Biological males in women's sport

astrofool

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Just on this point, gymnastics has been specially adapted for males vs. females with the males putting more emphasis on routines that utilise strength, this is not because the males couldn't excel at the female routines, but because the females would not excel at the men's routines (at least at the times the events were created), were they to converge again, it's likely the men would "score" against a higher difficulty than women to ensure there is the same range of scoring in both genders events.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

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.

You’re kinda getting my point. It could be argued that it was unfair that Jonah Lomu was permitted to participate in the sport because he was much bigger, stronger and faster than most of the other men, so his participation was unfair on them. I would suggest that the advantages he had over his competition didn’t automatically mean he was completely unstoppable. He wasn’t. I just wouldn’t want to be out in front of him when a mass like that is accelerating at the same speed as Carl Lewis :pac:

jmayo wrote: »

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.

They are being cognisant of biology, hence why they have now realised that it would be entirely unethical to suggest that athletes who want to enter competitions are required to be castrated.

You might well have many times more Hannah and Laurel whatever than Chris Mosiers, just like you’ll find a disproportionate amount of any particular type of athlete depending upon the sport and the lens you’re looking at it through. Recently we had Megan Rapinoe claim that teams needed lesbians to win the World Cup, science apparently. Bollocks I’d call it. Depends upon how you look at it I suppose.

jmayo wrote: »

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 ?

I’m aware of the differences in physiques between men and women, and I’m aware of the differences in physiques between elite athletes and the general population. As I suggested earlier elite female athletes tend to look like men anyway, except for Michelle DeBrun, but surprise surprise she was accused by the Americans of being on performance enhancing drugs when she won at the Olympics.

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.

I’m pretty sure we can all cite examples which are completely mismatched by means of suggesting that it’s completely unfair on athletes of lesser abilities to have to compete against them. It really doesn’t prove anything only that exhibition matches can be fun to watch sometimes, other times embarrassing to watch, like the US teams walkover of Thailand in the Womens World Cup. Of course they were proud of themselves :rolleyes:


How the US women’s soccer team 13-0 World Cup win against Thailand became about pay equity

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Yes I have, I don’t see how they’re any different to the thousands of athletes who fail to qualify to compete every year and participate in sports and competitions even though they haven’t a snowballs chance in hell of making it to elite status. It doesn’t prevent them from participating in the sport or deny them the opportunity to compete against others though as some people here are arguing should happen to prevent other athletes from participating or competing in sports. Without innovations in sports, there would simply be no incentive for athletes to push themselves. Innovations like opening the competition to all actually incentivise people who wouldn’t previously have thought to compete. Now they can. Does it mean other people are pushed out? Yes it does, but in the long run it’s good for the sport IMO because it will mean as many people as possible are given the opportunity to compete where they wouldn’t have been permitted to compete before, which makes for a more interesting competition also worth watching for spectators.

normanoffside

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.

So you're saying that women can run 11% faster (the difference between pretty much all male and female records) if they just believe in themselves more?

Even the doped up Eastern European machine of the 80's couldn't get better than withing 11% of male records.

Do you also seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomachenko?

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve never questioned biology though, of course I accept biology.

The biology of another planet maybe. Deludo IV.

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.

I have read some retarded nonsense down the years on Boards.ie, but you Sir are raising that bar. Even when it's a throwaway comment like this:

elite female athletes tend to look like men anyway, except for Michelle DeBrun

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.

That would be my fervent hope W, because the alternative is would be a worry.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

OEJ, you do question biology. Very recently, you said that human breast milk wasn’t tailored to the needs of human neonates.

One eyed Jack

normanoffside wrote: »

So you're saying that women can run 11% faster (the difference between pretty much all male and female records) if they just believe in themselves more?

Even the doped up Eastern European machine of the 80's couldn't get better than withing 11% of male records.

Do you also seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomachenko?

And there are plenty of records in women’s sports that men won’t ever achieve, what’s your point?

No I don’t seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomanchenco any more than I think Katie Taylor or Vasyl Lomanchenco would stand a chance of breaking Bruce Jenner’s World record set in the 1976 Olympics decathlon event. I know the record was broken later, but my point is that neither of the aforementioned athletes would be capable of doing so because it’s not the sport they are considered elite in.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I suggested earlier elite female athletes tend to look like men anyway,

They really don't. Unless you mean that because they tend to be lean and fit that they dont fit traditional notions of what a woman should look like? A bit like how a lot of people would still consider it "unladylike" to participate in sports I suppose. They still dont look like men though. Except for when they actually are men of course, like the chinese athletes from the other day.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I don’t seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomanchenco any more than I think Katie Taylor or Vasyl Lomanchenco would stand a chance of breaking Bruce Jenner’s World record set in the 1976 Olympics decathlon event. I know the record was broken later, but my point is that neither of the aforementioned athletes would be capable of doing so because it’s not the sport they are considered elite in.

