Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Biological males in women's sport
Options
Comments
-
Potential-Monke wrote: »It's ok, the governing bodies who make money from these sports will change it when they see the drop off in attendance or interest due to unfair biological advantages.
Problem with relying on this is that mens sports already dominate for almost any metric you can find (attendance, marketing budgets, prize money, etc, etc)
so all that will happen is that womens sports will dwindle away back to lower levels than they were before their recent (welcome) uplift.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »We can change the bloody rules so that men and women can compete in the same sports or compete in their chosen categories in those sports, and still there will always be winners and sore losers. In this case ironically if we allow the losers to dictate the rules, then we may as well start handing out participation medals so that everyone gets to feel like a winner and everyone is equal. Kinda takes the whole competitive element out of the sport.
Lol, yeah getting rid of categories based on sex will definitely not take away the competitive element at all. Not for males anyway and they are the only ones who matter I guess.
Would you see a featherweight boxer not wanting to fight against a heavyweight as them being losers dictating the rules? Or does that only apply to women who want to be able to compete against each other on a level playing field?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
Put it in whatever crude terms you feel you need to in order to make your point. Your point has been made numerous times already, and the IOC for one governing body at least, simply disagree with your perspective, which is good news for athletes like Chris Mosier -
The Trans Athlete Behind the Olympic Committee’s New Gender Policy
TBF, i wouldn't worry too much about a transman competing against men, and good luck to him.
Most peak athletic men would be fine competing against any "woman".
But he's obviously not a 6" 100kg transwoman behemoth coming up against 65kg women with differing bone density and muscle composition and strength "folding them like deckchairs", an athlete who's own career as a male rugby player was cut short by injuries, now being fêted as "the beast" after transitioning.
“I do feel guilty, but what can you do?” she says. “I don’t go out to hurt anybody. I just want to play rugby.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/rugby-union/49298550?__twitter_impression=true
And theres a (possibly apocryphal) story that Stringer could bench press more than The Claw. He passed me in the Mardyke few months ago, it was some gunshow. Your Stringer V Lomu comparison is a nonsense.0 -
FFS. You'd get more sense talking to the cat.
I get the same feeling when I’m supposed to think that differences between athletes performance is solely as a result of their biology and not the years of training or mental discipline it takes to be an elite athlete who stands out above their competition. I was under the impression that’s kinda what sports at an elite level are about, not this idea of the girls can’t play with the boys because girls are weaker and they might get injured more easily and all the rest of it. Elite athletes are aware of these risks and they’re aware of how short their careers are in their chosen sport and they’re aware of the potential consequences of what they’re doing to their bodies in order to compete at elite levels.0 -
If it was a case of women being able to compete with men, why are there such disparities in nearly, if not all, categories? Take the 100m dash:
Men's records
World - Jamaica Usain Bolt 9.58 (2009)
Olympic - Jamaica Usain Bolt 9.63 (2012)
Women's records
World - United States Florence Griffith-Joyner 10.49[a] (1988)
Olympic - United States Florence Griffith-Joyner 10.62 (1988)
There's nearly a full second disparity, which when taken against the mens time is nearly 10% slower. That's a large percentage difference. Are people saying that women don't run faster because they don't have to? As long as they get above a certain time which guarantees victory they slow down? Doesn't appear to be the case, as the women's record hasn't been beaten in over 30 years. Maybe it has something to do with the biological differences between male and female? https://www.livescience.com/59289-why-men-run-faster-than-women.html0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I get the same feeling when I’m supposed to think that differences between athletes performance is solely as a result of their biology and not the years of training or mental discipline it takes to be an elite athlete who stands out above their competition. I was under the impression that’s kinda what sports at an elite level are about, not this idea of the girls can’t play with the boys because girls are weaker and they might get injured more easily and all the rest of it. Elite athletes are aware of these risks and they’re aware of how short their careers are in their chosen sport and they’re aware of the potential consequences of what they’re doing to their bodies in order to compete at elite levels.
