laws referring to gender. Want to hazard a guess as to why no woman has ever played for a team in the men's champions league? Hint, biology.

That’s not much of a hint if you’re already after making the point that you recognise women are involved in the sport with men, and I know plenty of women’s sports too where men are involved as coaches, referees, managers, chairm... oh wait, Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA after they drafted him in from the business world and then they couldn’t continue to make excuses for his gaffes which couldn’t justify his £190k salary.

Smacruairi

Did you deliberately misinterpret my point? If you think there should be no division of sexes in any sport with a physical competitive element, then you are just killing women's sports dead. Full stop.

U16s don't play for Barcelona because they are not strong or physically quick enough for the game. Likewise for women women who biology has given a disadvantage to in physical stakes. They can of course try out, but they won't get picked. Separating the game into women's and men's gives us great competitions however - the solheim Cup is great, the most recent women's football world Cup was amazing, even watching Dublin trounce other counties in gaa football is fun.

But no.. Don't do those competitions a disservice by eliminating them for gender neutral ideology... It'll just be men.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Did you deliberately misinterpret my point? If you think there should be no division of sexes in any sport with a physical competitive element, then you are just killing women's sports dead. Full stop.

U16s don't play for Barcelona because they are not strong or physically quick enough for the game. Likewise for women women who biology has given a disadvantage to in physical stakes. They can of course try out, but they won't get picked. Separating the game into women's and men's gives us great competitions however - the solheim Cup is great, the most recent women's football world Cup was amazing, even watching Dublin trounce other counties in gaa football is fun.

But no.. Don't do those competitions a disservice by eliminating them for gender neutral ideology... It'll just be men.

It’s not the “gender neutral ideology” angle I’m coming from at all, and I didn’t mean to misinterpret your post, I just didn’t get it, because I couldn’t guess the connection you were making.

I don’t think it will kill either women’s sports or men’s sports, my point is basically about the sport, whatever that sport may be, whether it’s contact sports, combat sports, team sports, individual sports or I may be creeled for it but as far as I’m concerned Chess is not a sport, but even Chess

Who says women won’t be picked in any case? I mean, that’s predicated upon an assumption that “Oh they’re not as good as the men because biology”. That’s your hint. But not only is there far more to both women and men than just their biology, there’s far more to sports too!

I dunno, maybe you need to have experience of a woman coming at you at speed or take the legs out from under you in a hockey game to see that some of them are even more vicious, aggressive and keen to play dirty as the men. After a while you get used to it


And just to be clear btw - those people who want their segregated sports can still have them!

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it will kill either women’s sports or men’s sports, my point is basically about the sport, whatever that sport may be, whether it’s contact sports, combat sports, team sports, individual sports or I may be creeled for it but as far as I’m concerned Chess is not a sport, but even Chess

Who says women won’t be picked in any case? I mean, that’s predicated upon an assumption that “Oh they’re not as good as the men because biology”. That’s your hint. But not only is there far more to both women and men than just their biology, there’s far more to sports too!

And just to be clear btw - those people who want their segregated sports can still have them!

OK it really will kill the sport. The whole thrust of the 20x20 movement, can't see can't be, is that girls need to see role models to follow to play. Katie Taylor, Katie McCabe, Leona Maguire, doing great things in women's sports and getting kudos for it. If they competed against men A they wouldn't get within an ass's roar of the prelims which means girls won't see them on TV and B. If they can't make money from it they simply won't do it and thus you just have a whole heap of people watching men play sport because they're the physical best at an elite level. Rte doesn't report on amateur park games, sorry.

Sorry your opinion of "who says girls won't be picked" was literally disproven earlier. Girls can compete in men's sports, there is no gender divide in most codes. Eg Michelle wie tried for the men's pga, and I gave you the football example. They didn't make it, soz. That doesn't mean they aren't great athletes nor their endeavours any less great, just biology comes into play, the same way 16 year olds can technically play for man utd but don't really ever do.

We are talking elite level, not park level, because elite is where money is. By eliminating gender divides (by allowing transwomen to compete against women) then you are taking money out of their pockets and removing them from competition.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

We are talking elite level, not park level, because elite is where money is. By eliminating gender divides (by allowing transwomen to compete against women) then you are taking money out of their pockets and removing them from competition.

You’re talking though about the way the current models in sport are set up now, like right now, and your points are perfectly valid in the current context, it would simply be foolish to argue otherwise. But what I’m suggesting or supporting I suppose, is the model which allows for players to be able to compete at all levels, not just club level, but elite level. You’re basing your arguments off the current model of what is seen as fair to everyone. I’m suggesting a new model to change the way sports are organised, so there will still be opportunities for anyone to compete in their chosen sport run by the organisation which they prefer based upon that organisations qualifying criteria. It’s still fair to everyone, and I don’t think there’s going to be anything like a floodgates moment or any of the rest of it as there’s too much money and politics tied up in the current model.