Well Katie wouldn't have the chance anyway, because there is no womens decathlon at the olympics. I suppose she could identify as a man and see how she gets on?

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And there are plenty of records in women’s sports that men won’t ever achieve, what’s your point?

No I don’t seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomanchenco any more than I think Katie Taylor or Vasyl Lomanchenco would stand a chance of breaking Bruce Jenner’s World record set in the 1976 Olympics decathlon event. I know the record was broken later, but my point is that neither of the aforementioned athletes would be capable of doing so because it’s not the sport they are considered elite in.

At this point I can only conclude that yours is a parody account

Wibbs

normanoffside wrote: »

So you're saying that women can run 11% faster (the difference between pretty much all male and female records) if they just believe in themselves more?

Even the doped up Eastern European machine of the 80's couldn't get better than withing 11% of male records.

Do you also seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomachenko?

Apparently this would "be good for sport". :rolleyes: The facts are there are vanishingly few sports, if any, where if they were open to both sexes women would be either also rans way down the field or entirely absent. In tennis no woman would even make the quarter finals of any event. A tiny number might make it out of the first round. Track and field events? Game over for the ladies. It would be beyond a farce. Even in sports like motor racing, while there have been women who made waves, they are an absolutely tiny number.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

OEJ, you do question biology. Very recently, you said that human breast milk wasn’t tailored to the needs of human neonates.

Really ODB? Set brain to ignore then.

ceadaoin.

Wibbs wrote: »

Really ODB? Set brain to ignore then.

Oh yeah. Forgot about that. And the whole historically people used "plant based alternatives" to feed their babies thing, because apparently breastfeeding isn't instinctive . Total nonsense

normanoffside

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And there are plenty of records in women’s sports that men won’t ever achieve, what’s your point?

No I don’t seriously think we should throw Katie Taylor in the ring with Vasyl Lomanchenco any more than I think Katie Taylor or Vasyl Lomanchenco would stand a chance of breaking Bruce Jenner’s World record set in the 1976 Olympics decathlon event. I know the record was broken later, but my point is that neither of the aforementioned athletes would be capable of doing so because it’s not the sport they are considered elite in.

Ok so you are saying that women should stick to showjumping?

I can't think of other sports where they compete with men.

metaoblivia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Simone Biles can launch herself off the ground nine foot into the air, twice her own height. That’s a freak, and she’s picking up a ton of gold medals in competitions. Her short stature is influential in her ability to be able to do this, but a more influential factor has been that she has dedicated her whole life to being able to do it. That’s what makes her stand out from her competition. A boy might be able to achieve the same some day, but as things are now, they aren’t, and it is Simone Biles who has captured the imaginations of scientists, sports enthusiasts and the general public in the US with what she has done, what she can do and what she is doing.

You brought my girl Simone into this so I have to respond.

I love Simone, and believe her to be the best female athlete in the world. But all of her tumbling passes were performed by men first. In the case of the triple double, there aren't many men who have done it - just a handful. But they definitely did it first. Those guys don't get the media attention because they aren't American and because in Western countries, women's gymnastics always gets more attention than men's gymnastics. And while Simone has dominated the women's sport since 2013, Kohei Uchimura on the men's side dominated the sport for almost a decade.

The one true directly comparable event for men and women in gymnastics is vault. Vault is a better comparison than floor because men and women have very different requirements on floor. But vault is virtually the same, except that women's vault is set a few centimeters lower to account for a lower average height among the athletes. Simone is the best female vaulter right now and one of the best ever, but her vaults - even the Biles - do not compare in difficulty to the best male vaulters.

Men's vault final is INSANE. The most difficult vault a woman has ever landed is a double front tuck, which not even Simone does. Only one woman - Yelena Produnova - has ever landed a decent double front in competition and even she only ever managed it a few times. By comparison, the double front vault isn't even difficult enough to get a male gymnast into World/Olympic vault finals anymore because the guys are doing it with twists and in piked position. One guy has even attempted a triple front.

If a guy with a standard double front decided to identify and compete as a woman, he would immediately become the best female vaulter in the world, no contest, even against Simone. He could probably be brought up to speed on floor pretty quickly too, considering men do 5-6 tumbling passes in their routines compared to 4 for the women.

All this to say, there is absolutely a difference between men and women in most sports, including the more feminine ones like gymnastics, and even an athlete as great as Simone can't bridge that biological gap, no matter what hyperbole the announcers use when calling her routines.

(the one skill Simone's done that she is truly the first gymnast to ever compete is the double-twisting double tuck dismount on balance beam. Men don't compete balance beam)

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They really don't. Unless you mean that because they tend to be lean and fit that they dont fit traditional notions of what a woman should look like? A bit like how a lot of people would still consider it "unladylike" to participate in sports I suppose. They still dont look like men though. Except for when they actually are men of course, like the chinese athletes from the other day.

