Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Yeah_Right

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This kinda crap is gonna turn so many actual women off sport. Just as womens sports was starting to get some traction around the world (saying this as someone who doesn't watch sport, but have heard womens' sports being discussed more these days). Sad times.

If I was one of those 2 girls in the grey above, I'd just walk off. They haven't a hope going up against a monster of a man "woman".

Its an interesting one. My initial thoughts were that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. There was a trans-woman weightlifter who made the NZ Commonwealth Games team a couple of years ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time. She didn't compete because of an injury and I thought; good, she shouldn't be there.

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its an interesting one. My initial thoughts were that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. There was a trans-woman weightlifter who made the NZ Commonwealth Games team a couple of years ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time. She didn't compete because of an injury and I thought; good, she shouldn't be there.

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

Wereas my initial, and subsequent thoughts are that it's insane to allow them to compete in professional/competition based sports. In any situation where a persons livelihood is involved, there should be no crossover. It's simply unfair.. and anyone trying to suggest otherwise obviously hasn't seen what these Trans sports people are like. People don't lose the benefits of past male physical strength, and endurance...

Put them in a male category, or a "trans" category. It's utterly ridiculous that there's even the belief that they should compete with natural women, unless you want all such divisions to be removed, with men, women, and trans all competing in the same events together. Which really is as absurd as it sounds..

Invidious

Yeah_Right wrote: »

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

Recent research commissioned by World Rugby found that, even after hormonal intervention, male-bodied players are on average 40 percent heavier, 15 percent faster, and 25 to 50 percent stronger than natal female players. The study found that women are at significantly higher risk of serious injury when competing against trans opponents.

But when given a choice between ideology and the objective facts of physics, many will still choose ideology.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its an interesting one. My initial thoughts were that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. There was a trans-woman weightlifter who made the NZ Commonwealth Games team a couple of years ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time. She didn't compete because of an injury and I thought; good, she shouldn't be there.

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

A very vocal minority can easily make the silent majority invisible. Maybe people were tricked into signing by telling them it is about equality, and not about allowing "men" to participate in "women's" sports.

Easily done.

RandRuns

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its an interesting one. My initial thoughts were that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. There was a trans-woman weightlifter who made the NZ Commonwealth Games team a couple of years ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time. She didn't compete because of an injury and I thought; good, she shouldn't be there.

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

I wonder who was driving the signing of this petition? With the hysteria of the trans movement, it would be a brave club that wouldn't circulate a petition for signing if they were approached by the trans lobby. Failure to get the requisite number of signatures would surely lead to repercussions.

The signatories of the petition must not have a lot of respect for the real women playing the sport.

In 2017, the USA womens soccer team, the best female soccer team in the world, were beaten by the Dallas U-15 academy team 5-2. I believe they were beaten by a youths team again a few weeks ago.
The women's world record for 100m wouldn't even get a 16 year old boy into the top 50 for his age group in the UK.

Having men, even ones wearing makeup, competing against women in sport will destroy women's sport.
We may as well start entering cheetah's in the olympic sprint events, or gorillas in wrestling.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

Put them in a male category, or a "trans" category. It's utterly ridiculous that there's even the belief that they should compete with natural women, unless you want all such divisions to be removed, with men, women, and trans all competing in the same events together. Which really is as absurd as it sounds..

In some cases, the answer is to abolish the gender divide altogether. There's no genuine rationale for women's chess, women's darts, women's snooker, etc.

But when it comes to sports where men have an obvious size/strength/speed advantage, it's absurd for women to have to compete against the likes of Hannah Mouncey above. I don't know how anyone can think this is fair.

I wonder how many trans allies would support Katie Taylor having to defend her world title against a male boxer? And if she got destroyed in the first round, would they claim it was a fair fight?

I've refereed some kids football and my observations:
U-10s is fine. Some of the girls are the strongest on the pitch, makes sense because they develop earlier.
Pretty sure it's segregated after that.
U-11 the boys seem about the same but they get hurt a little more. It's like they've developed more strength but aren't used to impacts.
U-12 they seem roughly the same but knocks don't leave them floored.
U-13 and athleticism starts to really show and they're hard to keep up with.

