Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[JoeMorgue]

We separate men and women's sports because men have a natural biological advantage over women.

Letting biological men compete with biological women because they consider themselves women in a social sense negates that.

You can disagree with this (my own feelings on it are complicated) but the level of dishonesty in pretending to "not get it" being show here is unreasonable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//dup post//

 

[Trausti]

 

[theprestige]

Chess is a bit of a mystery, in that there is a large male advantage but no physicality involved. Pool, being a physical game, seems more likely to at least partially involve a physical advantage. But, like you say, does it matter? An advantage of any kind means that at least at the professional levels separate leagues are needed for fairness.

Chess is played by people with physical bodies. Since it also exhibits the same statistical bias towards males as the more traditional "sports", I infer that it's more physical than it appears. I also infer that there is a similar statistical pattern in cognition, to the patterns observed in raw strength, fine motor control, etc.

---

My personal concept of sports, informed in part by this thread, is this:

Sports is people putting their mind and body to the test, against like-minded individuals of similar potential.​

Chess is at the extreme mental end of the spectrum, obviously. But even something as "purely" body as the hundred meter dash still has a mental component. Pool obviously involves core stability, some amount of endurance, fine motor control, and good hand-eye coordination, in addition to a competitive mindset. I see no reason to exempt it from a category of human activities that benefit individuals and society by being sex segregated.

Upchurch clearly hopes that I will just accept his begged question, so that he can land his "gotcha" without having to think about it. My dude really thought he could drop into a years-long debate that he's been steadfastly ignoring, and "get" people that have put a lot of thought into the subject. He really thought that just because his idea is new to him, it's also new to people who have been wrestling with that idea for years. Try again in a few years, Upchurch! And maybe this time use the interval to actually think and debate about these things. It'll be less embarrassing for you next time, if you do.

 

[Upchurch]

Notice that this premise does not rest on the claim that pool is an athletic competition. I deduce that pool is an athletic competition because it's segregated by sex, females prefer it that way, and it's not prison or other segregated safe spaces for women.

Okay, this is a classic begging the question fallacy.

None of the elements after "because" actually support it being an athletic competition nor that male vs female biology provides any advantage or disadvantage.

Really it seems like the "entire premise of your principle" rests on the implicit claim that pool is not an athletic competition. That is to me "quite the claim and not at all obvious or a given". Can you support it?

I'm not sure the negative claim is mine to support, but the Google definition of athletic is "physically strong, fit, and active". One need not be any of these things to play pool. As an activity, playing pool is about as physically demanding as painting a picture. It doesn't even have the "outside" or "walking around" aspects of playing golf, which is probably the lowest rung in the athletic competition ladder. I searched for "billiards performance enhancing drugs". The results seemed to focus on alcohol, weed, and beta blockers, which are more aimed at mental focus and relaxation rather than strength or speed.

 

[lionking]

We separate men and women's sports because men have a natural biological advantage over women.

Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea of sports, or knows about male advantage and doesn’t care. And also has no idea of pool.

 

[lionking]

Okay, this is a classic begging the question fallacy.

None of the elements after "because" actually support it being an athletic competition nor that male vs female biology provides any advantage or disadvantage.



I'm not sure the negative claim is mine to support, but the Google definition of athletic is "physically strong, fit, and active". One need not be any of these things to play pool. As an activity, playing pool is about as physically demanding as painting a picture. It doesn't even have the "outside" or "walking around" aspects of playing golf, which is probably the lowest rung in the athletic competition ladder. I searched for "billiards performance enhancing drugs". The results seemed to focus on alcohol, weed, and beta blockers, which are more aimed at mental focus and relaxation rather than strength or speed.

You are making this claim, now prove it.

I was okay at snooker because it requires more finesse. With pool, so much is involved in the power of the break, and I was no good. As long as men on average have a power differential with women, biological men should not compete in women’s events.

