Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119626894#Comment_119626894

So explain why no woman has run the 100m sprint in under 10 seconds ever, yet over a hundred men have done the sub 10 second?

The record is 10.49 for women, which would put thousands of males athletes ahead of them.

If it’s not biological, what is it?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627054#Comment_119627054

It would appear to be chronological 🤔

Oh come on!! 😂

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627059#Comment_119627059

Well this is the cleverest thing you’ve posted, I’ll give you that much.

But you will ramble on about “other factors”, when the main undeniable one is biological…it would pain you to admit that.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627090#Comment_119627090

You’re being overly generous there Frank, but I’ll take it 😁

I won’t ramble on about other factors though, I’ll simply say that the question doesn’t arise, because of the simple fact that if it were just a question of biology, Flo Jo’s record alone wouldn’t stand for as long as it has done.

The other reason the question doesn’t arise is because the question of people who are transgender competing in sports isn’t one of whether or not they would break world records, it’s a question of whether or not they have the right to participate in the first place in accordance with their preferred gender.

If it were just a question of biology, how many humans do you imagine are even capable of running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds without any form of prior training?

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627187#Comment_119627187

Flo Jo may be due to Doping. on the 100m none. just like taking any random woman or man to compare them to elite level will never compete. But then you take a Man and woman Equally trained the man always wins it's simple. Ask any biologist this question. A man and a woman of equal skill who will win in a race. Or a reasonably fit man and woman who would win. or an average man and woman. We all know the answer as its Biological.

Lads, the women are just letting men win 'cos they're so much nicer than men and they know how much medals and records and the like mean to us.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627249#Comment_119627249

Could you tell from her nails? 😁

https://newsone.com/playlist/black-twitter-defends-flo-jo-from-a-karens-false-claims/amp/

I don’t feel any need to ask the question, or see why I should ask a biologist as if they would know, because it’s akin to asking who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman?

You claim to know the answer to your own question, and I have no doubt you’ll find a biologist who agrees with your statement. It wouldn’t be either difficult or surprising. It would be more like asking for Ross Tuckers opinion on… anything really. I just wouldn’t, because he appears to have a flair being a drama queen -

https://mobile.twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1187297230803230720

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627337#Comment_119627337

Dunno what the point of the shoes is. They banned the shark suit. sports tend to have rules. I'm confident any biologist that goes through the data sets objectively will come to the conclusion Males are stronger and faster than women.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627361#Comment_119627361

The point of saying I wouldn’t ask Ross Tucker, is as I suggested - he has a flair for the dramatic. The shoes didn’t break running 🙄

He’s the same sports scientist whose opinions organisations line the WA and World Rugby relied upon in forming their policies in relation to transgender athletes. He made similar claims about the impact transgender athletes would have on women’s sports if they were permitted to participate. His opinions are based upon speculation and hyperbolic rhetoric, not science.

I’ve already agreed with you that you would undoubtedly find a biologist who agrees with your opinion; that wouldn’t make the question any more relevant than it already isn’t, unless the point of your argument is that it would put women off competing in sports, which is unlikely given the amount of much greater issues in women’s sports which haven’t managed to put women off competing in sports. Erica Sullivan put it well -

Many of those who oppose transgender athletes like Lia being able to participate in sports claim to be "protecting women's sports." As a woman in sports, I can tell you that I know what the real threats to women's sports are: sexual abuse and harassment, unequal pay and resources and a lack of women in leadership. Transgender girls and women are nowhere on this list. Women's sports are stronger when all women—including trans women—are protected from discrimination, and free to be their true selves.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-im-proud-support-trans-athletes-like-lia-thomas-opinion-1689192?amp=1

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627549#Comment_119627549

I don't care about what some randomer says about Runners. Nike Alphaflys were banned from the Tokyo Olympics.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627582#Comment_119627582

He’s not just some randomer though. I explained who he is, which is certainly a lot more than your telling me to ask a random biologist in the hope that they can interpret data objectively. Biologists are human too, biology is just what they study, it’s not who they are, and they’re as unlikely to be objective as any randomer who isn’t a biologist.

The idea that biologists could be objective certainly isn’t borne out by any sort of evidence. I mean, I know they’re expected to be objective, but in reality, many times they’re not. It’s the reason collaborative teams of scientists work on any project, and why the peer-review system exists, broken and all as it is.