I don’t buy this idea tbh that suddenly “the wimminz need our protectin’” or that it’ll make the games less exciting to watch or that the standards will drop or that women’s sports will be dead or any of the rest of it. Because frankly had all those “reasons” been addressed decades ago, there wouldn’t be the fuss there is being made about it now. The current generation in society takes a lot for granted that wasn’t an option for previous generations, and it’ll be the same in future generations IMO that they will take the way things could be set up for granted, and there will be a new group which threatens to tear society apart at the seams.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re talking though about the way the current models in sport are set up now, like right now, and your points are perfectly valid in the current context, it would simply be foolish to argue otherwise. But what I’m suggesting or supporting I suppose, is the model which allows for players to be able to compete at all levels, not just club level, but elite level. You’re basing your arguments off the current model of what is seen as fair to everyone. I’m suggesting a new model to change the way sports are organised, so there will still be opportunities for anyone to compete in their chosen sport run by the organisation which they prefer based upon that organisations qualifying criteria. It’s still fair to everyone, and I don’t think there’s going to be anything like a floodgates moment or any of the rest of it as there’s too much money and politics tied up in the current model.

I don’t buy this idea tbh that suddenly “the wimminz need our protectin’” or that it’ll make the games less exciting to watch or that the standards will drop or that women’s sports will be dead or any of the rest of it. Because frankly had all those “reasons” been addressed decades ago, there wouldn’t be the fuss there is being made about it now. The current generation in society takes a lot for granted that wasn’t an option for previous generations, and it’ll be the same in future generations IMO that they will take the way things could be set up for granted, and there will be a new group which threatens to tear society apart at the seams.

We have what you suggest in your opening paragraph - division 2,3,4,5 and guess what, they aren't very popular. Also women would most likely be in division 176 for the most part owing to the physiology. Can you please elaborate on your utopian system where biology doesn't factor.

Your second paragraph is actually just complete fluff, sorry. People watch sports for competition. No one wants to watch 100-0 matches. People watch women's sports as its competitive, particularly womens tennis and football. Adding transmen removes that competitiveness, I really don't understand why you don't see that.

And women don't need protection from men... Until they do in physical encounters. The only sport that is mixed gender is non contact or where biology doesnt bestow a physical advantage. Women can totally get to the top of esports, where an avatar is you and you can make a virtual persona, but in reality, biology hits hard. And there are transwomen hitting too hard for women who have dedicated their lives to the sport.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

We have what you suggest in your opening paragraph - division 2,3,4,5 and guess what, they aren't very popular. Also women would most likely be in division 176 for the most part owing to the physiology. Can you please elaborate on your utopian system where biology doesn't factor.

I never said biology doesn’t factor. Under your current Utopia people who are transgender who want to participate in their chosen sports with the gender they identify with, can’t. How long do you think that can realistically hold when there are children who are transgender are growing up and are members of society as much as anyone else? The biological advantages you speak of already exist in sports, it’s why one woman can run faster than another already as an example. That’s athletes at an elite level. It’s certainly one way for losers to eliminate the competition - “I’m not playing if they’re playing”. That’s pure adult IMO. I’d say it was childish but even children aren’t that immature.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Your second paragraph is actually just complete fluff, sorry. People watch sports for competition. No one wants to watch 100-0 matches. People watch women's sports as its competitive, particularly womens tennis and football. Adding transmen removes that competitiveness, I really don't understand why you don't see that.

People watch sports they’re interested in. Some sports are promoted more than others. There’s no comparison for example between the amount of people who watch the World Cup and the amount of people who watch the Solheim Cup! Adding anyone to that will have an overall gain on audience figures if you’re concerned about audiences falling off and reducing revenue for the sport. There will undoubtedly be a small number of people who will no longer watch the sport now that the pitch has been invaded by women and people who are transgender, but the sport won’t die! If anything it’ll increase audience participation and inspire children to want to take up the sport, leading to further development of the sport. I know why you can’t see that - because you don’t want to.

Smacruairi wrote: »

And women don't need protection from men... Until they do in physical encounters. The only sport that is mixed gender is non contact or where biology doesnt bestow a physical advantage. Women can totally get to the top of esports, where an avatar is you and you can make a virtual persona, but in reality, biology hits hard. And there are transwomen hitting too hard for women who have dedicated their lives to the sport.

Cool, that’s what I’m talking about - sports are changing and developing and new sports are becoming more popular. Hell I can’t imagine if you handed a group of children a pig bladder now and told them go out and play football how they’d look at you, but the sport has developed since then, though for reasons unknown to me they still refer to a ball made from cowhide leather as a pigskin!


