Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[varwoche]

But that was my question.


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. You mentioned it in what first quote where it wasn't cut off?

Sigh. Here's what I didn't cut:

Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?​

Duplication of your point isn't necessary in order to provide the context of our exchange. And my questions stand regardless of count.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

For ****'s sake.

 

[Upchurch]

Sigh. Here's what I didn't cut:

Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?​

Duplication of your point isn't necessary in order to provide the context of our exchange.

And then I asked how many cases you thought there would be that it would be highly impractical.

Are we all caught up or is it only other people’s questions being ignored that gets derided? ‘Cause I’ve had other questions people seem to be avoiding.

 

[varwoche]

And then I asked how many cases you thought there would be that it would be highly impractical.

Are we all caught up or is it only other people’s questions being ignored that gets derided? ‘Cause I’ve had other questions people seem to be avoiding.

Because the answer is unknowable, I took it as a rhetorical question. But here you go: I don't know.

If you're trying to buttress Joe's contention that you're not debating in good faith, you're doing a damn good job.

 

[JoeMorgue]

He's not debating in bad faith, he's trying to argue a point he doesn't really understand, he just got told "This is what progressives believe."

He's Cargo Culting.

 

[Upchurch]

If you're trying to buttress Joe's contention that you're not debating in good faith, you're doing a damn good job.

You literally answered a different question that you created by ignoring everything I said except for a single word. How am I the one arguing in bad faith here?

 

[Upchurch]

He's not debating in bad faith, he's trying to argue a point he doesn't really understand, he just got told "This is what progressives believe."

He's Cargo Culting.

"Shut up, TRA"

You getting all this, theprestige?

 

[theprestige]

"Shut up, TRA"

You getting all this, theprestige?

Are you two done yet?

 

[Upchurch]

Are you two done yet?

I just wanted you to see how bad it is. 'cause it's pretty damn bad.

 

[theprestige]

I just wanted you to see how bad it is. 'cause it's pretty damn bad.

There's plenty of interlocutors for you to choose from in this thread. I'm not the one that decided to get into a two-day slapfight with JoeMorgue, and then try to foist that interaction as typical.

If you're a TRA or adjacent that wants to talk, that could work. If you're just going to argue in bad faith, that won't.

Anyway, let me know when you two are done, and we'll see. Or engage with Emily's Cat, or Elaedith, and leave Joe to his cynical observer role.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the answer is "case by case basis" asking "Okay so what criteria are we using on these case by case basises" is no unreasonable.

I'm not ignoring the "Jeez will you read between the lines and just nod and agree that whatever the trans person wants is right because they are the lowest on the official victim chart and stop asking so many questions" subtext just to appease someone, anyone's, personal hangup about how discussion should go.

 

[Roboramma]

I would replace "sex" with "gender", especially if we're talking about socio-cultural factors. Sex is biological, gender (and gender role) is societal.

I'm not so sure about that choice. If, for instance, women are underrepresented in pool because girls are raised in a way that outcome, that mechanism wouldn't apply to transwomen, who weren't raised as girls.

There may be some subgroup of socio-cultural factors that would apply to both women and transwomen, but the general case seems to be that the factor would be either biological or one imposed on the individual by some societal factor that was based not on the individual's perception of their gender but on society's perception of their sex. Even masculine women face discrimination based on being women, for instance.

The difference is that I provided evidence to support my argument and Zig hasn't. Not that those biological differences don't exist, but that they make a significant difference in professional pool players.

I know people have dismissed the video I posted, but I will point out that it was published by the organization that calculates and tracks those ratings, so it is, at the very least, an appropriate and recognized authority in the subject.

As a disclaimer, it was 6 years ago and many things can happen in 6 years. I previously found some chatter that the rating system had changed in the past few years. So, I take it as true, at least as of 6 years ago.

I understand what you're saying, but what evidence? From what I've seen, there is precious little when it comes to pool that actually breaks down male/female representation and ability. Again, what Zig suggests is conjecture that those biological differences are significant to actual performance.

I think this is actually a major difference in our epistemics. I look at evidence from a bayesian framework, which includes a deep background of knowledge and theory as determining our priors on any particular question. If you hold some substance that I've never seen before and ask me "what will happen if I drop it?" I'll say, with very high confidence, that it will fall. I'll also claim that I have very strong evidence for this, based on the successes of our theory of gravity (mostly Newton's but Einstein's only adds credence). If someone says that I don't have evidence with respect to the specific substance you're holding, which I've never seen fall and thus can't infer that it will act according to that theory, I'll rightly say that their epistemic framework is faulty.