The womens world record time for an 800m race is 1:53.28. The US boys high school record time over the same distance is 1:46.45. That's an elite level female athlete who has spent years training, versus a teenage boy who clearly hasn't put in nearly the same amount of work. I'd say the majority of the boys times would beat the female record given that the very fastest one is a whole 7 seconds ahead. That's everything to do with biology and nothing got to do with the female not trying hard enough. To deny this is delusional tbh and I'm not sure that you actually believe it, rather than just being contrarian for the sake of it at this stage.0 -
Lol, yeah getting rid of categories based on sex will definitely not take away the competitive element at all. Not for males anyway and they are the only ones who matter I guess.
Would you see a featherweight boxer not wanting to fight against a heavyweight as them being losers dictating the rules? Or does that only apply to women who want to be able to compete against each other on a level playing field?
I would if they demanded that the heavyweight boxer be handicapped in some way so the featherweight boxer could stand a chance of being able to defeat them.
You really think that it’s because I’m a man I’m arguing that categories based on sex are ridiculous? There are any number of sports where biological women will dominate over biological men by virtue of their biology if that’s all it came down to. It doesn’t, certainly not at elite level in sports. The rules for any sport are set by the governing body of that particular sport, and there are numerous sports where an athletes sex offers them no advantage over their competition.
Change the rules of the sport in order to make it fair on everyone who wants to compete regardless of their sex and then you’ll see who are the real elite in any sport.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I get the same feeling when I’m supposed to think that differences between athletes performance is solely as a result of their biology and not the years of training or mental discipline it takes to be an elite athlete who stands out above their competition. I was under the impression that’s kinda what sports at an elite level are about, not this idea of the girls can’t play with the boys because girls are weaker and they might get injured more easily and all the rest of it. Elite athletes are aware of these risks and they’re aware of how short their careers are in their chosen sport and they’re aware of the potential consequences of what they’re doing to their bodies in order to compete at elite levels.
Surely elite athletes of either gender spend the same amount of effort and training? Why do you assume that female athletes do not?0 -
Men are naturally stronger and faster than women. That's a fact and all the praise in the world won't bridge that gap. Testosterone > oestrogen.One eyed Jack wrote: »No, frankly, I think it’s ridiculous. Separation of the sexes in sports is one of the reasons why women have been held back IMO in sports, especially at elite level where there is no reason other than the barrier of low expectations as to why they cannot compete against men. If women aren’t expected to perform as well as men, or men aren’t expected to perform as well as women, chances are they won’t, because they won’t be driven to push themselves to get to the elite levels in their chosen sport, regardless of their gender. Who really praises or even acknowledges athletes who drop down to levels they can comfortably compete at? Very few people, social justice types who are all about participation medals and everyone’s a winner and we’re all equal. That’s about as exciting to watch as bowls.0 -
The womens world record time for an 800m race is 1:53.28. The US boys high school record time over the same distance is 1:46.45. That's an elite level female athlete who has spent years training, versus a teenage boy who clearly hasn't put in nearly the same amount of work. That's everything to do with biology and nothing got to do with the female not trying hard enough. To deny this is delusional tbh and I'm not sure that you actually believe it, rather than just being contrarian for the sake of it at this stage.
Because you say so? Fair enough.
I’m not interested in suggesting you’re delusional, I just don’t agree with you, and I’m glad governing bodies in sports don’t either and have decided to change their policies to include people in many sports who would have previously been excluded under their old policies.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I would if they demanded that the heavyweight boxer be handicapped in some way so the featherweight boxer could stand a chance of being able to defeat them.
They are “handicapped” by not competing in the featherweight category because they would always winYou really think that it’s because I’m a man I’m arguing that categories based on sex are ridiculous? There are any number of sports where biological women will dominate over biological men by virtue of their biology if that’s all it came down to. It doesn’t, certainly not at elite level in sports.
