Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[Emily's Cat]

I guess in the broadest strokes I'm asking what psychologically separates a meaningful category that still feels like a "win" from one that feels like a participation trophy or a win with an asterisks.

Did you read what I wrote?

 

[Thermal]

If you pair me against a five year old, I will win, but I'm NOT the best athlete. I'm an absolutely **** athlete nowadays. I suck at running, I always have.

I'm not a better runner. I have longer legs

Which makes you the better runner in that competition. Who cares why you can cover the most ground in the least time? Tall swimmers do better than stumpy ones. Bias?

If you pair me and a blind person in a painting competition, I'm going to win. I'm not a good painter, I'm not even a mediocre painter. I would not be winning a painting competition, I'd be effectively winning a seeing competition.

I've literally seen painters who paint blindfolded. And again, if part of the skill needed for the competition involves sight, the better equipped person wins. You would still eventually get eliminated by the full tilt pro painters tho.

But again: there's no weight classes in a marathon. Bias against the svelte challenged?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I seem to remember in one of the earliest UFC fights, a 200 lb Savate guy went up against a 350lb or some such **** Sumo wrestler. The Savate guy literally kicked the Sumo guys teeth out.

Yeah, I remember that. I want to say it was Ken Shamrock, in like UFC 1 or 2. IIRC, they broke their hand doing so. But I could be wrong, I can't remember that far back, and there were some pretty crazy pairings way back then.

I caught a clip from one of the more recent UFCs, and it seems like they've added in a bunch of rules and regulations, including weight classes.

ETA: I tried googling it, it might have been Gerard Gordeau. It was a long time ago. I only remember a few names, mostly Shamrock and Gracie.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay but at the end of the day there's a track of a set distance and one of you is going to get to the end of it faster. We can't just not notice that and somehow account for how hard the act of running was for you and handicap everything after the fact and give one side credit for effort.

I do think you're downplaying the effect of "Want to see the objective best" somewhat.

Like that's the other elephant in the room. If you can watch a race a race between either 2 men or 2 women you're gonna watch the men because you'll see faster running.

Mainly because nearly all sports in the context we're talking about are spectator sports. And watching peak performance is just more entertaining then watching peak performance.... in this category.

Yes I know this person deadlifting 500 lbs might actually be working harder then this bigger, stronger person lifting 1,000 lbs, but it's still fun to watch the bigger weight lift into the air. It's more fun to watch someone throw a discus further or run the 500 meter faster even if it is easier for them. It's more fun to watch a team of 250 lbs men slamming into each other to move a ball down field then a team of 150 lbs women.

Watching stuff done objectively better is more entertaining.

 

[ahhell]

The very FIRST UFC fight in fact, Gerard Gordeau (Savate) vs Teila Tuli (Sumo)

The bigger one was the absolutely massive Emmanuel Yarbrough (600 lbs, one of if not the largest athlete ever) against Keith Hackney (who barely broke 200) at UFC 3, again with the smaller fighter winning.

But this was back in the early days of UFC where it legit was as close to unrestrained fighting as you could get without a murder charge.

When it first started it also almost always a "little" guy would climb on the back of big dude and choke him out. Super boring, I'm glad the instituted some rules.

Also, says nothing about the difference between men and women in sports.

 

[smartcooky]

None of the organizations which barred male competitors said that they were doing it to avert the end of all women's [insert sport here]. Instead, they mostly cited concerns with fairness and safety.

Correct... and what will be the inevitable, obvious result? If you do not have fairness and safety, women will be dissuaded from taking part, and that will lead ultimately to the end of the sport, because there won't be any participants. We have already seen top women quitting their sports because they can't compete with fake women who are being allowed to take part. We have already seen examples of women being injured by men in women's sports, broken legs, broken arms, broken ribs, broken jaws.

And it doesn't take a flood of males participating in women's sports to do the damage, it only takes a few. If WA (formerly IAAF) had not already banned transwomen from competing (and rightly so) then it would take only three of the top 250 100m sprint males (all of whom have personal bests faster that the women's world record) to destroy that particular event. They would share every Olympics and World Championship series podium between them. I have already given you an example in which just one transwoman's participation in a fringe sport had a chilling effect on participation in that sport. If the trend is allowed to continue, expect it to get worse... a LOT worse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've literally seen painers who paint blindfolded. And again, if part of the skill needed for the competition involves sight, the better equipped person wins. You would still eventually get eliminated by the full tilt pro painters tho.

But again: there's no weight classes in a marathon. Bias against the svelte challenged?

Honest question - are my posts just too long, and people can't be arsed to read more than a paragraph these days?