Obviously I'm much less confident about the specific theoretical reasons for thinking that men have an advantage in pool. The point here is that those reasons are evidence.

How confident? I can imagine some ways to test the idea in which I'd be willing to bet on a male biological advantage at about 3 to 1 odds. So not extremely confident*, but that's my weighing of the available evidence.

A different weighing of the evidence may be entirely reasonable, but it's not reasonable to claim that none exists.

*You are definitely right that the impact of athleticism in pool is less than in more typical sports.

Likewise, if evidence were presented that the differences in outcome are due to physiological differences, I'd update my view about segregation in pool. There just hasn't been any.

I certainly agree that what we do know isn't conclusive.

 

[Matthew Best]

The difference is that I provided evidence to support my argument and Zig hasn't. Not that those biological differences don't exist, but that they make a significant difference in professional pool players.

I know people have dismissed the video I posted, but I will point out that it was published by the organization that calculates and tracks those ratings, so it is, at the very least, an appropriate and recognized authority in the subject.

I don't think the evidence you provided did support your argument. All it suggested was that the scores of male and female competitors were comparable. The fact is that when they are compared, males fare better than females, to the extent that only one female has a score that would put her in the Top 100 males. How does that support your argument?

 

[varwoche]

You literally answered a different question that you created by ignoring everything I said except for a single word. How am I the one arguing in bad faith here?

I don't think this is vaguely reasonable. But never mind, let's start over.

Please restate your question.To avoid further miscommunication, be specific. Are we talking athletic or non-athletic sports (e.g. pool and archery). Are we talking boys who have physically transitioned, or any boy who self-identifies as Trans? Are we talking about school sports? Are we talking count per school district? Per sport? Per sport per school district?

 

[Lithrael]

If, for instance, women are underrepresented in pool because girls are raised in a way that outcome, that mechanism wouldn't apply to transwomen, who weren't raised as girls.

I agree and I've noticed this often getting fudged and fumbled on all sides. If anything there's at least four axes of socialization pressures around gender growing up: boy (and you mostly fit in as a boy) boy (and you super extra do not fit in as a boy); girl (and you mostly fit in as a girl) girl (and you super extra do not fit in as a girl). My point being that people of either sex who grow up with tons of negative feedback about their gender performance nevertheless are NOT growing up with the gender socialization pressures that their society applies to the opposite sex. They're growing up with the gender socialization pressures of performing their gender wrong.

If someone was raised as a boy who obviously didn't fit in as a guy at all, it would probably be accurate for them to say they weren't socialized as, idk, correctly male guys, but it would not be true at all to say they grew up under the social pressures that girls do, even if they identified with girls the whole time.

So yeah the gender based selection pressures around participation in activities would not be the ones experienced by the opposite gender, unless/until the kid was being identified that way by their social environment.

And since people around here treat babies differently by gender from birth, you'd need a different society that doesn't do that at all, to take that effect out of the equation. (Man personally I would have loved gender starting no earlier than puberty, myself! Opt out please!)

 

[varwoche]

I don't think this is vaguely reasonable. But never mind, let's start over.

Please restate your question.To avoid further miscommunication, be specific. Are we talking athletic or non-athletic sports (e.g. pool and archery). Are we talking boys who have physically transitioned, or any boy who self-identifies as Trans? Are we talking about school sports? Are we talking count per school district? Per sport? Per sport per school district?

I've been chewing this over and I think I can fast-forward this discussion.

Any number is impractical because of the implications. Fairness is very much part of the equation. Fairness to the girls who fail to make the team. And fairness to the opposing teams who don't allow trans kids on the girls team. And fairness to boys who are not trans but who fail to make the boys team.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not so sure about that choice. If, for instance, women are underrepresented in pool because girls are raised in a way that outcome, that mechanism wouldn't apply to transwomen, who weren't raised as girls.

It isn't like flipping a switch. The trans kid in my son's grade school wasn't at all a surprise when they transitioned. Adherence to gender norms (or lack thereof) is completely applicable to pre-transition trans girls as it is to cis girls.

There may be some subgroup of socio-cultural factors that would apply to both women and transwomen, but the general case seems to be that the factor would be either biological or one imposed on the individual by some societal factor that was based not on the individual's perception of their gender but on society's perception of their sex. Even masculine women face discrimination based on being women, for instance.