I did 1 U-15 game (after an U-10) at short notice and the first 50/50 I was anywhere near I genuinely nearly panicked and instinctively blew my whistle. The forces involves, lumps of grass and muck flying up and the noises, I was sure they were both hurt. They weren't, they were fine and played on like nothing happened.
The difference in those couple of years is hard to overstate. With how timing of age categories works where I am you can pretty much forget the "Under" bit and the number is the age of most of the players. The 15 year olds (aside from some) are so much stronger and more athletic than you would expect from the other age groups. They're still awkward, gangly and don't completely know how to make use of their strength and still have a couple of years of development and growing to do. There's a vanishingly small proportion of fully grown women who could compete and keep up with even the 50-75 percentile of of local, non-cherry-picked 15 year old male soccer players.

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

In 2017, the USA womens soccer team, the best female soccer team in the world, were beaten by the Dallas U-15 academy team 5-2. I believe they were beaten by a youths team again a few weeks ago.

Got a link for that? The latter one.


Even in tennis and the like I've heard "Well even if there are hundreds of men who could beat Serena Williams that's still only a small number of men". It leaves out the thousand upon thousands who if they'd kept playing at a decent level would also beat her. In a lot of cases the men's and women's categories may as well be different sports. In the case of soccer the best and most simple thing they could have ever done would be to make the goals smaller.

RandRuns

Deleted User wrote: »

Got a link for that? The latter one.


Even in tennis and the like I've heard "Well even if there are hundreds of men who could beat Serena Williams that's still only a small number of men". It leaves out the thousand upon thousands who if they'd kept playing at a decent level would also beat her. In a lot of cases the men's and women's categories may as well be different sports. In the case of soccer the best and most simple thing they could have ever done would be to make the goals smaller.

I don't have a link for the most recent one, I did a quick google and couldn't find it - the only reason I believe it happened is because I remember seeing the headline in a soccer coaches newsletter I get, which, of course, I've deleted!
They seem to only publish the results of international games. From meory I think the game was a warm-up for the Shebelieves cup or something. You might have more luck googling it than I've had.

Shane Driscoll

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its an interesting one. My initial thoughts were that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport. There was a trans-woman weightlifter who made the NZ Commonwealth Games team a couple of years ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time. She didn't compete because of an injury and I thought; good, she shouldn't be there.

However in the past year I have been in a Facebook rugby group that has 10s of thousands of members worldwide. Most in the US. Men and women. When that law came in banning trans-women from competing in women's sport. There was uproar in this group. I was surprised. Thousands of them signed a petition to reverse it. The vast majority were definitely very supportive of trans-women being allowed to compete with women. I was surprised.

Women virtue signaling against their own interests? What a surprise. Most women blindly support immigration too, even though it makes life more dangerous for them.

silverharp

Invidious wrote: »

In some cases, the answer is to abolish the gender divide altogether. There's no genuine rationale for women's chess, women's darts, women's snooker, etc.

But when it comes to sports where men have an obvious size/strength/speed advantage, it's absurd for women to have to compete against the likes of Hannah Mouncey above. I don't know how anyone can think this is fair.

I wonder how many trans allies would support Katie Taylor having to defend her world title against a male boxer? And if she got destroyed in the first round, would they claim it was a fair fight?

Im pushing for a Jewish Basketball league :pac:

Cordell

Invidious wrote: »

In some cases, the answer is to abolish the gender divide altogether.

I think we need a better criteria altogether. Something like a coefficient or something that will be computed based on gender, race, weight, height, BMI, IQ and so on depending on the exact sport, so to make it fair for the ones that work the hardest. Now a lot of athletes have physical advantages that they were born with, some ganders or races or ethnicities are faster or taller or stronger or smarter.
Shouldn't be hard, right? We just need to acknowledge some uncomfortable truths, that's all.

RandRuns

The simplest solution is also the most obvious - have transgender leagues. Let them play each other.

But of course they won't countenance that, because they want us all to pretend they really are whatever sex they are masquerading as.

silverharp

RandRuns wrote: »

The simplest solution is also the most obvious - have transgender leagues. Let them play each other.