Like I have tried to say multiple times, when it comes to athletics (and most competitions), we all understand that a win is comprised of two major components: the body and the skill. The entire point of having different classes is to control for situations where the body (which is outside the control of training) can result in a win simply by dint of the body itself.

Most people don't want to watch Jim Goodman knock out a highly skilled featherweight - because we all would know that Goodman only wins because they're big, not because they're good.

Having categories isn't (generally) done to avoid "bias" or as some kind of consolation prize. It's done because both spectators and competitors want to compete on the basis of their skills. There's always an implicit "all else being equal" element in competitions. There's an implicit assumption that the competitors are working with the same tools.

If you put me in a race driving an M4 vs Ken Block in a Model T, I *think* I would probably win. But nobody in their right mind would say I was a better driver than Block. Most athletics are intended to be more like stock car races than like what F1 used to be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Like that's the other elephant in the room. If you can watch a race a race between either 2 men or 2 women you're gonna watch the men because you'll see faster running.

So you're saying that nobody watches featherweight boxing then?

If you can watch a race between 2 males or between 2 females - but not both - then yeah, a lot of people will watch the males. Not everybody, but most. But if given the option of watching both races, a whole lot of people are going to watch both of them.

There are a lot of spectators at the Olympics for the female competitions, even though the males consistently outperform them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We get what you are saying but you're arguing a different point.

We don't care that Giant McPunchy isn't as "good" a boxer as Flyweight VonSkilled if we're treating boxing as some sort of skill test, the big guy still punches harder.

Like nobody goes to the Olympics to watch people run slower but be more skilled at the act of running.

And at a certain point, a rapidly approaching certain point, "Okay just because I can't run as fast doesn't mean I'm a less skilled runner" starts to become nonsensical.

 

[d4m10n]

Correct... and what will be the inevitable, obvious result?

That depends on the sport and the attitude of the participants. If enough young women convince themselves that it's not unfair to compete against Lia Thomas, eventually they will just be happy to have an athlete like her on their relay team. Safety considerations will make things different in field sports like rugby (not to mention fighting leagues) even if all the players and coaches come around to the idea that sports ought to be segregated by gender identity rather than sex-at-puberty.

I don't know if anyone here was at Skepticon 8, but there was a moment in the room where a guy was basically escorted out for asking Fallon Fox whether it was fair for them to beat up women for a living. In a society made up of people like those in attendance on the day (this is total speculation now) there would be no fairness objections and any safeguarding issues would probably be swept under the rug in the name of inclusion just as they were at Tavistock.

 

[Thermal]

Honest question - are my posts just too long, and people can't be arsed to read more than a paragraph these days?
Like I have tried to say multiple times, when it comes to athletics (and most competitions), we all understand that a win is comprised of two major components: the body and the skill. The entire point of having different classes is to control for situations where the body (which is outside the control of training) can result in a win simply by dint of the body itself.

Most people don't want to watch Jim Goodman knock out a highly skilled featherweight - because we all would know that Goodman only wins because they're big, not because they're good.

Having categories isn't (generally) done to avoid "bias" or as some kind of consolation prize. It's done because both spectators and competitors want to compete on the basis of their skills. There's always an implicit "all else being equal" element in competitions. There's an implicit assumption that the competitors are working with the same tools.

If you put me in a race driving an M4 vs Ken Block in a Model T, I *think* I would probably win. But nobody in their right mind would say I was a better driver than Block. Most athletics are intended to be more like stock car races than like what F1 used to be.

Oh, I get your point. I disagree with its unspoken subtext.

You want classes when it benefits what you think of as the weaker competitor. On something wide open like a marathon (which you are conveniently ignoring), classes are unnecessary. The five year old can enter, but likely won't win. Nor will you. The distinction you are making is that the least likely to win overall should be in confined competition with others who are not likely to win overall.

And that's fine, in its way. We have basketball for people in wheelchairs, too, that couldn't perform in the NBA. High school wrestling, women's track and field, all that. The sub genres are great for everyone competing at their level.

But Olympic/pro level sports, IMO, should be open. No "levels", just the superior competitor will be victorious.

Eta: you say competition should focus on skills. No. Superior skills might take the win, or strength or stamina or strategy. A runner doesn't rely on skills nearly so.much as relentless endurance training, and a highly skilled 250 lb runner with perfect technique is not often taking first place in a long distance race.

 

[smartcooky]

The reason that we have sex-based leagues, the reason we have age-based leagues, the reason we have weight-based leagues is exactly because there are some physical attributes that will dominate.

We have divisions because that allows us to showcase and recognize the skills and abilities of athletes within the limitations of their physicality.