It’s in fact precisely at elite levels that it matters.The rules for any sport are set by the governing body of that particular sport, and there are numerous sports where an athletes sex offers them no advantage over their competition.
Numerous is dubious. I can’t think of any.Change the rules of the sport in order to make it fair on everyone who wants to compete regardless of their sex and then you’ll see who are the real elite in any sport.
Biological males in most cases.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because you say so? Fair enough.
I’m not interested in suggesting you’re delusional, I just don’t agree with you, and I’m glad governing bodies in sports don’t either and have decided to change their policies to include people in many sports who would have previously been excluded under their old policies.
What’s the counter argument to biology?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I would if they demanded that the heavyweight boxer be handicapped in some way so the featherweight boxer could stand a chance of being able to defeat them.
.
Yeah , they do though. The handicap is the weight system. Luckily the people who make the rules actually have a clue about sports and fairness.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because you say so? Fair enough.
I’m not interested in suggesting you’re delusional, I just don’t agree with you, and I’m glad governing bodies in sports don’t either and have decided to change their policies to include people in many sports who would have previously been excluded under their old policies.
No, not because I say so. Because it is the reality. Its supremely offensive to female athletes to state that the fact that a teenage boy can smash their record despite their years of training and work is because they just aren't trying hard enough. You obviously dont have the first idea what you're talking about when it comes to sports and biology so your opinion just is not worth anything, sorry. You know, you dont have to be the self professed expert in every.single.topic.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »What’s the counter argument to biology?
The counter argument to biology is simply the rules of the sport and the criteria which are set for participation in the sport, both of which can be challenged and changed a hell of a lot easier than demanding people who want to compete in the sport must undergo surgery to castrate themselves or inject themselves with hormones in order to compete. There are easier ways to make a competition fair to all competitors.
The reality is that people who are transgender aren’t going away any time soon, and they are going to want to compete in sports, and the idea of prohibiting them from the sport because they are likely to win, is in my view at least like dumbing down something in order to make it fair to competitors of lesser ability.Yeah , they do though. The handicap is the weight system. Luckily the people who make the rules actually have a clue about sports and fairness.
I should hope so, that’s exactly why the IOC changed the rules to allow people who are transgender to compete, unless you want to argue that the IOC don’t have a clue about sports and fairness.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Any transmen doing well in Mens sports?
There could genuinely have been some who tried to. But we won’t hear about them simply because they won’t get anywhere so they’ll be on nobody’s radar.0 -
No there aren't.One eyed Jack wrote: »There are any number of sports where biological women will dominate over biological men by virtue of their biology if that’s all it came down to. It doesn’t, certainly not at elite level in sports. The rules for any sport are set by the governing body of that particular sport, and there are numerous sports where an athletes sex offers them no advantage over their competition.
Apparently women are at a physical advantage in extreme long-distance swimming. They float better because they have more body fat - over tens of hours it proves advantageous from an energy expenditure perspective.
That said, the record for longest ocean swim is held by a man so perhaps even this oft-quoted example is up for debate.
I can't think of any others. Can you name some?0 -
Potential-Monke wrote: »It's ok, the governing bodies who make money from these sports will change it when they see the drop off in attendance or interest due to unfair biological advantages.
You make a good point. Always follow the money. If the bottom line is badly affected, things will change.
I wonder about gymnastics. The apparatuses are tailored to women’s and men’s physiology in the respective divisions. This seems like a sport where crossover might not be possible. If a trans-woman wants to be a gymnast, will the apparatuses have to be changed?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The counter argument to biology is simply the rules of the sport and the criteria which are set for participation in the sport, both of which can be challenged and changed a hell of a lot easier than demanding people who want to compete in the sport must undergo surgery to castrate themselves or inject themselves with hormones in order to compete. There are easier ways to make a competition fair to all competitors.
The reality is that people who are transgender aren’t going away any time soon, and they are going to want to compete in sports, and the idea of prohibiting them from the sport because they are likely to win, is in my view at least like dumbing down something in order to make it fair to competitors of lesser ability.
