Biden becomes 46th president

Original post by Napp

I've always found the arguements over this to be somewhat dishonest, by both sides. Whilst it is axiomatic that someone should not be paid less based on what genitals they happen to have it does rather ignore the fact that merely being a woman (or man for that matter) does not entitle someone to equal pay. As an example, we wouldnt pay an engineer at the local metal works the same as one in charge of building a new city.
In terms of womens sports, wouldnt the foundational issue be why theyre relatively so unpopular compared to the mens variety? Solve that and im sure the pay will quickly follow.
Although, with that being said, it does become somewhat more complex when you talk of national teams as opposed to private clubs..

I agree, when they can generate as much income as the men’s profession then pay should be equal. However, the point I was trying to make @QE2 was that I can guarantee, that some of the left wing nut jobs in this thread that think this policy doesn’t hurt women’s sport, will be the same ones that demand equal pay for it, despite this step undermining every single part of it. Utterly laughable yet not surprising that the left would bite their own nose off just to spite their face.

Reply 103

Original post by imlikeahermit

Do you believe in equal pay for women’s sports?

Define "pay".

Reply 104

Original post by imlikeahermit

However, the point I was trying to make @QE2 was that I can guarantee, that some of the left wing nut jobs in this thread that think this policy doesn’t hurt women’s sport,

Trans women have been able to compete in elite women's sport for 20-odd years. Given this, can you point out the damage done to women's sport over this period? Can you explain why women's sport is thriving more today than ever before? How many of the word's top female sportspeople used to be men?
Thanks in advance.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 105

Original post by QE2

Trans women have been able to compete in elite women's sport for 20-odd years. Given this, can you point out the damage done to women's sport over this period? Can you explain why women's sport is thriving more today than ever before? How many of the word's top female sportspeople used to be men?
Thanks in advance.

The damage done to individual athletes should be what you’re looking at. How’s about those women that have worked all their lives to win in sport such as weightlifting only to be beaten at the final hurdle by someone who genetically has stronger bone density and muscle density because they are a man.

Original post by QE2

Define "pay".

For example, women’s tennis players are payed a lot less than men, because they play less sets, and generally attract smaller crowds. Is this fair to you?

Reply 106

Drewski

Original post by imlikeahermit

For example, women’s tennis players are payed a lot less than men, because they play less sets, and generally attract smaller crowds. Is this fair to you?

They aren't "paid". They have earnings through sponsorship and through winnings.

Arguably, because they play fewer sets, they earn more money through winnings than male players do.

Reply 107

Original post by Drewski

They aren't "paid". They have earnings through sponsorship and through winnings.

Arguably, because they play fewer sets, they earn more money through winnings than male players do.

Earnings, winnings, pay. Whatever you want to call it. Women’s tennis isn’t as popular as mens, and on top of that they play less sets. Equal work, equal pay, right? :wink:

Reply 108

Drewski

Original post by imlikeahermit

Earnings, winnings, pay. Whatever you want to call it.

No, there's a very important distinction to be made. You might think it's semantics, but deciding whether it's pay or something that's won is relevant.

Equal work = equal pay? Maybe. But who decides what's equal?

Reply 109

username5252758

12

Original post by imlikeahermit

The damage done to individual athletes should be what you’re looking at. How’s about those women that have worked all their lives to win in sport such as weightlifting only to be beaten at the final hurdle by someone who genetically has stronger bone density and muscle density because they are a man.

Weightlifting is a competitive sport.

Note the word competitive. It is not prizes for all. You lose to someone who is better. Generally, that better is about genetics. This is particularly true for Olympic weightlifting.

The only transgender weightlifter of any note is the New Zealander Laurel Hubbard. Her best total, set when she was a man and in a higher weight class, is way off the woman's Olympic weightlifting 87kg world record in her class.

I get you have an unhealthy fixation with transgender people but if you wish to make a case about how those born biologically female are losing out to transgender athletes, you are going to have to make a better case.

Reply 110

Original post by Calibrated.

Weightlifting is a competitive sport.

Note the word competitive. It is not prizes for all. You lose to someone who is better. Generally, that better is about genetics. This is particularly true for Olympic weightlifting.