In 2022, New Zealand hosted the Women's Rugby World Cup. The final was between New Zealand and England (the favorites to win) The match is widely recognized as one of the greatest World Cup finals ever played, men's or women's. It had everything - a big lead for the favorites, the drama of a player being sent off, an amazing comeback, several lead changes, a last gasp chance for the favorites to win, only to be foiled by the other team winning a phase of play the favorites had dominated all match. NZ ran out the winners 34-31.

Even if you are not a fan, or barely understand the game, it is still entertaining to watch



But the fact is that any mid level average first-grade men's club team of weekend warriors would beat either those sides and beat them easily.

 

[Thermal]

So you're saying that nobody watches featherweight boxing then?
If you can watch a race between 2 males or between 2 females - but not both - then yeah, a lot of people will watch the males. Not everybody, but most. But if given the option of watching both races, a whole lot of people are going to watch both of them.

There are a lot of spectators at the Olympics for the female competitions, even though the males consistently outperform them.

Some people like to watch a fast, hard hitting little guy. Maybe it's more relatable or whatever. But you put two boxers in a match, the better boxer is the one who wins. Doesn't matter if it's because he is bigger, or stronger, or faster or has more stamina or better technique.

Eta: should there be speed classes in boxing too? Or power classes? Or just weight? Maybe runners should be classed based on lung capacity?

 

[Ziggurat]

None of the organizations which barred male competitors said that they were doing it to avert the end of all women's [insert sport here]. Instead, they mostly cited concerns with fairness and safety.

You say that like these are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

World Rugby disagrees.

People care about fairness. Organizations do not, even when they say they do. They care about how people respond to fairness, so if people are going to stop paying to attend or watch matches because they view the sport as unfair, that matters to them. But not fairness in and of itself. That's just marketing.

I really think it's only happened once, and all three of those males were raised as girls from birth.

Again, the Olympics doesn't use pure self ID. I don't know any sports organization that does. They limit testosterone levels. Things would look considerably if they did not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Two steps forward, one step back apparently. US Dept of Ed has made changes to Title IX.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

Included in this is a change to what the term "sex" as used in the original law means. It now means "sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity" but does NOT mean sex itself. Included in the revision (which I haven't finished reading, and might never completely finish) is a step to:

Clarify that, except as permitted by certain provisions of Title IX or the regulations, a recipient must not carry out any otherwise permissible different treatment or separation on the basis of sex in a way that would cause more than de minimis harm, including by adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an
education program or activity consistent with their gender identity

The ramification of this is that federally funded schools will be not be allowed to prevent males from competing on female teams, not from using female facilities.

The framing of some of the reasons they got from commentators is... interesting. For those who supported the reframing to be based around gender identity, they say:

Transgender students shared being forced to use school facilities that do not align with their gender identity, feeling unsafe using the facilities, or not having access to gender neutral facilities.

Commenters asserted that a safe educational environment for nonbinary and
transgender students is a matter of life or death. Many transgender students shared that they or their friends had attempted suicide because of the discrimination and harassment they had experienced.

For those opposed, they say:

Some commenters expressed concern that cisgender students experience discomfort at school when they are required to participate in activities and share facilities with transgender students.

I'm 100% certain that this is not a fair representation of the feedback they got. I'm certain that what they were actually told was that FEMALES have concerns and experience discomfort and fear when they are forced to share facilities and activities with MALES. They've kowtowed to gendery language from the absolute start, to the point where there are 21 uses of the male/female within the 1500 page document, but 289 mentions of gender identity.

So yeah. The bell tolls for female athletics and for sex-separated bathrooms and showers.

 

[smartcooky]

Some people like to watch a fast, hard hitting little guy. Maybe it's more relatable or whatever. But you put two boxers in a match, the better boxer is the one who wins. Doesn't matter if it's because he is bigger, or stronger, or faster or has more stamina or better technique.

Eta: should there be speed classes in boxing too? Or power classes? Or just weight? Maybe runners should be classed based on lung capacity?

You are entirely missing the point. I can't work out whether this is because you are just playing devil's advocate, or if you genuinely believe that male and female sports should not be segregated

The differences between various members of the male (or female) population are a spectrum: slim to fat, short to tall, fast to slow, long boned to short, large lung capacity to small etc. Some of these are not in and of themselves innate to each individual. Most of those attributes can be achieved by training and diet (you can lose weight or bulk up, train for speed, train for strenght, train for agilty. In the physical sports, for those attributes we cannot train for, we divide the sports into divisions - we protect smaller boxers from bigger boxers by weight divisions, same for junior rugby and other contact/collision sports.