I should hope so, that’s exactly why the IOC changed the rules to allow people who are transgender to compete, unless you want to argue that the IOC don’t have a clue about sports and fairness.
Yes, even the experts get it wrong and I dont doubt that there will be a review into this policy when males begin to dominate womens events on the world stage. There will a huge backlash0 -
Yes, even the experts get it wrong and I dont doubt that there will be a review into this policy when males begin to dominate womens events on the world stage. There will a huge backlash
Wait a minute, one minute you’re taking a dig at me suggesting I’m delusional and I know nothing about sport and it’s a good thing the governing bodies of these sports do, and then when I point out that’s the very reason the IOC changed their policies, well, they’re the experts who are getting it wrong according to you?
If I hadn’t already taken your suggestion that I’m delusional with a pinch of salt, I sure as hell am now!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The counter argument to biology is simply the rules of the sport and the criteria which are set for participation in the sport, both of which can be challenged and changed a hell of a lot easier than demanding people who want to compete in the sport must undergo surgery to castrate themselves or inject themselves with hormones in order to compete. There are easier ways to make a competition fair to all competitors.
That certainly didn’t answer the question about what causes differences in performance if it isn’t biology.
You are choppping and changing your arguments here, as well. It’s unclear if you want transgender in sport or to get rid of all sex divisions.The reality is that people who are transgender aren’t going away any time soon, and they are going to want to compete in sports, and the idea of prohibiting them from the sport because they are likely to win, is in my view at least like dumbing down something in order to make it fair to competitors of lesser ability
You are back to accepting biology here again. The way to make it fair is to allow transgender athletes compete with transgender athletes.I should hope so, that’s exactly why the IOC changed the rules to allow people who are transgender to compete, unless you want to argue that the IOC don’t have a clue about sports and fairness.
We will see how that works out for them.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »There could genuinely have been some who tried to. But we won’t hear about them simply because they won’t get anywhere so they’ll be on nobody’s radar.
Yea, but "something losers" per your man!0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »That certainly didn’t answer the question about what causes differences in performance if it isn’t biology.
You are choppping and changing your arguments here, as well. It’s unclear if you want transgender in sport or to get rid of all sex divisions.
Sorry, wasn’t my intention to avoid the question. The cause of the differences in performance is only in part due to advantages conferred by biology. In another sport that same biology would present a significant disadvantage. I think it was yourself earlier who suggested that it depends on the sport. It really does.
It’s not that I specifically want people who are transgender to be permitted to compete in sports, they can do that already. What I’m suggesting is that if categories based upon sex were done away with (and of course I understand why they were put there in the first place), then it would become a more open competition in all sports, where sometimes biological men will have the advantage of testosterone, and sometimes biological women will have the advantage of flexibility and agility.
To use an example I gave earlier - Simone Biles isn’t powering herself off the ground and doing a double layout on sheer brute strength or speed alone, a large part of what she’s doing is a combination of her physiology and technique. That’s something men simply won’t be able to do, solely by virtue of their biology, and no amount of hormones taken in later life will ever give them that ability. There shouldn’t be anything to stop them of course if that’s what they want to try and do, even if they are regarded as delusional.Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »You are back to accepting biology here again. The way to make it fair is to allow transgender athletes compete with transgender athletes.
I’ve never questioned biology though, of course I accept biology. What I don’t accept is the idea that current rules and criteria should be unchangeable because it wouldn’t be fair to athletes who are currently competing in the sport. If the idea is to be fair to everyone who wants to compete in the sport regardless of their sex, then one of the fairest ways IMO to achieve that is to open up the competition. It will undoubtedly of course mean that some people will be unable to compete at the level they were once comfortable competing at because they thought they had a chance of winning, but it raises the bar for all competitors - if athletes want to compete, up their game, or enter a sport which they are certain they have a chance of winning against their competition.Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »We will see how that works out for them.