That’s exactly what I mean, which is why I used Sonia O’ Sullivan as an example of an athlete who I questioned whether they were a woman, precisely because they looked as different as they do from my perception of what a woman is supposed to look like. If you have evidence beyond your perception that the Chinese athletes you’re referring to are actually men and not just women that look and sound like men, I’m all ears, well, eyes.. eye :pac:

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well Katie wouldn't have the chance anyway, because there is no womens decathlon at the olympics. I suppose she could identify as a man and see how she gets on?

Fire away like, I certainly wouldn’t want to prevent her from doing so because I felt threatened by the possibility that she might actually stand a chance of winning.

(The decathlon event was just an example, you could pick any event and the point would still stand that neither athlete would be capable of achieving elite status because they would be at a significant disadvantage due to their biology)

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thats exactly what I mean, which is why I used Sonia O’ Sullivan as an example of an athlete who I questioned whether they were a woman, precisely because they looked as different as they do from my perception of what a woman is supposed to look like. If you have evidence beyond your perception that the Chinese athletes you’re referring to are actually men and not just women that look and sound like men, I’m all ears, well, eyes.. eye :pac:

Ah in fairness, Sonia, while no Kelly Brook, was undoubtedly a woman. GTFO.
Unlike like the two Chinese athletes.

Wibbs

metaoblivia wrote: »

You brought my girl Simone into this so I have to respond.

I love Simone, and believe her to be the best female athlete in the world. But all of her tumbling passes were performed by men first. In the case of the triple double, there aren't many men who have done it - just a handful. But they definitely did it first. Those guys don't get the media attention because they aren't American and because in Western countries, women's gymnastics always gets more attention than men's gymnastics. And while Simone has dominated the women's sport since 2013, Kohei Uchimura on the men's side dominated the sport for almost a decade.

The one true directly comparable event for men and women in gymnastics is vault. Vault is a better comparison than floor because men and women have very different requirements on floor. But vault is virtually the same, except that women's vault is set a few centimeters lower to account for a lower average height among the athletes. Simone is the best female vaulter right now and one of the best ever, but her vaults - even the Biles - do not compare in difficulty to the best male vaulters.

Men's vault final is INSANE. The most difficult vault a woman has ever landed is a double front tuck, which not even Simone does. Only one woman - Yelena Produnova - has ever landed a decent double front in competition and even she only ever managed it a few times. By comparison, the double front vault isn't even difficult enough to get a male gymnast into World/Olympic vault finals anymore because the guys are doing it with twists and in piked position. One guy has even attempted a triple front.

If a guy with a standard double front decided to identify and compete as a woman, he would immediately become the best female vaulter in the world, no contest, even against Simone. He could probably be brought up to speed on floor pretty quickly too, considering men do 5-6 tumbling passes in their routines compared to 4 for the women.

All this to say, there is absolutely a difference between men and women in most sports, including the more feminine ones like gymnastics, and even an athlete as great as Simone can't bridge that biological gap, no matter what hyperbole the announcers use when calling her routines.

(the one skill Simone's done that she is truly the first gymnast to ever compete is the double-twisting double tuck dismount on balance beam. Men don't compete balance beam)

Ah here Meta, would you go away with your knowledge and fundamental realities of the sport, you're ruining things for the befuddled.

Roger Hassenforder

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah here Meta, would you go away with your knowledge and fundamental realities of the sport, you're ruining things for the befuddled.

I fcukin hate when someone strolls into a thread, and knows what theyre talking about.
Pure showing off

Paddy Cow

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I fcukin hate when someone strolls into a thread, and knows what theyre talking about.
Pure showing off

#notions

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Really ODB? Set brain to ignore then.

Yeah, in the breastfeeding thread a few months back.

Effects

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly what I mean, which is why I used Sonia O’ Sullivan as an example of an athlete who I questioned whether they were a woman, precisely because they looked as different as they do from my perception of what a woman is supposed to look like.

Is this a joke? What is your perceived notion of what a woman is supposed to look like?
Sonia O’Sullivan was never anything but a pure machine of an athlete.
I don't know how anyone could ever conceive that she wasn't a woman though.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly what I mean, which is why I used Sonia O’ Sullivan as an example of an athlete who I questioned whether they were a woman, precisely because they looked as different as they do from my perception of what a woman is supposed to look like. If you have evidence beyond your perception that the Chinese athletes you’re referring to are actually men and not just women that look and sound like men, I’m all ears, well, eyes.. eye :pac:

Believe it or not, humans are pretty good at detecting what sex a person is using just our eyes (or eye) but at least one of them has visibly male genitals under their double layer of pants (wonder why they did that) That's a dead giveaway. And also the fact that he looks and sounds exactly like a man, as well as having typical male muscle mass and body shape and an Adam's apple. I suppose though in the day and age of "female penis" being a thing, I guess truthfully they could still be "female". That's why words have to mean something.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

OEJ, you do question biology. Very recently, you said that human breast milk wasn’t tailored to the needs of human neonates.