(Power is still important in snooker and billiards, but not to the same extent in my view).

 

[Upchurch]

You're not questioning people's assumptions, you're trying to do a fringe reset.

Strawman.

What self-perpetuating social reasons are you talking about?

I mean, the entire history of patriarchy, for one. More specifically, if you do not allow women to participate in an activity like pool or chess tournaments, they get neither the exposure nor the opportunities to develop their skills. Once society opens up a bit more and women do start participating, like you said, they don't do as well and the stereotypes are reinforced that they just aren't as good. In order to encourage women to participate (or because men don't want to play against women), segregated leagues are created. With a women's league, there is social pressure for women to only participate in those leagues. If they participate in the men's league, they must do absolutely phenomenal or it reinforces that they just don't have what it takes to compete.

This is Feminism 101.

We separate men and women's sports because men have a natural biological advantage over women.

Letting biological men compete with biological women because they consider themselves women in a social sense negates that.

You can disagree with this (my own feelings on it are complicated) but the level of dishonesty in pretending to "not get it" being show here is unreasonable.

The problem with all of this is that pool is not an athletic sport. It is not dependent on being taller or faster or stronger. It is dependent on finesse and a solid understanding of geometry.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with all of this is that pool is not an athletic sport. It is not dependent on being taller or faster or stronger. It is dependent on finesse and a solid understanding of geometry.

Okay then it shouldn't be separated by sex at all.

Either way transpeople being an exception to the segregation makes no sense.

You can't have it both ways.

I await you to put on a big show of pretending this doesn't make sense and that you don't get it.

 

[Upchurch]

You are making this claim, now prove it.

It's a negative claim.

As long as men on average have a power differential with women, biological men should not compete in women’s events.

Of course, we're not talking about average players. We're talking about expert level players. Are you claiming that a woman cannot be strong enough to play expert level pool OR that in playing pool the person who can always exert the most power in every turn will win?

In actual athletic competition, it is the person who can exert the most force, move the quickest, or keep it up the longest who will win. That isn't the case with pool.

 

[smartcooky]

The problem with all of this is that pool is not an athletic sport. It is not dependent on being taller or faster or stronger. It is dependent on finesse and a solid understanding of geometry.

Wrong! Anyone who thinks men do not have a physical advantage in the game of pool doesn't know what they are talking about.

Matches in the Ultimate Pool Series (the final you linked is one of the tournaments in that series) are a race to eight frames, which means you could have to play up to 15 frames to complete a match with 6 rounds to complete an event. The tournaments run over four days. These are double header events, i.e. two events starting on a Thursday with a final on Friday evening, and a second event starting Saturday with a final on Sunday evening. This means to reach a final, each player would have to play a minimum of 96 games (8 x 6 x 2) and a maximum of 180 games (15 x 6 x 2) over the four days of the tournament. This requirement leads to players being on their feet for the duration of those games.

1. Due to the above, males will have a distinct advantage over females on the basis of stamina alone. Try playing 100+ games of pool over four days and see how your arms, legs and back feel by the time you get to the last day.

2. Then there is upper body strength which gives males a physical advantage allowing them to make a more powerful break. More powerful breaks increase the chances of sinking a ball on the break and gives the breaker control of the game.

3. Men generally have more strength and faster-twitch muscles that make it easier to execute many shots (especially power shots) with more accuracy, control, and consistency.

4. Males are also able to play a faster paced game and so dictate the speed at which each game is played. This gives them an advantage due to stamina mentioned in 1. above

5. Males generally have an extended reach when taking shots, allowing them to not use a bridge whereas their female opponents would. If the breaker is dominating the game due to the more powerful break mentioned in 2. above, then that player needing to play a safety shot often does so in such a way that they leave their opponent needing to use a bridge or a rest. With an opponent who is shorter and lacks reach, this is a lot easier to do. Anyone who has played pool or snooker and had to use a bridge or a rest knows how much of a disadvantage that is.