Exactly, and I know you mentioned it earlier that it was a logical fallacy to assume the consequences of this decision are all positive, and that’s absolutely true. By that same token it’s also a logical fallacy to argue the worst as an inevitability. What we’re currently seeing in the media is a focus on the outliers. We’re not seeing that people who are transgender who want to participate in sports are just as likely to be either average or elite as any other demographic in competitive sports. You’ll always have the obnoxious types in any walk of life like McKinnon, and that’s why I said I don’t like her, and when I said she comes out with all sorts of nonsense on social media I’m talking specifically about her telling young people to “find their glitter families” bollocks. I’d sooner see young people having better role models than her to aspire to, athletes like the aforementioned Chris Mosier for example, athletes who aren’t just playing the victim but want to inspire young people in sports and give them the opportunities to compete where if they had previously expressed an interest they would have been regarded as delusional.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No, if anyone’s attempting to twist facts here, you’re taking the example I gave of Jonah Lomu completely out of context.
No you are trying to claim he was freakish in comparison to other players much like Hannah whats their name is now.
Totally different.
A more valid comparison would be having Lomu playing against the English women.One eyed Jack wrote: »The facts are that governing bodies in sports will determine who can and cannot compete in competitions, it’s not the athletes themselves who get to decide who can or cannot compete in competitions. If an athlete doesn’t want to compete, that’s fine, but trying to prevent other athletes from competing who are entitled to compete and qualify to compete, and thinking that they have the authority to prevent other athletes from competing against them, is a distortion of reality.
The Trans Athlete Behind the Olympic Committee’s New Gender Policy
Yes we know the governing body can decide what they want but they do have to have some cognisance of biological facts.
Hence you don't have heavyweights fighting bantams.
And allowing self identifying "women" into these sports is basically the exact same thing.
And for every Chris Mosier you have many many more Hannah Munceys or Laurel Hubbards and more critically they are winning.One eyed Jack wrote: »No, frankly, I think it’s ridiculous. Separation of the sexes in sports is one of the reasons why women have been held back IMO in sports, especially at elite level where there is no reason other than the barrier of low expectations as to why they cannot compete against men.
Oh jaysus H on a bike.
Do you have any idea what physical sport is ?
Do we really have to explain the difference in physique between men and women ?
In 1975 one of the world greatest female tennis players at the time, 29 year old Billy Jean King took three sets to beat a 55 year old guy that had been at the top 30 odd years before.
BTW have you ever thought what it would be like for the women who couldn't even qualify for the mixed 100m in the Olympics never mind get anywhere near the semi or final ?
Oh yeah it would bring them on leaps and bounds no doubt.One eyed Jack wrote: »If women aren’t expected to perform as well as men, or men aren’t expected to perform as well as women, chances are they won’t, because they won’t be driven to push themselves to get to the elite levels in their chosen sport, regardless of their gender. Who really praises or even acknowledges athletes who drop down to levels they can comfortably compete at? Very few people, social justice types who are all about participation medals and everyone’s a winner and we’re all equal. That’s about as exciting to watch as bowls.
What a lot of shyte.Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »You are what then?
I could say but would be banned. :rolleyes:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Some people seem to use this site as debate practice. Take a position in the extreme minority and argue to the death with walls of text to try and submit the opponents in the insurmountable challenge. Fair enough if it’s something they genuinely believe in but...0
-
Will I Am Not wrote: »Some people seem to use this site as debate practice. Take a position in the extreme minority and argue to the death with walls of text to try and submit the opponents in the insurmountable challenge. Fair enough if it’s something they genuinely believe in but...
I think most people know the score with OEJ so probably just decide to sharpen their own skills. I can’t deal with his gish gallop personally but to each their own.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Sorry, wasn’t my intention to avoid the question. The cause of the differences in performance is only in part due to advantages conferred by biology. In another sport that same biology would present a significant disadvantage. I think it was yourself earlier who suggested that it depends on the sport. It really does.