But of course they won't countenance that, because they want us all to pretend they really are whatever sex they are masquerading as.

given that some women would like to compete with men when they can, why dont they just compete in the male events?

randd1

RandRuns wrote: »

The simplest solution is also the most obvious - have transgender leagues. Let them play each other.

But of course they won't countenance that, because they want us all to pretend they really are whatever sex they are masquerading as.

It's also common sense, and there's no place for common sense in the world today.

babaracus

Deleted User wrote: »

Got a link for that? The latter one.


Even in tennis and the like I've heard "Well even if there are hundreds of men who could beat Serena Williams that's still only a small number of men". It leaves out the thousand upon thousands who if they'd kept playing at a decent level would also beat her. In a lot of cases the men's and women's categories may as well be different sports. In the case of soccer the best and most simple thing they could have ever done would be to make the goals smaller.

The US women's team being beaten by boys is not an outlier. The Australian women's national team were also beaten 7-0 by 15 year old boys:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-women-s-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html

Just shows the difference in quality.

inforfun

https://www.thelocal.se/20130116/45646

Sweden W - AIK U17 boys 0-3

But:

Within 30 minutes, the boys had plucked one goal from the women, despite Sundhage asking the AIK under-17 team to take out one of its defenders and play with only 10 players on the field, reports the tabloid Aftonbladet.

Barna77

There's an anti woke help line in the UK hahaha

It's disgraceful Joe

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

The simplest solution is also the most obvious - have transgender leagues. Let them play each other.

But of course they won't countenance that, because they want us all to pretend they really are whatever sex they are masquerading as.

Oh, no.. they don't want us to pretend anything. They demand that we accept them completely and without reservation, putting away any suggestion of criticism, or recognition of the more.. negative aspects of the lifestyle they (or others similar to them) have chosen. And should they flip flop back and forth between identities, then we must accept that too.

Yup. That's reasonable, and fair.

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've refereed some kids football and my observations:
U-10s is fine. Some of the girls are the strongest on the pitch, makes sense because they develop earlier.
Pretty sure it's segregated after that.
U-11 the boys seem about the same but they get hurt a little more. It's like they've developed more strength but aren't used to impacts.
U-12 they seem roughly the same but knocks don't leave them floored.
U-13 and athleticism starts to really show and they're hard to keep up with.

I did 1 U-15 game (after an U-10) at short notice and the first 50/50 I was anywhere near I genuinely nearly panicked and instinctively blew my whistle. The forces involves, lumps of grass and muck flying up and the noises, I was sure they were both hurt. They weren't, they were fine and played on like nothing happened.
The difference in those couple of years is hard to overstate. With how timing of age categories works where I am you can pretty much forget the "Under" bit and the number is the age of most of the players. The 15 year olds (aside from some) are so much stronger and more athletic than you would expect from the other age groups. They're still awkward, gangly and don't completely know how to make use of their strength and still have a couple of years of development and growing to do. There's a vanishingly small proportion of fully grown women who could compete and keep up with even the 50-75 percentile of of local, non-cherry-picked 15 year old male soccer players.

I think in football a girl can play a year lower with boys ie if she's 14 she can play u 13 boys s. But after age group she's to move to an all girls team. I was looking at some of the u16s boys playing last year and thank God I'm not playing anymore , they look like they knock the shxt out of ya.

biko

Barna77 wrote: »

There's an anti woke help line in the UK hahaha

It's disgraceful Joe

Interesting, I didn't know that.

For example, we’ve had charity workers get in touch who were concerned funds were being diverted from helping vulnerable people to being used for diversity training.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-woke-helpline-counterweight-flooded-with-calls-s3r2xg9kj

kildare lad

kildare lad wrote: »

I think in football a girl can play a year lower with boys ie if she's 14 she can play u 13 boys s. But after age group she's to move to an all girls team. I was looking at some of the u16s boys playing last year and thank God I'm not playing anymore , they look like they knock the shxt out of ya.

It's different in different areas AFAIK. Then some leagues moved to summer over the last couple of years and were considering moving back then Covid happed so it was all up in the air.

Invidious

Bernie Sanders turns up at a presidential inauguration wearing a pair of homemade mittens ... and a woke high-school teacher claims this is all about white privilege.

Sen. Sanders is no white supremacist insurrectionist. But he manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege, in ways that my students could see and feel.