This is a bit of a tangent (except that I've brought it up before), but what you are talking about here is the perception of their adherence to gender roles. It's the same thing. We very rarely directly observe a person's sex, and even then there are exceptions. More often, we come to a conclusion about someone's sex (gender, really) based on how closely they match our idea of what a particular gender is supposed to look like.

For example, this is an X thread showing a picture of mayor of Nashville, TN, Freddie O'Connell and his family. Based on the comments (and there are many, many threads like this one), this is a picture of either: two gay men, two lesbians, two adult transgender people, two adult transgender people and one transgender kid, or an entirely cis heterosexual family of four. If you care to dig through those comments, and I don't recommend it, you will see that some think that Freddie is not masculine enough to be a man. Or that some think that his wife is too masculine looking to be a real woman. I'm not quite certain which child some people think are trans, but I think it's the little one.

Now, no one is directly viewing the sex of any of these people. No matter how hard you looks, you will not see anything between the range four penises to four vaginas. People are, instead, comparing them to their idea of what a male gender or female gender is supposed to look like, despite the fact that biologically male and female people have a very wide and overlapping proportions, shapes, and amounts of body hair.

I think this is actually a major difference in our epistemics. I look at evidence from a bayesian framework, which includes a deep background of knowledge and theory as determining our priors on any particular question.

That is a very polite way of saying cognitive bias and has no particular merit over anyone else's personal experience-based Bayesian framework. I will fully admit I don't have the evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no biological sex-based advantage in playing pool, but I also know there isn't enough evidence to suggest that such an advantage, if it exists, is greater than any other genetic advantage one might have.

What I do know is that, as of 6 years ago, the organization that calculates and tracks the ratings of professional pool players published a video that states that biologically female professional pool players are just as capable of top-level playing as biologically male professional pool players. Right now, that is the closest thing to objective evidence from an authoritative source on the matter that we have.

Obviously I'm much less confident about the specific theoretical reasons for thinking that men have an advantage in pool. The point here is that those reasons are evidence.

There are reasons, in the "hypothesis" sense, to believe that there is a biological advantage to playing pool. Evidence is something we're very much lacking, to determine if it is a valid reason or not. Social influence is definitely a possible reason why there could be more men higher placed in the pool ratings that women. Is that a valid reason that trans women should not be allowed to play in the women's league?

 

[Upchurch]

I agree and I've noticed this often getting fudged and fumbled on all sides. [snip]

I agree with all of this, including the snipped parts, but I would but air -quotes around the highly subjective word "correct". Just because non-conforming boys* don't have the identical negative social pressures as conforming girls*, doesn't mean they can't also have negative social pressure of a similar severity.



* please excuse the short-hand. it's very wordy otherwise.

 

[Paul2]

If the answer is "case by case basis" asking "Okay so what criteria are we using on these case by case basises" is no unreasonable.

As far as I can tell, deciding things on a case-by-case basis means either (1) that you are changing your criteria for each case which wouldn't be fair pretty much by definition, or (2) you don't know what your criteria are and are using cases to figure that out, in which case it would be better to just sit down and figure out your criteria and then jettison the case-by-case approach.

None of that should be confused with having different standards for different categories of subjects, given that those criteria and standards are defined before cases start to get judged.

Am I missing something about case-by-case?

 

[Upchurch]

Am I missing something about case-by-case?

I wouldn't say so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

erm...

None of whom perhaps?

Sorry, Nova, I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you rephrase? My processor seems to have glitched on your post

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's a good one; a group of fifth graders were going on a field trip from Colorado to DC and Philadelphia. The parents were assured that while it would be four kids to a room and two kids to a bed, boys would be kept on one floor and girls on the other.

Well you can probably see the loophole there:



Apparently he was supposed to be in "stealth mode," but couldn't resist sharing his secret identity:



It is unmentioned as to whether the different female student was aware she was going to be sleeping with a boy, although this makes me suspect not (from the complaint):

Even if the school and "KEW"'s parents all had the very best of intentions, this is still not okay.

Seriously, in what world is "stealthing" a male into the presence of females without their consent an okay thing to do? Or vice versa?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Regardless you can disagree with someone without this kind of conspiratorial demonization.

And as horrible as it is to phrase it this ways there's easier ways to get access to victims that don't involve having to role play as a group at the center of much controversy and attention.

There's a difference between saying the trans side is wrong and saying they are being dishonest. (With the obvious shouldn't have to be stated caveat that "wrong" and "honest" are over simplifications of complicated concepts with a crap ton of nuance and context.)