The only transgender weightlifter of any note is the New Zealander Laurel Hubbard. Her best total, set when she was a man and in a higher weight class, is way off the woman's Olympic weightlifting 87kg world record in her class.

I get you have an unhealthy fixation with transgender people but if you wish to make a case about how those born biologically female are losing out to transgender athletes, you are going to have to make a better case.

Female weightlifters against genetic males is not ‘competitive’ it’s completely unfair. Losing to someone who is better is one thing, but losing to someone who has a genetic advantage outside of the gender class, because they have greater bone and muscle density is another. By your logic, let’s just hoy some tigers into the 100m.

Reply 111

Original post by imlikeahermit

The damage done to individual athletes should be what you’re looking at. How’s about those women that have worked all their lives to win in sport such as weightlifting only to be beaten at the final hurdle by someone who genetically has stronger bone density and muscle density because they are a man.

So basically anyone who is beaten by someone who is naturally stronger, taller, faster, more supple, etc.
And presumably you would also ban any cis-woman who outperforms a trans-woman in any given sport, because "uNfAiR!1!"
Sounds very much like you want to eliminate competition and give everyone a prize to avoid them getting upset.
There is a certain irony in right-wingers who constantly bang on about "sNoWfLaKeS!" and hoe people should suck stuff up are suddenly beside themselves with concern and compassion because they think something might be a bit "uNfAiR!1!"

For example, women’s tennis players are payed a lot less than men, because they play less sets, and generally attract smaller crowds. Is this fair to you?

Wrong. The prize money is the same for men and women. Presumably you are against this?

Reply 112

Original post by imlikeahermit

Female weightlifters against genetic males is not ‘competitive’ it’s completely unfair. Losing to someone who is better is one thing, but losing to someone who has a genetic advantage outside of the gender class, because they have greater bone and muscle density is another.

1. Trans-women are in the "women's" gender class. Duh!
2. If it's "completely unfair", how come trans-women are outperformed by cis-women?
3. People are often "better" because of genetic advantage.
4. Are you going to ban cis-women who have secured lucrative sponsorship deals enabling them to train to a far higher level than other competitors?

By your logic, let’s just hoy some tigers into the 100m.

Oh dear. I'm not sure you fully understand what gender-transitioning involves.

Reply 113

Drewski

Original post by QE2

Wrong. The prize money is the same for men and women. Presumably you are against this?

Tbf, that's only the case at the Slams, iirc.

Reply 114

Original post by QE2

So basically anyone who is beaten by someone who is naturally stronger, taller, faster, more supple, etc.
And presumably you would also ban any cis-woman who outperforms a trans-woman in any given sport, because "uNfAiR!1!"
Sounds very much like you want to eliminate competition and give everyone a prize to avoid them getting upset.
There is a certain irony in right-wingers who constantly bang on about "sNoWfLaKeS!" and hoe people should suck stuff up are suddenly beside themselves with concern and compassion because they think something might be a bit "uNfAiR!1!"

Wrong. The prize money is the same for men and women. Presumably you are against this?

Original post by QE2

1. Trans-women are in the "women's" gender class. Duh!
2. If it's "completely unfair", how come trans-women are outperformed by cis-women?
3. People are often "better" because of genetic advantage.
4. Are you going to ban cis-women who have secured lucrative sponsorship deals enabling them to train to a far higher level than other competitors?

Oh dear. I'm not sure you fully understand what gender-transitioning involves.

All of those lovely posts aside, it still absolutely doesn’t change the fact that research has consistently shown that men have an advantage against women in sport. It also doesn’t change the fact that said men, once they’ve transitioned to being a woman, still have some traits of being a man, such as bone and muscle density. That gives transgender athletes an advantage because of their gender. I’d actually liken it to steroids. It’s an unfair advantage.

Original post by Drewski

Tbf, that's only the case at the Slams, iirc.

Correct. I think Wimbledon switched to equal pay around 2008 if I remember.

Reply 115

Original post by Drewski

Tbf, that's only the case at the Slams, iirc.

That's all the tennis there is, apparently.