I commend and congratulate Lynne Pincher for refusing to play against a fake female in this final, thereby giving up her chance to win the trophy and the prize money on an important point of principle!

 

[Brainster]

I mean, the entire history of patriarchy, for one. More specifically, if you do not allow women to participate in an activity like pool or chess tournaments, they get neither the exposure nor the opportunities to develop their skills. Once society opens up a bit more and women do start participating, like you said, they don't do as well and the stereotypes are reinforced that they just aren't as good. In order to encourage women to participate (or because men don't want to play against women), segregated leagues are created. With a women's league, there is social pressure for women to only participate in those leagues. If they participate in the men's league, they must do absolutely phenomenal or it reinforces that they just don't have what it takes to compete.

This is Feminism 101.

So eventually women will be every bit as good as men at pool and chess, once that evil patriarchy is removed? If that's Feminism 101, I am glad I didn't major in that field.

The problem with all of this is that pool is not an athletic sport. It is not dependent on being taller or faster or stronger. It is dependent on finesse and a solid understanding of geometry.

So eventually women will be as good as men at pool unless they are worse at finesse and having a solid understanding of geometry. Your words, not mine.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again we have two options.

1. Men DO have a distinct advantage over women in pool. Ergo letting a biological man who identifies as a transwoman play pool against biological women makes no sense.

2. Men DON'T have a distinct advantage over women in pool. Ergo having separate men and women's pool makes no sense.

That's our only options. It's a red herring from someone who would be arguing exactly the same if it was a biological man wanting to play full contact death murderball on a team of women so the the "Oh but it's just pool" argument is dishonest because it's not the real factor.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay then it shouldn't be separated by sex at all.

I absolutely agree.

Either way transpeople being an exception to the segregation makes no sense.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not having it both ways. My point of view is internally consistent.

If it's not segregated, how are transpeople an exception to anything?

If it is segregated and transwoman have no biological advantage, why can't transwoman participate in a woman's sport? Despite the "gender critical" view point, transwomen are a sub-set of women, just as ciswomen are.

It's only a contradiction, if you assume everyone believes, like you, that transwomen are not women, which I don't. I only believe that they are not ciswomen (or cismen or transmen or whatever else).

I await you to put on a big show of pretending this doesn't make sense and that you don't get it.

I know what you are saying. I just don't agree with you.

What I don't understand, and the reason I posted the story/tweet, is how the ciswoman contestant refusing to play against the transwoman contestant is anything can be on any principle other than transphobia.

(I also don't understand how people can possibly understand history and not see the "gender critical" movement is not doomed to end up next to the Fred Phelpses and Kim Davises of the world, but that's another topic.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Again we have two options.

There's a third option, which I think the TRA's are effectively adopting but not actually describing:

Men have an advantage over women because of social conditioning under the patriarchy, but transwomen are conditioned as women and not as men, so they should compete against women.

The reason I believe they aren't actually describing this, despite believing it, is that it's obvious nonsense and it's embarrassing to say out loud.

 

[theprestige]

Okay, this is a classic begging the question fallacy.

None of the elements after "because" actually support it being an athletic competition nor that male vs female biology provides any advantage or disadvantage.



I'm not sure the negative claim is mine to support, but the Google definition of athletic is "physically strong, fit, and active". One need not be any of these things to play pool. As an activity, playing pool is about as physically demanding as painting a picture. It doesn't even have the "outside" or "walking around" aspects of playing golf, which is probably the lowest rung in the athletic competition ladder. I searched for "billiards performance enhancing drugs". The results seemed to focus on alcohol, weed, and beta blockers, which are more aimed at mental focus and relaxation rather than strength or speed.

Suit yourself. You've already conceded the important thing, which is that upholding sex segregation in sports is a good thing, and not at all transphobic. I'm satisified that the nature of competitive pool as a physical activity properly places it in the category of "sports" for questions of sex segregation.