WHY IS A FOOTBALL CALLED A “PIGSKIN”?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said biology doesn’t factor. Under your current Utopia people who are transgender who want to participate in their chosen sports with the gender they identify with, can’t. How long do you think that can realistically hold when there are children who are transgender are growing up and are members of society as much as anyone else?

Lots of people believe lots of absurd things. We hold the line by refusing to believe anti scientific nonsense.

People watch sports they’re interested in.

They are interested in those sports for a reason, the sports are competitive and played at the highest level.

WHY IS A FOOTBALL CALLED A “PIGSKIN”?

Since nobody outside the US calls a football a pigskin, why bring it up. What relevance could it have to the debate about transgenderism and sports.

You are ignoring the real issues, the potential dominance of trans women ( i.e biological males) and the danger to life and limb.

Quantum Erasure

What would end up happening under Jack's system, is trans women end up competing with the men, and women are nowhere to be seen... (so they set up their own breakaway leagues)

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lots of people believe lots of absurd things. We hold the line by refusing to believe anti scientific nonsense.

Who’s this “we” business?

Either way, whether you’re just referring to yourselves, or anyone else, it sure as hell is not a reflection of reality. I’ve said it before and I’ll point it out again that societies are governed by laws which come from politics. Science has it’s place of course, but it doesn’t make laws and it sure as hell doesn’t govern society.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Since nobody outside the US calls a football a pigskin, why bring it up. What relevance could it have to the debate about transgenderism and sports.

You really want to get picky about limiting the discussion to geographic locations after posters have been scraping the bowels of the Internet to dredge up any old shyte that they could throw out there, and then you ask me why I bring up the fact that a football made from cowhide is called a pigskin after the whole back and forth about “words have meaning”, “men can’t be women”, the underlying tone of “I demand respect” which emanated like pig excrement off some posts, and you REALLY want to have a go at me for a joke? Are you familiar at all with the signs of cult behaviour? One of the first things to go is your sense of humour.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are ignoring the real issues, the potential dominance of trans women ( i.e biological males) and the danger to life and limb.

I’m really not ignoring the real issues, I’m just not giving your issues gravitas I think they don’t deserve. Small difference, but it has a big impact on the discussion - you’re neither paying for, nor calling the tune, so nobody is restricted to discussing only the issues which are important to you.

Girly Gal

People watch elite sports they are interested in because they want to see the best compete, it's also the reason that men's sports is generally more popular than women's sports as the standard is generally higher. Also while the best male individuals or teams can rightfully claim to be the best person or team in their particular sports the same can't be said for female individuals and teams, as there's a host of male individuals and teams better than them.

At amateur level or as a hobby there is a place for mixed gender sports; women and men can compete against each other in various sports but, generally in elite sports there needs to be a gender divide as very few, if any woman could compete against male opponents at elite level. Take a look for example at all the Olympic sports, all the elite men and women in the world compete there, yet, the best elite female athletes would struggle against the lower end of elite male athletes, so would have zero chance of competing directly with the higher end of elite male athletes.

Serena Williams is one of the greatest female sportswomen ever and probably the greatest female tennis player ever, yet, if she had had to compete directly against elite male players, we probably would never have heard of her as she'd struggle to make the top 200 in this scenario. She probably wouldn't even make enough money to make it worth her while, she definitely wouldn't be the multi millionaire she is now and be regarded as the sporting legend that she is. So if Serena Williams would struggle how could the average elite woman be expected to compete?

grassylawn

Women's tennis would lose its appeal

Because less powerful shots can lead to longer and more interesting rallies.

Bonniedog

The reductio ad absurdum of this is that if the Dublin footballers or Limerick hurlers or Irish mens rugby team - or even 3/4 of them - decided to "transition" that the women's teams they joined would dominate their equivalent sport.

It is a proven fact that male athletes in US who are good, but not good enough to be the best in NCAA male grades, have pretended to be women in order to win stuff.

Nothing stopping them when their short careers are over to deciding that they are not women after all. It is just another from of cheating. One that up to recently would have been as despised as taking drugs, but now has the approval of a degenerate ruling elite.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Throwing every excuse at the idea again Cteven, and contradictory ideas into your argument to try and justify exclusion rather than working on ideas to include as many people as possible who want to participate in sports and have an equal opportunity to participate as anyone else. And they ARE just excuses, if excuses were a sport you’d be laden down with medals, so that’s something at least.

Haha excuses. They aren't excuses. They are what would happen. Very few want women's sports to be eradicated, least of all women themselves I'm sure. And again, it is not exclusion in the way you are making out.

And btw, it's nice that you have managed to reply in less than 6 paragraphs. Long may it continue.

suicide_circus

Sport is segregated by biological sex not by some makey upy gender identity soul which can sometimes get trapped in the wrong body like some kind of spirit ghost possession.

Bonniedog

Most of people who claim to be supporting "equality in sport" have no notion that it is meaningless.