And then there are the media celebrity scientists like Ross Tucker.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627601#Comment_119627601

hahaha this is a good one. So Climate Scientist are not objective either ? He is a Randomer I have never heard of him and no interest in what he has to say. So to reiterate we can say any biologist that support the premise Transgender athletes have no advantage their just human and Bias right ?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627608#Comment_119627608

I’m not sure what’s so amusing about that? I didn’t say they couldn’t be objective, I said it was unlikely, based upon the fact that they’re human, they aren’t science itself. It’s why consensus in science is important, and when it comes to climate change, there’s both plenty of evidence and plenty of consensus among climate scientists about climate change.

There’s fcukall in the way of evidence regarding transgender athletes competing at elite levels in any sport, and there’s no consensus whatsoever among biologists as to whether it would be fair or not to permit transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, not least because that kind of question is outside the scope of their expertise, and data scientists wouldn’t be able to offer much insight into the question either from the point of view of their expertise, because the data just doesn’t exist.

A mere handful of anecdotal evidence that makes the front pages of the tabloids rather than the back pages with the rest of the sports content, doesn’t constitute scientific evidence of anything.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627641#Comment_119627641

So were now at the position every article that's been linked in support can be outright discounted Strange argument. As it's all Anecdotal 🤪

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627664#Comment_119627664

We aren’t in that position at all, because I never suggested that. In fact if you want to, you can still go back to the post where I said the article Enduro posted shouldn’t just be of interest to anyone interested in sports science, I suggested it should be of interest to anyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue of the right of people who are transgender to participate in sports. That’s not me discounting the article, that’s me promoting it, but you do you 😒

bunderoon

If One Eye Jack concedes that its really is down to biology (which anyone with a bit of common sense or honestly will admit that it is) then all 92 pages of this thread was pointless.

As I said before here. Rename the competitions to Male and Female instead of Men and Women. It removes the social construct and separates facts from feelings. Biological male vs biological male. Biological female vs biological female. Once the whistle blows, everyone goes back to the real world and to everyone else's realities that they have built within it.

Everyone should have a right to compete in sport. Not everyone has the right to be happy in sport.

Be kind to everyone. Compete like grownups.

CatFromHue

Lots of people try to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627187#Comment_119627187

On your last point, none of course. But how many humans actually could with training, would all be biological men.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627743#Comment_119627743

I don’t think that’s so much shooting the messenger, as shooting oneself in the foot tbh 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627759#Comment_119627759

No idea Frank, I don’t give the question much thought, but just figured I’d throw it out there and see what you might think yourself.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627785#Comment_119627785

I’d just follow the trend that only biological males have run sub 10 seconds, and no biological females have. So that kinda points towards something, doesn’t it?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119629151#Comment_119629151

Well, no, if I’m being honest. It doesn’t point to anything useful, because the argument was that it solely boils down to biology, and if it does, then there can’t be any mention of other factors like training, which is why I asked you how many humans do you imagine are even capable of running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds without any form of prior training?

You answered “none, of course”, which was good enough for me, because like I said, I just figured I’d throw it out there and get your thoughts on it, I hadn’t given it much thought myself, because as far as I’m concerned, whether or not it’s a man or a woman runs 100 metres in less than 10 seconds is irrelevant, the idea that it’s possible for any human being to do it requires an enormous amount of variables to coincide in the first place, let alone the idea that they would ever do it on a world stage like the Olympics.

Scientists who have researched Usain Bolt’s capabilities for example, have theorised that he has somehow been able to adapt his stride to his scoliosis, something which would normally be regarded as a disability -

It could be that Bolt has naturally settled into his stride to accommodate the effects of scoliosis.

The condition curved his spine to the right and made his right leg half an inch shorter than his left, according to his autobiography.

Initial findings from the study were presented last month at an international conference on biomechanics in Cologne, Germany. Most elite sprinters have relatively even strides, but not all.

The extent of Bolt’s variability appears to be unusual, Weyand said.

“Our working idea is that he’s probably optimised his speed, and that asymmetry reflects that,” Weyand said.

“In other words, correcting his asymmetry would not speed him up and might even slow him down. If he were to run symmetrically, it could be an unnatural gait for him.”

Antti Mero, an exercise physiologist at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland, who has researched Bolt’s fastest races, said he was intrigued by the SMU findings.

“Generally there are small differences between the right and left leg, but I think they are normally about 1, 2, 3 percent,” Mero said in a telephone interview. “This sounds a little bigger.”

