Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so in essence your arguing for trans women to be let compete with the men...

If they want to, I know of one who does already, at elite level -Chris Mosier

For their tiny numbers, cycling seems to be a popular choice of sport.

Girly Gal

You obviously don't understand the concept of elite sports, it's about the best competing against each other, the best and most popular sports work as meritocracies with the best rising to the top, once you impose artificial handicaps and quotas, it's no longer elite sport and completely destroys the principle of meritocracy in sport. Elite female athletes in any sport would wipe the floor with the average amateur male in their chosen sport, but, would stand no chance against elite men, that's the reality.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the concept of elite sports, it's about the best competing against each other, the best and most popular sports work as meritocracies with the best rising to the top, once you impose artificial handicaps and quotas, it's no longer elite sport and completely destroys the principle of meritocracy in sport. Elite female athletes in any sport would wipe the floor with the average amateur male in their chosen sport, but, would stand no chance against elite men, that's the reality.

The reality is artificial handicaps and quotas and restrictions are imposed already even in elite sports to maintain fair competition. They’re still elite sports. At elite level in any sport, it’s a business, not just a sport any more. I’d suggest you don’t just take my word for it, but you should take the word of elite athlete Mary Cain about her experience at the Nike Academy -

I Was the Fastest Girl in America, Until I Joined Nike

And she’s by no means alone -

At Nike, Revolt Led by Women Leads to Exodus of Male Executives


“The principle of meritocracy in sport” is a myth which is great for motivation, and as long as you keep believing that, it means the executives involved in the sport will be the ultimate winners -

With a market value of about $112 billion and annual revenues of around $36 billion, Nike is a global behemoth in the athletic market, where its dominance went largely unchallenged for several decades.


The Williams sisters earnings are a pittance by comparison, but they’re worth every cent Nike has invested in them -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzyS4grlnw

Let’s just say I have a very different understanding to your understanding of elite sports.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let’s just say I have a very different understanding to your understanding of elite sports.

You certainly do.

And by different, I mean obscure and incorrect in this context.

Women simply can not compete with men in the majority of sports and this is the reason it is segregated by biological sex.

The finest female football player would not get into a team in any of the top football leagues. This isn't sexism at play, this is down to talent and ability.

When a sport requires physicality, men are genetically disposed to have an advantage.

As stated before Katie Taylor is hailed as a sporting hero for her ability to outbox women. If you put her in the ring with an above average professional male boxer, she would be destroyed.

It's not doing anything for feminism or trans rights to pretend that men and women aren't different.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You certainly do.

And by different, I mean obscure and incorrect in this context.

...

It's not doing anything for feminism or trans rights to pretend that men and women aren't different.

I’m not pretending they aren’t different? I’ve said numerous times now that the governing bodies of the sports can change the rules or qualifying criteria or anything else which is within their remit to make any sport fair to all for anyone who wants to compete at any level. They’ve done it numerous times in the past, they still do it today, and no doubt they will do it in the future. There’s nothing obscure or incorrect about it when the evidence is there already that the development of any sport shows that it has come a long way from its origins.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reality is artificial handicaps and quotas and restrictions are imposed already even in elite sports to maintain fair competition. They’re still elite sports. At elite level in any sport, it’s a business, not just a sport any more. I’d suggest you don’t just take my word for it, but you should take the word of elite athlete Mary Cain about her experience at the Nike Academy -

I Was the Fastest Girl in America, Until I Joined Nike

And she’s by no means alone -

At Nike, Revolt Led by Women Leads to Exodus of Male Executives


“The principle of meritocracy in sport” is a myth which is great for motivation, and as long as you keep believing that, it means the executives involved in the sport will be the ultimate winners -

With a market value of about $112 billion and annual revenues of around $36 billion, Nike is a global behemoth in the athletic market, where its dominance went largely unchallenged for several decades.


The Williams sisters earnings are a pittance by comparison, but they’re worth every cent Nike has invested in them -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzyS4grlnw

Let’s just say I have a very different understanding to your understanding of elite sports.

You've just proved you don't understand the concept of elite sports. You mentioned the Williams sisters earnings being a pittance, well if they had to compete in open competition with elite men, we would never have even heard of them let alone them earning a "pittance " of multi millions

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not pretending they aren’t different? I’ve said numerous times now that the governing bodies of the sports can change the rules or qualifying criteria or anything else which is within their remit to make any sport fair to all for anyone who wants to compete at any level. They’ve done it numerous times in the past, they still do it today, and no doubt they will do it in the future.