However the same is not true for the differences between men and women. Those differences are innate, they are not on a spectrum and are a result of differing biology. Men have a COLOSSAL advantage over women in any physical competition. Men are bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic, have a greater lung capacity and have greater reach. Those advantages are conferred by biology, specifically, by male puberty, and biological effect that NO WOMAN CAN EVER GAIN. Male puberty is a bell that you cannot unring.

Women have every right to have their own sports, just as they have a right to have their own safe spaces, locker rooms, toilets and bathrooms. They have those rights because society, as a whole, recognizes those rights, and the necessity for them to exist.

 

[Thermal]

You are entirely missing the point. I can't work out whether this is because you are just playing devil's advocate, or if you genuinely believe that male and female sports should not be segregated.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally support sub genres. The hockey games I most enjoy are my nephew's, even though he'd never make it in the NHL, and I wouldn't enjoy seeing him flounder in attempting to play at that level.

But at elite levels, there shouldn't be that numbing out of the competition. If you can't win, biologically or otherwise, then you are not The Big Dog in that game. You might be able to achieve great things, but how legit is a championship if you know full and well that you only won by having limited competition?

In sparring, we would have weight classes for most bouts, but open too. Open determined who was the actual King, not just the best in their restricted group. Often, it was the heavyweight, because strength is a real factor in many sports.

Eta: total.hijack, but re: devils advocate: you mentioned that, and I get it a lot. When I argue on the forum, it's often when I'm not sure what I think (can see both sides), but have a strong gut feeling, and am inviting convincing arguments. Some people learn more in a fight than in a lecture hall, if you know what I mean.

 

[Paul2]

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally support sub genres. The hockey games I most enjoy are my nephew's, even though he'd never make it in the NHL, and I wouldn't enjoy seeing him flounder in attempting to play at that level.

But at elite levels, there shouldn't be that numbing out of the competition. If you can't win, biologically or otherwise, then you are not The Big Dog in that game. You might be able to achieve great things, but how legit is a championship if you know full and well that you only won by having limited competition?

In sparring, we would have weight classes for most bouts, but open too. Open determined who was the actual King, not just the best in their restricted group. Often, it was the heavyweight, because strength is a real factor in many sports.

Eta: total.hijack, but re: devils advocate: you mentioned that, and I get it a lot. When I argue on the forum, it's often when I'm not sure what I think (can see both sides), but have a strong gut feeling, and am inviting convincing arguments. Some people learn more in a fight than in a lecture hall, if you know what I mean.

A championship with limited competition, of the sort we're talking about, is just as legit as championships with divisions, weight classes, age restrictions, etc. unless you define a championship to be the best regardless of any division, age, etc. Why wouldn't it be, beyond defining it to not be?

 

[Samson]

Two steps forward, one step back apparently. US Dept of Ed has made changes to Title IX.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

Included in this is a change to what the term "sex" as used in the original law means. It now means "sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity" but does NOT mean sex itself. Included in the revision (which I haven't finished reading, and might never completely finish) is a step to:


The ramification of this is that federally funded schools will be not be allowed to prevent males from competing on female teams, not from using female facilities.

The framing of some of the reasons they got from commentators is... interesting. For those who supported the reframing to be based around gender identity, they say:



For those opposed, they say:



I'm 100% certain that this is not a fair representation of the feedback they got. I'm certain that what they were actually told was that FEMALES have concerns and experience discomfort and fear when they are forced to share facilities and activities with MALES. They've kowtowed to gendery language from the absolute start, to the point where there are 21 uses of the male/female within the 1500 page document, but 289 mentions of gender identity.

So yeah. The bell tolls for female athletics and for sex-separated bathrooms and showers.

Vote for Joe Biden because Trump is evil.
Oh hang on a minute, it is the Obama /Biden nexus that has destroyed the fabric of America with this program, and I get demonized for pointing it out.
Obama instated, Trump removed, and Biden reinstated on his first day in office.
He celebrated Dylan Mulvaney in person, put Richard Levine, with his several children post his own puberty, in charge of sterilizing as many children as he could. Hollywood is the cheer leader, surprise surprise.

 

[d4m10n]

The bell tolls for female athletics and for sex-separated bathrooms and showers.

Check out page 1263:

Consistent with the longstanding athletics regulations, § 106.31(a)(2) does not apply to permissible sex separation of athletic teams. The Department of Education issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would, if finalized, provide a standard for criteria for a student’s eligibility to participate on sex-separate athletic teams in the future.

...

Until that rule is finalized and issued, the current regulations on athletics continue to apply.​

Admittedly the upcoming rulemaking looks ominous.