Given the scoliosis and discrepancy in the length of Bolt’s legs, Mero said, the sprinter’s stride appeared optimal for him. “If the coach would try to change the pattern, it would not be good,” Mero said.

EDIT: Original article in the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/sports/olympics/usain-bolt-stride-speed.html

Seems almost counterintuitive, but it appears that the degree of scoliosis he has, and his ability to have adapted his running style to suit, well, the odds are incalculable really that the feat could even possibly be replicated by another human being 😳

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119629249#Comment_119629249

degree of scoliosis he has, and his ability to have adapted his running style to suit, well, the odds are incalculable

i don't know. how do you kick a penalty into the top corner, how do you hit triple twenty on a dartboard? you just do.

the brain just learns through practice, like Judd Trump lining up shots in snooker, for some reason he lines up off-centre, but hits the ball exactly where he wants it to go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3CODbokAcU&t=22s

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119629249#Comment_119629249

And a whole lot of nothing, yet again.

Female runners go through the same training as males…so again, the difference is biology. It’s simple science, how is this so hard for you to accept?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119629442#Comment_119629442

When I say though that the odds are incalculable that the feat could even possibly be replicated by another human being, I’m not saying it’s impossible; I’m saying that to try and calculate the odds of it being replicated by another human being are almost impossible. I’m sure the odds could be calculated, but given the enormous amount of variables involved, I think it would be incredibly difficult to do so, but it’s something worth pursuing. Scientists disagree among themselves as to whether or not it’s possible the record set by Bolt could even be beaten -

https://www.givemesport.com/88043463-usain-bolts-100m-world-record-scientists-reveal-whether-it-will-ever-be-broken/amp

I get what you’re saying though about the brain learning through practice, but I think that’s still an idea that’d come down to individuals specifically than the idea that it could be broadly applied to suggest for example that I’d be any good at darts - I wouldn’t trust myself with a set of darts, and I’m not sure anyone else would either 😂 But I get what you mean about the brain being able to adapt through repetition and refining a process, it’s how humans generally learn to do anything, provided they discover they have the potential to do it in the first place.

By that I mean that for example when I lost the sight in my right eye, I hadn’t given it any thought up to that point, and I struggled plenty with different issues, but eventually my brain adapted and now depth perception for example, isn’t so much of an issue that it bothers me any more. At the time though I was looking into the idea (yikes, no pun intended 😂) of a bionic eye, but I wasn’t a suitable candidate for the technology, which, as it turns out, would have been unsupported a few years later anyway -

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/bionic-eye-obsolete-2656624624

I adapted too when it came to sports because I wasn’t aware I’d been born with congenital hip dysplasia, a relatively easy fix had it been detected at birth - cast for a few weeks and I’d have been grand, instead of being in pain for two decades before the first corrective surgery attempt was done, was successful but didn’t last as it was expected to, so I ended up getting a total hip replacement. When I asked the consultant would I be able to run after the surgery, he was fairly circumspect this time around - telling me that if I wasn’t a runner before, I wouldn’t be a runner after 😁 He was exaggerating the point obviously, but I got the idea - manage my expectations. I was thinking more along the lines of this guy, but at the same time I knew the consultant was making the point that just getting a hip replacement isn’t the only factor, given I still have a fair bit of weight to lose (smoking doesn’t help either, or drink!), but it’s not impossible -

https://www.ibji.com/patient-stories/running-after-hip-replacement-yes-it-can-be-done-and-this-patient-ran-a-marathon/

Dyslexia on the other hand, is the one thing that no matter how much I train my brain, it’s not going to improve in that respect; I’ve kinda had to accept that it is what it is, and have had to adapt accordingly in order to function in employment. I’m fortunate that I love what I do for a living, I know far too many people who don’t, and aren’t happy in what they’re doing. I was inspired by this guy, love this story 😁

There have, he admits, been some close shaves. He has almost died 75 times as result of his daredevil escapades, and flirted with financial ruin on more than one occasion. “But life has been a hell of a lot more fun because I’ve said ‘yes’ rather than ‘no.’ When I was 16 I brought out a magazine called Student and on the back I printed, ‘The brave may not live forever, but the cautious do not live at all.’ I’ve lived by that mantra ever since.”

Branson admits that things could have turned out very differently. On the day he left Stowe—the independent boarding school he attended until he was 15—the head teacher told him he would either end up a millionaire or in prison. That turned out to be an accurate prediction. By the age of 22, he had not only set up his magazine but had also opened a chain of record stores, Virgin Records, and founded the empire that would make his name.