There can be no equality between the best women and the best men in sports where physicality is a key determinant.

No more than there can be an equality within women's and men's sports. A woman who plays junior football for Antrim is not going to live with seniors from Cork or Armagh.

Likewise, men in lower grades of boxing, running, swimming can't compete with higher grades, and so on.

People are equal before the law in open democratic societies. There it ends.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Haha excuses. They aren't excuses. They are what would happen. Very few want women's sports to be eradicated, least of all women themselves I'm sure. And again, it is not exclusion in the way you are making out.

And btw, it's nice that you have managed to reply in less than 6 paragraphs. Long may it continue.

I’m trying Cteven

The real answer is we simply have no idea what would happen. Because it’s not just about physicality as another poster suggests. There are rules and standards and criteria which still would have to be adhered to for people who want to compete in the sport, and governing bodies will still be able to issue a ban on new technologies which it is claimed give competitors an unfair advantage over their competition. Anyone know where I can get a pair of these in black?

Nike Vaporfly ban: why World Athletics had to act against the high-tech shoes

Bonniedog

Contact sports are largely about physicality.

Which is why most male American footballers don't get to be NFL wide receivers!

Recognising that is not a slur against smaller slower chaps, nor is the division on sex a slur against women. It is a recognition of reality.

Interestingly, one of the main sports where there are women competing at top level with males is horse racing. Women like Rachel Blackmore and Holly Doyle have all the courage and instinct and intelligence of their male counterparts and the physicality is mostly supplied by the horse. Jockies of both sexes are also pretty strictly delimited by weight and height. That is not possible in team sports unless you were to introduce some ludicrous handicapping system.

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

That is not possible in team sports unless you were to introduce some ludicrous handicapping system.

There are handicapping systems in all sorts of sports already though? As demonstrated numerous times already, all it takes is a revision of current policies and hey presto so to speak - new rules to maintain fairness for all competitors in the sport are introduced.

I did look just now for an update on the status of the ban on those shoes, and much like participants in sports have always complained about their competitors having an unfair advantage in some way, these shoes have generated the same sentiment -


At the last U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials, Kara Goucher, a former Nike athlete, finished fourth behind Amy Cragg, Desiree Linden and Shalane Flanagan, a race in which Cragg and Flanagan wore early prototypes of the Vaporfly. “I do feel like it wasn’t a level playing field,” Goucher, who ran in Skechers shoes, for that race, recently told Forbes. “I felt like something I had worked so hard for had been stolen from me. I could handle not being good enough to make our team, but learning that a propulsion device in a shoe might have kept me out was just devastating.”


Nike Vaporfly Shoes Avoid Complete Ban By World Athletics


“A propulsion device in a shoe”, I’m pretty sure she’s not referring to a biological foot.

batman_oh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not the “gender neutral ideology” angle I’m coming from at all, and I didn’t mean to misinterpret your post, I just didn’t get it, because I couldn’t guess the connection you were making.

I don’t think it will kill either women’s sports or men’s sports, my point is basically about the sport, whatever that sport may be, whether it’s contact sports, combat sports, team sports, individual sports or I may be creeled for it but as far as I’m concerned Chess is not a sport, but even Chess

Who says women won’t be picked in any case? I mean, that’s predicated upon an assumption that “Oh they’re not as good as the men because biology”. That’s your hint. But not only is there far more to both women and men than just their biology, there’s far more to sports too!

I dunno, maybe you need to have experience of a woman coming at you at speed or take the legs out from under you in a hockey game to see that some of them are even more vicious, aggressive and keen to play dirty as the men. After a while you get used to it


And just to be clear btw - those people who want their segregated sports can still have them!

The USA under 15s boys team (nothing special) beat the beat the USA women's World Cup winning them (best female team in the world) easily. Look at every physical sport in the world outside of certain speciality ones. Women are not even close to the level of elite males. This is fact, not some weird dream scenario.

One eyed Jack

batman_oh wrote: »

The USA under 15s boys team (nothing special) beat the beat the USA women's World Cup winning them (best female team in the world) easily. Look at every physical sport in the world outside of certain speciality ones. Women are not even close to the level of elite males. This is fact, not done weird dream scenario.

This example gets trotted out regularly and all I can think is “so what?” The same USA women’s team absolutely trounced the Thailand women’s team in the Women’s World Cup and acted like they were the greatest thing since sliced pan. It’s a display that divided opinions about fairness in the sport -


13-0: The scoreline that shook the 2019 Women's World Cup


The Thai women’s team took it well and chose to use it as a learning experience. I can’t imagine the same would be said if the positions were reversed and it was the US women’s team had been the losers - out would come the excuses.

Quantum Erasure

...And just to be clear btw - those people who want their segregated sports can still have them!

so in essence your arguing for trans women to be let compete with the men...