Reply 116

anarchism101

17

Original post by imlikeahermit

She had, and has a biological advantage over all of those athletes. The fact that she couldn’t win most of the time shows how much she was failing in sports.

So was she failing before, and that's why she transitioned, or is she failing now after her transition? Make up your mind.

I'm also going to note that your argument is unfalsifiable - if she wins it's proof of an unfair advantage, if she loses it's proof that she's just not very good and the unfair advantage wasn't enough - and thus fallacious.

The fact that she won even once, against women who have quite possibly trained all their lives for that

Unlikely, this is still amateur level, the competitors all have other main jobs. They're among the best amateurs, but amateurs nonetheless.

I mean, women’s sport is a load of rubbish anyway, I suppose this adds another dimension to it.

So, in other words, your whole argument here is opportunistic and in bad faith. You don't actually care about women's sport, you're just using it as a cudgel to bash trans people and Biden with.

Laughable that you cannot see that Biden has basically abolished female only scholarships to please the woke left, who now will be at odds with feminists.

No, they won't. The idea that there exists a sizable feminist movement opposed to trans rights and inclusion has always been something of a myth, even in the UK where there are at least actually a handful of publicly prominent TERFs, polling repeatedly shows that women are more trans-friendly and trans-inclusive (including in terms of sport) than men are, and left-wing women even more so. The opposition to trans rights is, and always has been, a largely male-dominated right-wing reactionary project, for whom TERFs are just a small handful of useful idiots.

Transgender athletes should not take part in women’s sports.

So what do you want the standard for eligibility in women's events to be? Suppose we scrap the current hormone-based criteria and go to one based on birth sex. That would mean requiring trans men to compete in women's events, and also allowing intersex female athletes with unusually high levels of testosterone for a woman to compete without taking any hormone suppressants - both of which have been deeply controversial where they have happened.

Or maybe you'd want to try to craft a criteria which would exclude them from women's events too? Problem is, pretty much any such criteria wouldn't hold up in court, because by that point, you're no longer proposing separate "men's" and "women's" events, but rather one event open to all and one determined by increasingly arbitrary criteria to exclude anyone with a potential biological explanation for being unusually good at it.

It isn’t fair.

Even at the top level of sport, fairness is not actually the single value on which rules are made, it has to compete with other priorities. And the further you get away from the top level, the further fairness falls down the priorities list. Particularly when you get to amateur level, participation starts to significantly rise up the list.

Reply 117

Original post by anarchism101

Even at the top level of sport, fairness is not actually the single value on which rules are made, it has to compete with other priorities. And the further you get away from the top level, the further fairness falls down the priorities list. Particularly when you get to amateur level, participation starts to significantly rise up the list.

When I was playing schoolboy and junior rugby, the issue of fairness would often come up in the mid-teen years, where teams with even one unusually mature boy (basically a grown man) was almost enough to guarantee a win every game. Under the transphobe argument, those boys would have been banned. TBF, some of the parents lobbied for a change to the system where levels are determined by player size rather than age. I think they do that in NZ, which probably explains a lot.

Reply 118

anarchism101

17

Original post by QE2

When I was playing schoolboy and junior rugby, the issue of fairness would often come up in the mid-teen years, where teams with even one unusually mature boy (basically a grown man) was almost enough to guarantee a win every game. Under the transphobe argument, those boys would have been banned.

Yep, similar cases happened when I was at school. I remember a girl who was technically in the wrong year, the one below which she "should" have been based on her birthday, for some reason. She still competed in sports events and teams with the girls she was actually in classes with, rather than those that matched her age. Parents complained that this was "unfair"; the school's response was that, because the timetable (and thus the timing of training and matches) was different for each year group, she couldn't practically compete with girls her age, it clashed with her lessons - and implicitly, that not letting her take part at all was out of the question.

Now, obviously Olympic and elite professional level is not quite the same as school sports. But we don't really see many trans women at all in the former when the rules don't ban them. The few examples quoted over and over are generally competing below the top level or in niche categories that barely anyone was aware of before a trans woman won an event. Even Laurel Hubbard's only ever won events in regional or veterans' tournaments - when she competed at the World Championships in 2019, she came sixth.

Reply 119

jackmarshal757

OP