A few years later the headmaster sent him a letter asking him to sponsor a new girls’ dormitory at the school. “I wrote back saying, ‘Yes, if you name it after my company,’” Branson tells me. The school decided that “Virgin” was not the most appropriate name to have emblazoned above the door of the female sleeping quarters. “I heard nothing more from him for another 10 years, and then he said how much he regretted not just saying yes. He was good enough to acknowledge that the boy had done OK. There’s much that needs to be done so that schooling can be adapted to the individual rather than the ‘one size fits all’ approach that currently happens.”

https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/news/richard-branson-dyslexia-1234727547/amp/

There’s only two things I disagree with him about - the idea of dyslexia being a “super power”; it’s not, it’s a pain in the hole when you can’t meet even the most basic expectations of being able to function in society such as reading and writing or being able to interact socially with other people, and it can’t be separated out from the way the brain functions as though it is possible to distinguish dyslexia in that way when, again - his individual success is due to a culmination of factors, as opposed to being able to being able to be nailed down to a single factor when in reality most people who are dyslexic simply aren’t as fortunate as Richard has been, because they aren’t Richard and don’t have the opportunities and support that he has been fortunate to have had. The other thing I disagree with him about is his attitude to ties, I like my ties, and if he tried to cut my tie he’d be risking his jaw being dislocated 😒

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119629536#Comment_119629536

Because of all the things I fail miserably in doing Frank, belief without question is the one thing I’m simply incapable of being able to do, nor do I have any interest in ever being able to do so. I’ve also never been able to meet anyone’s expectation that I should be capable of professing something which I don’t believe to be true, and in the spirit of same, I’ll save you and I both the time and the trouble by explaining to you that what you’re arguing, isn’t science. It’s deductive reasoning -

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

A four year old who never opened a science textbook could do what you’re doing, and they may even be quite content to accept without question your declaration that everything is the way it was, is now, and ever shall be, Amen… until they have cause to question what they’re not just being told they must believe, but that they must parrot your beliefs back to you in order that you feel better about yourself because everything and everyone is acting in accordance with your expectations. I’m not the sort of person who would see it as my right to break anyone’s balls, so I’m not interested in divesting you of your beliefs. You can even call it science if you want, if it makes you feel better. I’m not interested in that either, just like I’m not interested in any battle of the sexes, in spite of your repeated attempts to engage me in discussing something I’ve never expressed any interest in which is not the point of this thread in any case. You want to tell me boys are better than girls, all I can think is “Good for you, I’m not interested…” I’m also not interested in your behaving like a petulant child when I won’t tell you what you want to hear.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119630200#Comment_119630200

So you’re saying a 4 year old knows more about this than you. Something I can fully agree on. Finally.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119624406#Comment_119624406

Noone is advocating genital surgery on children though so your point makes no sense.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119627743#Comment_119627743

Very similar exchanges in relation to the Covid vaccination.

ingalway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119630200#Comment_119630200

A whole lot of words to say that women just need to try harder. Nothing new.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119634493#Comment_119634493

If it’s any consolation, you don’t need to try any harder to play the victim, you’re already doing a fantastic job by taking what I was saying out of context when my post was in response to the idea that just by practice alone anyone achieves anything.

Nobody achieves anything on their own, and they don’t achieve it without support either. You want women to succeed in sports? Then support women in sports. It really couldn’t be any simpler than that.

And I won’t even invoke the ‘shooting the messenger’ nonsense, because that’s usually deployed by people who come out with something stupid, to shield themselves from criticism for their stupidity in order to maintain their belief that their opinions should carry more weight than they actually deserve.

I dunno, perhaps you’d prefer to return to a time when women were portrayed as, ahem, more ‘simple creatures’ who were constantly bombarded with messages that set the standards for how they were expected to behave.

Skip to 27:50 -

https://youtu.be/E8KLmpOiaRE

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119626422#Comment_119626422

You’re taking one line out of context out of the whole article, which you’re interpreting as supporting your point of view, you even took the time to do up a fancy graph in support of your argument, which was never the argument being made by the article in the first place.

Okay. So how would you interpret that line in the article? Here it is:

"The sex gap in sports performance is primarily rooted in biological differences between the sexes, namely in relation to male’s superior skeletal muscle mass, oxidative capacities and lower fat mass (Joyner, 2017)."

What else could it mean other than biology is the primary explanation for the difference in performance in sport between men and women?