Jesus ODB you’re not going to let go of the breastfeeding thread :pac:

That doesn’t sound even remotely like anything I ever said, not least the fact that I’ve never used the word neonates, which makes your claim sound a bit like Franz earlier claiming I had ever self-identified as a feminist. By all means if that motivates you to prove me wrong and go crawling through my post history knock yourself out.

Or I could just save us both time and say that yes, I do question biology, but as far as biology in relation to sex is concerned, I am of the opinion that there are only two sexes in human species - male and female. When it comes to people who are transgender participating in sports, which is what this thread is about, biology is only one aspect of that discussion. It’s not by any means the main aspect of the discussion as far as I’m concerned.

Roger Hassenforder

Wibbs

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ahh, the Chinese, a great bunch of Lads.

One eyed Jack

Effects wrote: »

Is this a joke? What is your perceived notion of what a woman is supposed to look like?
Sonia O’Sullivan was never anything but a pure machine of an athlete.
I don't know how anyone could ever conceive that she wasn't a woman though.

No it’s not a joke. I don’t deny she was a pure machine of an athlete, what I said was that I questioned whether or not she was actually a woman. It’s an easy mistake to make given the absence of hips, breasts and the fact that she’s a ringer for Lyle Lovett.

I only remembered Lyle Lovett at the time because he was with Julia Roberts and I wondered how the fcuk did that happen! :pac:

Roger Hassenforder

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh, the Chinese, a great bunch of Lads.

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not a joke. I don’t deny she was a pure machine of an athlete, what I said was that I questioned whether or not she was actually a woman. It’s an easy mistake to make given the absence of hips, breasts and the fact that she’s a ringer for Lyle Lovett.

I only remembered Lyle Lovett at the time because he was with Julia Roberts and I wondered how the fcuk did that happen! :pac:

Ah now you're just being nasty.
She had all the accoutrements of a female.
She just had zero fat.

rainbowtrout

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When it comes to people who are transgender participating in sports, which is what this thread is about, biology is only one aspect of that discussion. It’s not by any means the main aspect of the discussion as far as I’m concerned.

Nope, biology is everything. Have a look at the results for the 2012 London Olympics as an example.

Shelley Ann Frazer Pryce won gold in the women's 100m with a time of 10.75

Of the 54 men who competed in Round 1 heats of the men's competition, 51 of them ran faster than her.

If any one of those 51 men declared themselves a transwoman tomorrow they would be a gold medal winner overnight in the women's competition, the majority aren't within an asses roar of the men's final.


Pole vault: Women's gold medal height: 4.75m
All 24 men in the qualifying round for the men's competition cleared 5.20m and the top 12 cleared 5.50m to reach the final. Incidentally the women's world record which has stood for 10 years is 5.06m. The world record holder wouldn't even make the men's qualifying round.

Nothing to do with biology though...... must be all those women not trying hard enough.




https://www.olympic.org/london-2012/athletics/100m-men

One eyed Jack

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah now you're just being nasty.
She had all the accoutrements of a female.
She just had zero fat.

Roger I’m not meaning to be nasty at all, Effects asked how I could possibly have made the mistake and I explained how at the time I perceived Sonia O’ Sullivan. I probably wouldn’t think the same way now as I did then because I’ve since become aware of the fact that my perception can be skewed at times towards what my brain tells me does or doesn’t conform to my idea of a woman. It’s still fundamentally based upon my ability to observe the presence or absence of physical characteristics.

Paddy Cow

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Jesus ODB you’re not going to let go of the breastfeeding thread :pac:

That doesn’t sound even remotely like anything I ever said, not least the fact that I’ve never used the word neonates, which makes your claim sound a bit like Franz earlier claiming I had ever self-identified as a feminist. By all means if that motivates you to prove me wrong and go crawling through my post history knock yourself out.

Or I could just save us both time and say that yes, I do question biology, but as far as biology in relation to sex is concerned, I am of the opinion that there are only two sexes in human species - male and female. When it comes to people who are transgender participating in sports, which is what this thread is about, biology is only one aspect of that discussion. It’s not by any means the main aspect of the discussion as far as I’m concerned.

But it is the main issue. Someone who is born biologically male and goes through puberty, is going to have developed secondary male characteristics such as increased muscle mass and bone density, fuelled by testosterone. If they transition to female later, they still have a huge biological advantage over even the best female athletics. That's the whole point of this discussion. Is it fair that someone with the natural strength of a man, is able to compete in female sports?