If you need to exclude competitive pool from the sports category, just so you have an excuse to call someone a transphobe, that's your business. If you think males don't have a statistical advantage in hand-eye coordination and fine motor control, well. I can't reason you out of something you didn't reason yourself into. You just have a bunch of ill-considered opinions about sport and athleticism. You'll have to do better than that.

I mean, "a solid understanding of geometry"? Now there's a strawman for you! Competitive pool requires consummate control of physical trajectories. And before that, consummate control of your own body. Theoretical geometry isn't even necessary. Most people intuit trajectories just fine, without having to study geometry for even a day. You think a baseball batter is standing at the plate, doing ballistics calculations to get his bat to meet the pitch? No. It's about physical fitness, body control, and innate advantages in hand-eye coordination.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Men have an advantage over women because of social conditioning under the patriarchy, but transwomen are conditioned as women and not as men, so they should compete against women.

Well yeah. There's a whole lot of "Okay transwomen are still men but you know they aren't like... men-men. They aren't alpha male douchebags" subtext in a lot of the transgender talk, but that's on a long list of elephants in the room we're a long way from being able to talk about.

 

[Ziggurat]

If it is segregated and transwoman have no biological advantage, why can't transwoman participate in a woman's sport? Despite the "gender critical" view point, transwomen are a sub-set of women, just as ciswomen are.

What advantages do men have that transwomen do not have?

And you're begging the question (in the true meaning of the term). Transwomen are only a subset of women under certain definitions of women. They are not under other definitions of women such as "adult human female". What definition are you using? And why is that definition better than "adult human female"?

 

[theprestige]

It's a negative claim.

You're making a positive claim, that the woman in your scenario is a transphobe. This claim is based on your begged question, that pool is not a sport, and on your axiom, that Google has the absolute definition of what a sport is.

Your begged question is yours to support, regardless of what you imagine the sign of your claim to be.

Though, to be clear, the sign of your claim that the woman is transphobic is indeed positive. It's your responsibility to support it with something better than a begged question and an appeal to Google.

 

[Samson]

Not solely. There are lots of issues that we discuss here. For example, whether transwomen who have been convicted of rape should be incarcerated with women. That's fun to argue about, but surprisingly we don't hear much from the Hallelujah Trans chorus around here on that particular issue, wonder why?



The principle is that women never win in open pool competitions, and so rather than relegate them to perpetual loser-hood, somebody came up with the idea of having separate competitions for men and women. In pool there is an obvious advantage to height and strength, but let's talk about some "sports" where the male edge is quite a bit harder to see. Why do we have separate categories for men and women in darts or poker? And the answer is the same.

Now the irony is that on average at least in poker women are as good as men. I have run poker tournaments as a moonlighting job for the last 13 years and for a good part of that I used a database to track the players and how well they did. I had a field for sex, and when I computed where the average woman and average man finished it was even.

But average is not the same as elite or best. Men were far more likely to win my tournaments than women (and far more likely to be the first out), even after adjusting for the fact that more men than women entered my tournaments. In the World Series of Poker, approximately 4-5% of the field is female, so approximately 4-5% of final tables should be females. If we limit it to the last 20 years (the Chris Moneymaker era), there have been 180 players at the final table and so we would expect somewhere between 7.2 and 9 of them to be female. In fact the number of females at the final table has been zero. Extend it out to the final two tables and we would expect 14.4-18 women; there have actually been four.

It appears there is a field of acivity where there is true equality, violin playing. International competitions produce similar numbers of men and women victors. It is probable a computer could be objective in matters such as intonation. In fact Korean woman Kyung Wha Chung and Israeli man Pinchas Zuckerman were unusually awarded equal first prize in the late 60's. Some would suggest German Julia Fisher is the best violinist today.

I just checked, the Michael Hill competition in NZ has in fact found 5 male and 5 fsmale winners since inception in 2001.