At elite levels the differences in biology will outweigh everything else. All the other stuff - hard work, training etc - is controller for. No woman could ever beat a man in most sports.It’s not that I specifically want people who are transgender to be permitted to compete in sports, they can do that already. What I’m suggesting is that if categories based upon sex were done away with (and of course I understand why they were put there in the first place), then it would become a more open competition in all sports, where sometimes biological men will have the advantage of testosterone, and sometimes biological women will have the advantage of flexibility and agility.
As crazy as that is it is the logical outcome of trans ideology.To use an example I gave earlier - Simone Biles isn’t powering herself off the ground and doing a double layout on sheer brute strength or speed alone, a large part of what she’s doing is a combination of her physiology and technique. That’s something men simply won’t be able to do, solely by virtue of their biology, and no amount of hormones taken in later life will ever give them that ability. There shouldn’t be anything to stop them of course if that’s what they want to try and do, even if they are regarded as delusional.
One example isn’t enough. The vast majority of elite women sportsmen will lose out.I’ve never questioned biology though, of course I accept biology. What I don’t accept is the idea that current rules and criteria should be unchangeable because it wouldn’t be fair to athletes who are currently competing in the sport. If the idea is to be fair to everyone who wants to compete in the sport regardless of their sex, then one of the fairest ways IMO to achieve that is to open up the competition. It will undoubtedly of course mean that some people will be unable to compete at the level they were once comfortable competing at because they thought they had a chance of winning, but it raises the bar for all competitors - if athletes want to compete, up their game, or enter a sport which they are certain they have a chance of winning against their competition.
You agree with biology but suggesting “upping their game” doesn’t work like that.Exactly, and I know you mentioned it earlier that it was a logical fallacy to assume the consequences of this decision are all positive, and that’s absolutely true. By that same token it’s also a logical fallacy to argue the worst as an inevitability. What we’re currently seeing in the media is a focus on the outliers. We’re not seeing that people who are transgender who want to participate in sports are just as likely to be either average or elite as any other demographic in competitive sports. You’ll always have the obnoxious types in any walk of life like McKinnon, and that’s why I said I don’t like her, and when I said she comes out with all sorts of nonsense on social media I’m talking specifically about her telling young people to “find their glitter families” bollocks. I’d sooner see young people having better role models than her to aspire to, athletes like the aforementioned Chris Mosier for example, athletes who aren’t just playing the victim but want to inspire young people in sports and give them the opportunities to compete where if they had previously expressed an interest they would have been regarded as delusional.
When it comes to elite competition it’s always outliers.0 -
I'm surprised it took you this long to trot out the 'if only women tried harder they could be as good as the trans athletes'. And 'it will actually benefit women to compete against trans women, they should actually be thankful to compete against them' translation: trans women will make women better women.One eyed Jack wrote: »No, frankly, I think it’s ridiculous. Separation of the sexes in sports is one of the reasons why women have been held back IMO in sports, especially at elite level where there is no reason other than the barrier of low expectations as to why they cannot compete against men. If women aren’t expected to perform as well as men, or men aren’t expected to perform as well as women, chances are they won’t, because they won’t be driven to push themselves to get to the elite levels in their chosen sport, regardless of their gender. Who really praises or even acknowledges athletes who drop down to levels they can comfortably compete at? Very few people, social justice types who are all about participation medals and everyone’s a winner and we’re all equal. That’s about as exciting to watch as bowls.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm surprised it took you this long to trot out the 'if only women tried harder they could be as good as the trans athletes'. And 'it will actually benefit women to compete against trans women, they should actually be thankful to compete against them' translation: trans women will make women better women
I’ve seen that said with depressing frequency on threads and comments sections on the topic. Not here on boards.ie but elsewhere. It’s basically just another version of the simpleton’s refuge: “Ur juz jellus”. Nothing to do with vastly differing physiology. Nope, it’s just envy.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement