Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Francesca R said:
Yeah, the pure coincidence that the best one in every weight class, ranking, division or whatever was always male wouldn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

Okay. You're just trading one arbitrary division for another.

There's one linear scale from the best human to the worst for everything. Everything else is an arbitrary division and if you think otherwise you are lying to yourself.

You, me, and 99.99999999999999999999999999% of humanity is only ever the best at anything because we make up an arbitrary division that excludes the people who are objectively better than us at whatever we're competing in.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's really an arbitrary division when we can see graphs like this one for grip strength. (Source)

Mean maximal hand-grip strength showed the expected clear difference between men (541 N) and women (329 N). Less expected was the gender related distribution of hand-grip strength: 90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects.
Click to expand...
Segregating these two populations for contests of strength (such as the OP) is not an arbitrary choice, it is a sensible choice informed by actual data.
 
I didn't say it wasn't arbitrary, I said it wasn't anymore arbitrary than separating people by weight class or how many hours they trained or hell even "by how strong your grip is."

Best woman boxer, best 150lbs boxer, best division 3 Northeast Regional Boxer, best wheelchair boxer, best boxer over 80, all of these exist because there's only one possible actual overall "best boxer."
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
OK never mind. . . .
Click to expand...

You just punched out Mike Tyson in his prime. Are you the best boxer in the world, or simply the best woman's boxer in the world?

That's that tell. We only make the distinctions WHEN we want to create the illusion that we're #1 at something. But it's always arbitrary.

If you beat every person, man and woman, at something you wouldn't be calling yourself the "Best Woman at Blank." You'd be calling yourself the "The Best at Blank, Period!"

You know I'm right.

That's how I know that YOU know it's an arbitrary distinction.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. You're just trading one arbitrary division for another.

There's one linear scale from the best human to the worst for everything. Everything else is an arbitrary division and if you think otherwise you are lying to yourself.

You, me, and 99.99999999999999999999999999% of humanity is only ever the best at anything because we make up an arbitrary division that excludes the people who are objectively better than us at whatever we're competing in.
Click to expand...
I think binary sex in mammals is pretty non-arbitrary, as are societal divisions arising therefrom. There's no linear scale of "best to worst at giving birth" on which it makes any sense at all to place males.
 
Yes and that's why outside of Facebook Mommy Groups giving birth isn't a competitive sport.

I didn't say sexual dimorphism is arbitrary. I said seperating competitions into two groups based upon sexual dimorphism is arbitrary.

If the answer as to "Why are we creating subcategories?" is "Because if we don't some people won't have a chance to win" then... my point stands, call it what you want.
 
Last edited:
I know this thread is quite contentious, so how about a quick laugh.

Lance Armstrong has entered the debate and has some serious thoughts about ethics and fairness in competition:

Lance Armstrong Wants to Join the Trans Athlete Debate, Citing Curiosity ‘About the Fairness’ — Twitter Promptly Reminds Him of His Cheating Scandal

Former cyclist Lance Armstrong on Saturday teased the release of an interview he did with Caitlyn Jenner. The two discussed the issue of trans athletes and their place in sports.

In response, Twitter immediately reminded Armstrong of the cheating scandal that tarnished his career.

“Have we really come to a time and place where spirited debate is not only frowned upon, but feared?” Armstrong said in a Twitter thread. “Where people’s greatest concern is being fired, shamed, or canceled? As someone all too familiar with this phenomenon, I feel I’m uniquely positioned to have these conversations.
Click to expand...

https://www.mediaite.com/sports/lance-armstrong-wants-to-join-the-trans-athlete-debate-citing-curiosity-about-the-fairness-twitter-promptly-reminds-him-of-his-cheating-scandal/
 
Last edited:
//Slight hijack// Posting in this thread is a nightmare right now, either it takes forever or posts twice and it's not even to 50 pages. Forum's been wonky lately.
 
d4m10n said:
The second view is that of the sort of social justice progressives such as the ACLU, who would argue that gender identity determines sex and that same-sex apps must be legally compelled to sort by gender identity rather than sex at birth, or else cease to operate.
Click to expand...

Well that's never going to happen. Such apps would simply base themselves in another country, thereby putting themselves outside of America's third-world, 16th century religious fundamentalist view of same sex relationships, while giving US authorities the middle finger!
 
"I want my sexual partner to have a vagina (an actual physical vagina on their body not one in their soul)" is not a third world, 16th century religious fundamentalist view of anything.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"I want my sexual partner to have a vagina (an actual physical vagina on their body not one in their soul)" is not a third world, 16th century religious fundamentalist view of anything.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you referencing here? Kinda sounds like your just parroting the most inane reactionary claptrap about how queer rights means you're going to be forced to be gay or date trans people or whatever.
 
smartcooky said:
Well that's never going to happen. Such apps would simply base themselves in another country, thereby putting themselves outside of America's third-world, 16th century religious fundamentalist view of same sex relationships, while giving US authorities the middle finger!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Giggle is being sued in Australia.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
What exactly are you referencing here? Kinda sounds like your just parroting the most inane reactionary claptrap about how queer rights means you're going to be forced to be gay or date trans people or whatever.
Click to expand...

1. Smartcocky's response to d4m10n that was literally in the post above mine. It's exactly 0% difficult to follow.

2. We did have someone (I'll have to go back through the thread if you want names) say that rejecting a sexual partner over genitals was bigoted, but did the whole stupid "Tee hee no I don't want to talk about that right now" thing when I asked them to elaborate and I'm already 110% done with the games in this thread so I just dropped it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
1. Smartcocky's response to d4m10n that was literally in the post above mine. It's exactly 0% difficult to follow.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing any successful lawsuit will have more to do with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex/gender in public accommodations than the notion that people must be compelled to date trans women. Then again, I don't know a thing about Australian law and I haven't read any analysis of the lawsuit to know if it has any merit at all.

seems needless anyway. These apps generally work that people can't communicate unless both people signal interest in the other's profile. Lesbians not interested in dating trans women can very easily avoid talking to any trans women on a dating app by simply not approving their profiles.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I don't think it's really an arbitrary division when we can see graphs like this one for grip strength. (Source)

Segregating these two populations for contests of strength (such as the OP) is not an arbitrary choice, it is a sensible choice informed by actual data.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

The female mile time world record is 4 min 12.33 sec, achieved by Sifan Hassan of the Netherlands on June 6, 2021. This is over 12 seconds slower than the slowest male mile time record I can find... 3:59.99* by Brian Gagnon of the USA on April 27, 2013. That performance ranks 5359th=

* records don't seem to go beyond 4 minutes for male runners.

Yeah, the divisions between men's and women's sports are purely arbitrary aren't they :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom