Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

[TragicMonkey]

We're not. We're saying adding of bunch of arbitrary extra restrictions on the things that are important isn't warranted, while it is warranted to do it to things we just want to have fun watching.

How can the important things merit less care than the unimportant ones? The very essense of importance is that it requires greater attention, concern, and handling.

 

[lomiller]

I realize this is a shocking proposition, but I actually think the real world things are more important than sports, and therefore deserve more consideration and care, not less.

I’m not sure what “consideration and care” have to do with it. All sports have artificial restrictions because having these that makes them fun to participate in. Even the highest levels of sport have rule books that set out what you can/can’t do in order to be safe(ish) for the participants and enjoyable for the audience. Business, finance, etc has entirely different goals and needs (and generally has) rules/restrictions aimed at accomplishing those goals. You can’t just take rules designed for one purpose and apply them someplace else because “consideration and care”.

 

[angrysoba]

I find it disheartening that people can agree on a principle but decide to apply it only to trivial matters, deliberately and consciously refraining from applying it to important ones. That's hypocrisy. It's like a real-life embezzler complaining when someone else steals money from the bank during a game of Monopoly. If a principle is valid it should apply more strongly to the important matters than it does to the less important.

That's why I don't disagree with it applying in other situations, as I said above.

 

[Belz...]

Rules can be imposed to ensure fairness in order to maximize happiness. I don't see why that principle should apply only to sports.

Indeed.

But what does that have to do with the OP? We are talking about sports.

 

[Roboramma]

Rules can be imposed to ensure fairness in order to maximize happiness. I don't see why that principle should apply only to sports.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that fairness is important to people in things other than sports.

 

[Belz...]

Have you ever played amateur or recreational sports? The only worse then being placed in a league/division where you can’t compete is having a higher level team/athlete competing in a lower division so they can “enjoy” decimating lower level competition. Competing against peers who are more or less on the same level as yourself is fundamental, and sport doesn’t work without it.

Down with artificial categories!

Let's put everybody in the same basket and let god sort them out. In fact, let's remove sport segregation and let teams from one sport compete against one from a different sport. American Football vs Soccer. Go!

 

[Cain]

It's sad to see all of these so-called conservatives turn into liberal pansies complaining about how it's "unfair." Life is unfair. "But this will destroy female athletics [sic]." It was always a joke. In the real world -- outside your "woke" shows on Netflix -- men dominate. We're taller, stronger, faster. Men even dominate in traditional female spheres. On the elite level, we're better at cooking, painting faces, designing clothes, and giving blowjobs. The solution to our "ills" always seems to involve some progressive poindexter making rules to ensure fairness. Instead of rigging the game via regulations, why not try to win on merit? Compete. Achieve. Do.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I’m not sure what “consideration and care” have to do with it. All sports have artificial restrictions because having these that makes them fun to participate in. Even the highest levels of sport have rule books that set out what you can/can’t do in order to be safe(ish) for the participants and enjoyable for the audience. Business, finance, etc has entirely different goals and needs (and generally has) rules/restrictions aimed at accomplishing those goals. You can’t just take rules designed for one purpose and apply them someplace else because “consideration and care”.

Either the principle of fairness applies to both sport and the 'real world' or it doesn't. If it does apply then whatever rules required to further it in either place are justified. They needn't be the same rules, so long as they achieve the same result of applying the principle.

I'm further suggesting that principles apply most strongly to what is important, therefore if fairness applies to sports but not the 'real world' it means sports are more important.

 

[Belz...]

It's sad to see all of these so-called conservatives turn into liberal pansies complaining about how it's "unfair." Life is unfair. "But this will destroy female athletics [sic]." It was always a joke. In the real world -- outside your "woke" shows on Netflix -- men dominate. We're taller, stronger, faster. Men even dominate in traditional female spheres. On the elite level, we're better at cooking, painting faces, designing clothes, and giving blowjobs. The solution to our "ills" always seems to involve some progressive poindexter making rules to ensure fairness. Instead of rigging the game via regulations, why not try to win on merit? Compete. Achieve. Do.

Now read that in a different voice and it could be the script for a Nike commercial.

 

[Belz...]

Either the principle of fairness applies to both sport and the 'real world' or it doesn't.

Says who?

And who says the principle must apply in the same way to both?

And what does that have to do with the thread?

 

[theprestige]

I realize this is a shocking proposition, but I actually think the real world things are more important than sports

Sports are real world things. Bodies and minds are part of the real world. The desire to strengthen the body, and put it to the test, is a real-world desire. Sports provide a formalized way for people to train their bodies towards an ideal and test the results of their effort against each other and against the rules. Dismissing sports as "not real world" dismisses much of the reality of the human experience.

Just because you never felt the urge to see how far your body and mind can go if you actually decided to try, doesn't mean it's not a real thing that real people do.

 

[lomiller]

That's why I don't disagree with it applying in other situations, as I said above.