And more basically and pragmatically I'm not just going to ignore that "They are really practicing subterfuge as a way to get a children to make them sexual victims" isn't exactly an argument that hasn't been used against ever non-traditional sexuality ever so....

It's like if you told me you found a new kind of Jew but no this one really did practice blood libel. I don't think I'd believe you very easily.

The fact that you could take a lot of gay panic talk from the 80s and just swap out the nouns and be having the exact same discussion we're having now isn't something I'm going to just pretend isn't true to make the discussion easier.

Sure it would be lovely and neater if everyone could just form nice and easy "Yes or no" sides to this but there's a lot of complexity and nuance and despite me having issues with a lot of the trans movement that doesn't mean the anti-trans side isn't full of the same old bigoted scripts, barely dusted off and updated.

I hear you, I feel you, I get where you're coming from.

That said... Pedos really actually for realsies are using "trans rights" as a trojan horse. That doesn't mean that all people supporting trans rights are pedos, or even that they advocate for pedophiles. It means pedos are using this movement for their own nefarious agenda and we ought to be aware of it.

To make things more difficult... pedos were using the gay rights platform in the 80s in exactly the same way. Go look into it. NAMBLA attached themselves to gay rights and tried to wedge their agenda into that activism. They were ultimately ousted from that effort... after which, unsurprisingly, support for gay rights gained ground rather quickly. At least in the US.

So all the naysaying about the "moral panics" of the 80s... they have some of the same basis, and it's not all made up and imagineered into existence. Pedos really actually are trying to hijack the parade floats.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You say that like every conservation I’ve had in this thread hasn’t ended with: “Shut up, TRA.”

That and multiple gross mis-characterizations of the argument I was making at the time.

Do you have receipts for this accusation? Because as far as I can tell, every conversation you've had in this thread has ended with you tapdancing around very reasonable questions then disappearing in a huff.

 

[Emily's Cat]

“Shut up, TRA.”

In what world is "are you going to answer my questions now" synonymous with "shut up"?

It looks like I last posted on page 69. I don’t see you having any follow up questions after that, but I also don’t see the ad-homs which led to me taking a break. I’m guessing whatever you are upset about me not answering has been pruned.

All the ad-homs that you totally reported and the mods totally took action on, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Single or unisex bathrooms and changing areas, largely.

Your solution to predators using fiat self-id as a loophole to gain access to the opposite sex against their target's will... is to just completely remove all barriers completely? Just go ahead and make it a walk in the park, then there's no problem at all!

Are you now willing to actually discuss the alternative to self identification, barring a physical examination and/or genetic testing,

The alternative to self id is what it had been for decades: A clinical diagnosis that weeds out bad actors, a few years of therapy to make sure it's genuine and persistent, and includes training for how to behave appropriately and not make females uncomfortable in their own spaces. And once that is in place, we will have some degree of confidence that the male-looking person in the female shower has been vetted by someone who actually gives a **** about females.

given that we can't visually recognize a person's sex but only how closely they adhere to a society's concept of gender norms?

This is ********. It's obvious ********.

Tell you what, go put on a dress and some lipstick, give yourself as clean a shave as you can, then go to a bar and let me know how many males hit on your thinking you're a female.

A female in trousers and steel-toed boots with short hair very rarely gets genuinely mistaken for a male. A male in a skirt and heels very rarely gets genuinely mistaken for a female. We're a sexually dimorphic species.

Stop pandering disinformation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep full fringe reset. We're going to have to go through the whole "Durrr I don't understand" script again.

Well, we don't have to really. None of us are exactly required to respond to obvious ********.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.

Okay, this is a response, but it's an empty response.

The nature of the activity was specified - pool. Beyond that, the question is in terms of generalities, not specific individuals.

Are you taking the position that for every activity and every sport, each single individual needs to be evaluated to determine whether they, as an individual, can compete on the female team?

 

[Emily's Cat]

(1) Nature of activity: I started to compile a list where it's indisputable that men have an advantage, but I quickly realized it's silly because it includes almost all sports. There' are several sports where that's debatable. I don't see why men are advantaged at archery for instance. For the miniscule list of sports where men aren't advantaged, sure, open them up to everyone.

But will you concede that for most sports by far, men have an advantage?

(2) When transitioned: Maybe boys who transition before puberty aren't advantaged. I dunno. But this is a rare exception, yes?

(3) How transitioned: Thus impresses me as highly dubious, but maybe there are factors I'm unaware of.