“When you see privilege, you know it,” I’d told them weeks before. Yet, when they saw Sen. Bernie Sanders manifesting privilege, when seemingly no one else did, I struggled to explain that disparity. I am beyond puzzled as to why so many are loving the images of Bernie and his gloves. Sweet, yes, the gloves, knit by an educator. So “Bernie.”

Not so sweet? The blindness I see, of so many (Bernie included), to the privileges Bernie represents. I don’t know many poor, or working class, or female, or struggling-to-be-taken-seriously folk who would show up at the inauguration of our 46th president dressed like Bernie. Unless those same folk had privilege. Which they don’t.

The woke seemingly don't even need to define the parameters of "white privilege" anymore ... it's now purely subjective because "We know it when we see it." And they see it everywhere, even in a pair of homemade brown mittens.

ExMachina1000

Invidious wrote: »

Bernie Sanders turns up at a presidential inauguration wearing a pair of homemade mittens ... and a woke high-school teacher claims this is all about white privilege.



The woke seemingly don't even need to define the parameters of "white privilege" anymore ... it's now purely subjective because "We know it when we see it." And they see it everywhere, even in a pair of homemade brown mittens.

And this "teacher " is helping to form the minds of young people.
Grim

Invidious

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

And this "teacher " is helping to form the minds of young people.
Grim

I know.

Imagine that a young person's education consists of finding "white privilege, male privilege and class privilege" absolutely everywhere, training him or her to spend life as a perpetual victim. So sad.

ExMachina1000

Invidious wrote: »

I know.

Imagine that your education consists of finding "white privilege, male privilege and class privilege" absolutely everywhere, training you to spend life as a perpetual victim. So sad.

No mathematics or physics today guys. Instead let's watch videos and find white supremacy instead.

Your homework over the weekend is to take a knee in front of a person of colour and apologise. No homework for any non white children this weekend

Cordell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No mathematics or physics today guys. Instead let's watch videos and find white supremacy instead.

Of course, you need to get the proper training before getting into mathematics or physics. People of color are severely underrepresented and it must be because of white supremacy.

Invidious

Cordell wrote: »

Of course, you need to get the proper training before getting into mathematics or physics. People of color are severely underrepresented and it must be because of white supremacy.

Naturally. But Seattle's school district is at the forefront of a movement to "rehumanize" maths:

The Seattle school district is planning to infuse all K-12 math classes with ethnic-studies questions that encourage students to explore how math has been “appropriated” by Western culture and used in systems of power and oppression, a controversial move that puts the district at the forefront of a movement to “rehumanize” math.

The district’s proposed framework outlines strands of discussion that teachers should incorporate into their classes. One leads students into exploring math’s roots “in the ancient histories of people and empires of color.” Another asks how math and science have been used to oppress and marginalize people of color, and who holds power in a math classroom.

Another theme focuses on resistance and liberation, encouraging students to recognize the mathematical practices and contributions of their own communities, and looking at how math has been used to free people from oppression.

There you go ... woke maths.

Danzy

Invidious wrote: »

Bernie Sanders turns up at a presidential inauguration wearing a pair of homemade mittens ... and a woke high-school teacher claims this is all about white privilege.




The woke seemingly don't even need to define the parameters of "white privilege" anymore ... it's now purely subjective because "We know it when we see it." And they see it everywhere, even in a pair of homemade brown mittens.

Without reading the article I know the teacher is very well to do and it's a very well to school.

Woke, progressive, even Left is rapidly moving towards being the preserve of the ruling class.

Sir Oxman

Invidious wrote: »

Naturally. But Seattle's school district is at the forefront of a movement to "rehumanize" maths:



There you go ... woke maths.

^
I bet humanity can't wait for all the mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc etc that emerge from that education system.

I can't say qualified as more than likely there'll be a quota system or how-oppressed-are-you system so doesn't matter if the graduates haven't got the skills, they'll get passes cOz oF dA rAcIsT wHiTe paTrIaRcHy


There were universities/colleges in that kip Seattle and elsewhere that gave pass marks to students who 'were traumatised' by the oppression they 'felt' post-George Floyd.
It's all one massive excuse.