The point of business isn’t to produce maximum happiness for its workers it’s to produce goods/services with maximum efficiency so that there are more goods/services available to everyone. Different goals = different rules. It's really as simple as that.

 

[lomiller]

Either the principle of fairness applies to both sport and the 'real world' or it doesn't.

Who said “fairness” doesn’t matter, in fact I said just the opposite. Fairness does matter in business; but what’s “fair” is different because the ultimate goal is different.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In fact, let's remove sport segregation and let teams from one sport compete against one from a different sport. American Football vs Soccer. Go!

//Old time radio announcer voice//

"And Secretariat steals the puck from Pele on a Statue of Liberty play, setting up relief pitcher Jack Dempsey to overtake Jerome Jagir on the outside of the third turn of the Brickyard which puts the Chiefs within 1 point of a wildcard playoff spot against the Jamaican Bobsled team to determine the #1 position on who's going to face off against Bobby Fisher in a Hell in a Cell at Wimbledon with Arsenal as a special guest referee if Cro-cop can pull off a Triple Gainer against Mike Ditka on natural turf."

I tell you this, there has never been a better time to be a fan of Sportsball!"

 

[qayak]

Either the principle of fairness applies to both sport and the 'real world' or it doesn't. If it does apply then whatever rules required to further it in either place are justified. They needn't be the same rules, so long as they achieve the same result of applying the principle.

I'm further suggesting that principles apply most strongly to what is important, therefore if fairness applies to sports but not the 'real world' it means sports are more important.

There is a whole body of scientific work on this. The rules apply differently in different situations and many businesses have had huge backlashes because they didn't understand that. Fairness in one relationship, say with a business, does not equal fairness in another relationship, say with a family member. Businesses have been ruined by thinking of their customers as "family." Humans are very good at keeping track of such things and when mistakes are made it destroy relationships or at least require years to repair.

Fairness in sports is different again and has little basis outside sports.

 

[lomiller]

It's sad to see all of these so-called conservatives turn into liberal pansies complaining about how it's "unfair." Life is unfair. "But this will destroy female athletics [sic]."

In most cases conservatives take a "winning is all that matters" approach to sport, which isn't to far from their approach elsewhere. It's only this specific situation that seems to bring out "fairness" as something important, which suggests other motivation.

However a stopped clock is still right twice a day, IOW it's entirely possible to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Women's sport is segregated because that allows women to compete against peers of similar capability. Having biological males (or even biologically XXY individuals) violates that principle. On a very small scale it probably doesn't matter much outside the specific competition, but if it becomes common enough it potentially limits the opportunity for half the human population to experience the enjoyment of competitive sports.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sports are real world things. Bodies and minds are part of the real world. The desire to strengthen the body, and put it to the test, is a real-world desire. Sports provide a formalized way for people to train their bodies towards an ideal and test the results of their effort against each other and against the rules. Dismissing sports as "not real world" dismisses much of the reality of the human experience.

Just because you never felt the urge to see how far your body and mind can go if you actually decided to try, doesn't mean it's not a real thing that real people do.

And furthermore, https://xkcd.com/1480/.

Dave

 

[lomiller]

There is a whole body of scientific work on this. The rules apply differently in different situations and many businesses have had huge backlashes because they didn't understand that. Fairness in one relationship, say with a business, does not equal fairness in another relationship, say with a family member. Businesses have been ruined by thinking of their customers as "family." Humans are very good at keeping track of such things and when mistakes are made it destroy relationships or at least require years to repair.

Fairness in sports is different again and has little basis outside sports.

Well said

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sports are real world things. Bodies and minds are part of the real world. The desire to strengthen the body, and put it to the test, is a real-world desire. Sports provide a formalized way for people to train their bodies towards an ideal and test the results of their effort against each other and against the rules. Dismissing sports as "not real world" dismisses much of the reality of the human experience.

Just because you never felt the urge to see how far your body and mind can go if you actually decided to try, doesn't mean it's not a real thing that real people do.

The 'real world' terminology, which I left in quotes you may notice, was used merely to indicate a distinction between sports and those other endeavors which are not sports. If you can come up with a less laborious term I'd be glad to use it.

As for your assumption about my own athletic pursuits, you don't know me or what I may or may not do in 'real life' (as opposed to the internet; I would have thought that usage obvious from context but apparently it is not).

That I would see a principle and apply it differently than others doesn't make me anti-sports. Indeed, I would encourage greater participation as opposed to viewing. Isn't it more fun to play a sport yourself than watch others play it? Except the combat sports, perhaps.

 

[luchog]

The really stupid part of this entire debate is that the problem is so easily and trivially solved it's really pointless to continue arguing about it. Simply eliminate gender-based classes, and replace them with weight/height/skill-based classes. Some sports already do this, most notably Boxing. Simply apply that model across the board, modifying as appropriate to a particular sport.

But that's too obvious, and doesn't allow people to push their personal agendas, so it'll likely never happen.