(4) What the person was like pre-transition: This is flat-out absurd. Individual exceptions shouldn't factor in. Since you were shorter, slower, and weaker than the average boy pre-transition, you can be on the girls team. Crikey.

Regarding item (2), the impact is less than many think. During puberty, testosterone prompts a male body to put on significant muscle density, and prompts a growth in the size of the lungs and heart. On the other hand, the skeletal structure and muscle attachment points are already present prior to puberty, so the angle of the femur won't be altered by a pre-puberty transition. Additionally, height, foot size, and hand size are governed by the adrenal gland, not the pituitary gland - that means that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones won't alter that in any material way.

Transition before puberty prevents males from growing facial hair, and it prevents their voice from dropping. It also, however, prevents their testes from fully descending away from the body and it prevents their penis from lengthening to an adult size. Those two things can result in the male being rendered sterile as well as ending up unable to experience orgasm.

 

[Samson]

I hear you, I feel you, I get where you're coming from.

That said... Pedos really actually for realsies are using "trans rights" as a trojan horse. That doesn't mean that all people supporting trans rights are pedos, or even that they advocate for pedophiles. It means pedos are using this movement for their own nefarious agenda and we ought to be aware of it.

To make things more difficult... pedos were using the gay rights platform in the 80s in exactly the same way. Go look into it. NAMBLA attached themselves to gay rights and tried to wedge their agenda into that activism. They were ultimately ousted from that effort... after which, unsurprisingly, support for gay rights gained ground rather quickly. At least in the US.

So all the naysaying about the "moral panics" of the 80s... they have some of the same basis, and it's not all made up and imagineered into existence. Pedos really actually are trying to hijack the parade floats.

An actual pedo dressed in women's clothes because it is fine to do so.
He gave a young girl a lift. She thought she was safe because it was a woman.
He raped her.
Little red riding hood.
There is a case to disallow men to dress as women as a response to this true story.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?

Rarity isn't the problem. Over the past few years, we've repeatedly seen males who identify as transwomen taking podium positions in female leagues. It's become almost common in running and cycling for the gold and silver positions to be won by males. Even if it's relatively rare within a population... the problem is that the MALE advantage over females is so overwhelming that any moderately fit male can mop the floor in most sports if they're competing against females.

You know what else is rare? Steroid use. But even if only 2% of the competitors are doping, they still get disqualified.

That's kinda my point. if a transwoman is short, slow, and weak, do they still have an unfair advantage that means they shouldn't be allowed to participate?

This is a silly argument. What if a regular run of the mill male is short, slow, and weak? Should they be allowed to play on the female team?

 

[Emily's Cat]

To return to a point I made at some point in the distant past of this deathspiral made up of other nested deathspirals that walks like a discussion.

We "rank" (for lack of a better term) people WITHOUT CATEGORIZING THEM all the time.

If you're a hockey player going pro they don't measure your testosterone levels and put you in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL. They watch you play hockey and see how good you are at it and just put you in the highest level you can reasonably compete at.

There's no categorical or demographic or "identity" difference between an ECHL and an AHL and an NHL player, and indeed players move between the leagues regularly but we have zero problem sorting hockey into different levels of play.

We are fully capable of going "Here's different level of plays that match up via skill" that doesn't need any "identity demographics" to work.

So yeah why not just do THAT? No womens leagues, no mens leagues, no trans leagues, no cis leagues just... here's the sport/competition/activity/whatever. The Top 1% go in the AAA League, the remaining 5% of that go in the AA League, the remaining 10% of that go into the A league all based on how well they play, no "this has to match my internal identity soul" needed.

Fair question. And in response, I'll ask: How many leagues do you intend to have?

When you sort leagues in this way for athletics, whether it's intentional or not you end up excluding females from participation. Remember that the super-elite pro female soccer teams routinely get beat by middle school male teams. And the vast majority of those middle school males won't be able to qualify for any level of pro soccer leagues. They'll wash out and not be good enough.

So you'll end up with one of two scenarios. In the first, you have a limited number of leagues, the top two or three leagues will be all males, and maybe you'll have a couple of extremely rare females playing in the lowest level leagues. In the other, you have a virtually unlimited number of leagues, and by the time you get to the level where even half the team is female... the only spectators will be their immediate family and friends. And even then, the team is going to be at risk if just a handful of overweight males with minor heart conditions decide they want to play.

