Girls sue to block participation of transgender athletes

Scroll to see replies

What I'm trying to say is, if the fastest runners were the only ones allowed in a race. They would all be men. So to make it fair, just seperate it.

They would also be tall (and can you say that men do not win because they are taller?). Why not separate by height?

Reply 21

ibyghee

Original post by AngeryPenguin

They would also be tall (and can you say that men do not win because they are taller?). Why not separate by height?

Yes of course height gives an advantage, but not as much as between male and female. Like you'll find short runners competing in men sports and doing good. You put a female inside, they'll most likely come last each time.
That's the reason they are complaining, they just can't compete, like at all. The difference is just too large.

Reply 22

Ascend

Original post by ThomH97

How many tiers would you have? Men and women is an obvious enough distinction for most, and pretty easy to manage as well until you get various overly publicised, ignorant lobbyists involved.

This isn't my fight. I find the idea of 'biological fairness' in sport quite absurd.

Reply 23

Ascend

Original post by ibyghee

What I'm trying to say is, if the fastest runners were the only ones allowed in a race. They would all be men. So to make it fair, just seperate it.

Should we also separate those of modern African descent where they dominate a sport?

Reply 24

ThomH97

Original post by Ascend

This isn't my fight. I find the idea of 'biological fairness' in sport quite absurd.

You don't see the consequences of not splitting by gender? There would be no Lionesses, for example, only the England football team who would all be men because they're simply better. And hence, nothing for little girls to aspire towards so fewer of them being involved in sport (it wouldn't just be football), and worsening national health.

Reply 25

ibyghee

Original post by Ascend

Should we also separate those of modern African descent where they dominate a sport?

There are white people who can still compete. Probably not win, but at least compete. A women wouldn't even be able to compete to a man compared to a white man and black man.

Reply 26

Ascend

Original post by ThomH97

This catastrophising is just more absurdity. If you're going to have divisions for the sake of fairness, then why not make them based on coherent and consistent metrics affecting performance? Why not look for the actual differences that generally makes men outperform women? Then use that to set variables and tiers relevant to a particular sport. This would also then include disabled people.

Reply 27

Ascend

Original post by ibyghee

There are white people who can still compete. Probably not win, but at least compete. A women wouldn't even be able to compete to a man compared to a white man and black man.

What's the point if they're not winning? Women would be "competing" as well if you're not bothered about winning. :laugh:

Reply 28

ibyghee

Original post by Ascend

What's the point if they're not winning? Women would be "competing" as well if you're not bothered about winning. :laugh:

Have you not seen the video of the guy playing MW3, and says "I can't ****ing compete"
That's the level between women and men.
It's Iike you're average gamer against a pro eSports player like shroud. They ain't standing a chance. Like at all, there's literally no point in playing because you'd loose by miles. But if it's someone that's got a fairly good amount of skills at a game, is in a team, against shroud. That's ok, at least they can look like they are putting up a fight.
No one wants to see someone get completely destroyed.
Although it would be funny to watch.

Reply 29

Joe312

Original post by AngeryPenguin

They contradict themselves. "All girls deserve the chance to compete" while wanting to ban some girls from competing.

No they only want to ban women who are biologically male because they have an unfair advantage none of the other competitors have.

If things keep going the way you want, it will be trans women who are at the top of all women's sports. Are you ok with that outcome?

Reply 30

ThomH97

Original post by Ascend

You don't think there would be fewer professional sportswomen if the men's and women's competitions were combined? And fewer sportswomen in general as a result? I don't think you've thought this through very well.

Reply 31

Ascend

Original post by ThomH97

Are there fewer lightweight professionals in tiered sports? Do you think lightweights are under any illusion that they can "fairly" compete with heavyweights were it not or the division and would give up on the sport should the reality set in?

Reply 32

autotheist

Original post by ThomH97

Wut? Why don't we just have better divisions? For example, following from the Olympics' testosterone test for gender, why not just have 'testosterone classes' as we do with weight classes in boxing?

That'll solve most issues without bringing in the absolute mess that is gender.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 33

autotheist

Original post by Ascend

Precisely!

Reply 34

ThomH97

Original post by Ascend

Good, you're seeing things from the women athletes' perspective now. Without the weight classes, lightweights either need to pack on an impossible amount of muscle onto their smaller frames to compete against the bigger fighters, or quit. The same happens with women if they have to compete against men.

Reply 35

Mustafa0605

I could declare my self a woman (maybe stick a wig on) and win the Olympics Gold Medal for Women’s boxing.

Reply 36

ThomH97

Original post by autotheist

Why don't we just have better divisions? Following from the Olympics' testosterone test for gender, why not just have 'testosterone classes' as we do with weight classes in boxing?

That'll solve most issues without bringing in the absolute mess that is gender.

Sure, that works. And gender is what that correlates to very well. What further divisions would you make?

Reply 37

Toki the Dumdum

Original post by Mustafa0605

I could declare my self a woman (maybe stick a wig on) and win the Olympics Gold Medal for Women’s boxing.

You wouldn't need the wig. Just the declaration would do. Anyone who questioned you would be a transphobe

Reply 38

username4406682

If you are a transwoman you are biologically of the male sex. You have XY chromosomes and therefore have the advantages of being a man, especially if you did not take puberty blockers and thus had the advantages of going through puberty as a biological male. You should therefore not be allowed to compete in events for biological females when you are biologically male, given that biological males (people with XY chromosomes and who were born with a penis) have physical advantages over biological females (people with XX chromosomes and who were born with a vagina).

Reply 39

autotheist

Original post by ThomH97

Sure, that works. And gender is what that correlates to very well. What further divisions would you make?

I don't think it's really about the type of divisions, testosterone clearly has explanatory power over competitive performance in most sports (if not, we wouldn't have stuck with the male/female division for so long). I think it's more about the degree said division should be arbitrated to. Clearly, the current binary gender division isn't granular enough to deal with trans cases, so I suppose maybe 3 divisions based on 'high', 'moderate', and 'low' testerone levels would work if we finely tune it. That way we should be able capture both 'male to female' and 'female to male' trans individuals who want to compete.