It sucks, but it's reality. We have female sports leagues because females cannot compete against males. But females like to compete, and there are a fair number of people who enjoy watching female teams to make it feasible. It's the only way to allow females some measure of equal opportunity to participate in sports at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed. Why not?

Of course, as I've already said, some activities actually want to draw in groups that have traditionally been excluded from participating, free of those gender role pressures. That's a different objective than just determine who is the best of the best, isn't it?

What gender role pressures?

 

[Emily's Cat]

From a player perspective, why would it be? To competitors usually get to choose who they compete within a league (meant as a generic term)?

Well, it seems that the males who say they are "women" get to choose. Nobody else does, only those that say the magic words. There might be a secret handshake too, I'm not positive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How are people to be evaluated case-by-case? Size? Speed? A note from the PE teacher? Does each school district create its own standards? Each sport within each district? What about boys who were unable to make the boys team but aren't Trans? Are they too eligible for the girls team?

And of course, each boy/Trans who is allowed on the girls team denies a position for a girl. What about those girls?

Your post is pretty much spot on for why it's not a reasonable approach.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would replace "sex" with "gender", especially if we're talking about socio-cultural factors. Sex is biological, gender (and gender role) is societal.

I would NOT replace it. Here's my reasoning.

Gender roles are socially defined, true. But those roles are based on sex. Those perception and expectations aren't defined based on whether a person has long hair or short, or whether they wear a dress for special occasions. Those social roles are based on sex.

In many cases, the abilities necessary for those roles are not dependent on, nor derived from sex - and that why early feminists emphasized the social nature of the restrictions and stereotypes involved. For example, there's a social role of "homemaker" that is disproportionately placed on females. There has long been an expectation that females *should* stay home and keep the house, cook dinner, and care for the children. But that's an entirely social creation - there's nothing inherent in being female that makes females better at cleaning a toilet or cooking a roast than males are. The social stereotypes that get used to limit our opportunities are, in most cases, independent of sex.

But that's not what we're talking about here, and you're misusing the term "gender role". Because when we're talking about sports, and even activities like pool, the division of leagues is not based on social stereotypes. It's not a league for "breadwinners" and a league for "diaper changers". It's not a league for "doctors" and a league for "nurses". The leagues are divided on the basis of sex. Biological sex.

For the vast majority of them, those divisions exist because the sexes are dimorphic, and males have a clear and unarguable physical advantage over females in those endeavors. In some few - like chess - the divisions exist largely as a means to overcome sexism. And sexism is based on sex, not on gender roles.

Pool ends up in an in-between for me. I suspect that the dominant force behind the division is based on a desire to overcome sexism. On the other hand, however, there is definitely an advantage in pool for people with longer arms and legs - which males have in comparison to females. I strongly suspect that if sex-based divisions in pool were removed, and we lived in a world with no sexism at all, and in this utopia participation was roughly 50% male/female in pool... you'd still end up with males comprising about 75% of the top 100 spots. Because at the end of the day, granny sticks just don't work as well as actually having your pivot point be above the edge of the table and having arms long enough to aim properly.

I'll note that I said all this previously with respect to pool.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh. You cut off the rest of my question before answering. Why did you do that?

Probably because the rest of your question is completely irrelevant to what varwoche is asking you. It in no way addresses the questions put forth.

In fact, at this point, despite several requests from several different posters... you have not provided any criteria with respect to how a person ought to be evaluated at all. You've repeatedly dodged the questions in ways that more or less align with Joe's characterization... "It's complicated".

 

[Emily's Cat]

But that was my question.

"I'm not going to answer the question that you asked me until after you answer the question that I asked you after you asked me the question I'm not answering. So there."

 

[Emily's Cat]

And then I asked how many cases you thought there would be that it would be highly impractical.

Are we all caught up or is it only other people’s questions being ignored that gets derided? ‘Cause I’ve had other questions people seem to be avoiding.

Oh FFS.

Up: It's rare! It's super rare, we can just do it on a case by case basis.
Var: Seems impractical.
Up: Why? Because it's like, super rare you know. How many do there need to be?
Var: The number isn't relevant. Even if it is super rare, what criteria would you even use?

This is not hard to follow. Upchurch, all you're doing is dodging the question.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You literally answered a different question that you created by ignoring everything I said except for a single word. How am I the one arguing in bad faith here?

Baloney - varwoche ASKED YOU a follow-on question to something that you initially hand-waved away, and then you doubled down on your hand-waving. At this point, I'm expecting some tap shoes and a spangly outfit to go with your jazz hands.