Change what rules? What rules can rugby or football change to make it "fair to all"

Morathi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not pretending they aren’t different? I’ve said numerous times now that the governing bodies of the sports can change the rules or qualifying criteria or anything else which is within their remit to make any sport fair to all for anyone who wants to compete at any level. They’ve done it numerous times in the past, they still do it today, and no doubt they will do it in the future. There’s nothing obscure or incorrect about it when the evidence is there already that the development of any sport shows that it has come a long way from its origins.

How would World Rugby change International Men's Rugby Union?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not pretending they aren’t different? I’ve said numerous times now that the governing bodies of the sports can change the rules or qualifying criteria or anything else which is within their remit to make any sport fair to all for anyone who wants to compete at any level. They’ve done it numerous times in the past, they still do it today, and no doubt they will do it in the future. There’s nothing obscure or incorrect about it when the evidence is there already that the development of any sport shows that it has come a long way from its origins.

Sport is a business and has changed. No doubt about that. It still remains to be for the elite of the elite at the highest levels. Women cannot compete equally with men on that level in almost every sport. That's the point. No governing body can change rules to change that fact that if a man were to compete in the majority of sports with a woman and both had equal training, a man would win 99% of the time

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

When a sport requires physicality, men are genetically disposed to have an advantage.
.

Physical sports that men dominate like...chess

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

You've just proved you don't understand the concept of elite sports. You mentioned the Williams sisters earnings being a pittance, well if they had to compete in open competition with elite men, we would never have even heard of them let alone them earning a "pittance " of multi millions

You simply don’t know that. Nobody does, because sports aren’t set up like that. You spoke of the principle of meritocracy in sport, ignoring the fact that meritocracy doesn’t mean anything, investment means everything. That’s why women’s sports are where they are, and men’s sports are where they are - investment in the sports is what makes the difference, it’s absolutely not based upon merit. The medals are just for show!

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sport is a business and has changed. No doubt about that. It still remains to be for the elite of the elite at the highest levels. Women cannot compete equally with men on that level in almost every sport. That's the point. No governing body can change rules to change that fact that if a man were to compete in the majority of sports with a woman and both had equal training, a man would win 99% of the time

You can be guaranteed if the governing bodies wanted to, they would find a way to introduce measures to open the sport up to allow all competitors to compete on an equal footing regardless of their protected characteristics.

Smacruairi

Jack I've already told you several times, there is nothing in the laws of football and most sports that forbids women from competing. They don't get picked because biologically they are not up to the standard, the same way children aren't up to competing with adults.

Please stop ignoring this very very obvious point.

Unless you literally tied men's shoes together and put a 50kg weight pack on them, I can't see how your sports plan works, and if it did, it would probably be the end of elite sport full stop

Morathi

Girly Gal wrote: »

You've just proved you don't understand the concept of elite sports. You mentioned the Williams sisters earnings being a pittance, well if they had to compete in open competition with elite men, we would never have even heard of them let alone them earning a "pittance " of multi millions

I know it's not an open match, but they did play against
karsten braasch in 1998, when he was seeded around 200.

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx

Was a bit of fun more than anything, but not without merit in terms of this discussion.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m trying Cteven

The real answer is we simply have no idea what would happen. Because it’s not just about physicality as another poster suggests. There are rules and standards and criteria which still would have to be adhered to for people who want to compete in the sport, and governing bodies will still be able to issue a ban on new technologies which it is claimed give competitors an unfair advantage over their competition. Anyone know where I can get a pair of these in black?

Nike Vaporfly ban: why World Athletics had to act against the high-tech shoes

We do know. We can already compare men's and women's sports. For example, running times in Athletics.

I have absolutely no idea what relevance your Nike Vapor fly ban has.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Jack I've already told you several times, there is nothing in the laws of football and most sports that forbids women from competing. They don't get picked because biologically they are not up to the standard, the same way children aren't up to competing with adults.

Please stop ignoring this very very obvious point.

Unless you literally tied men's shoes together and put a 50kg weight pack on them, I can't see how your sports plan works, and if it did, it would probably be the end of elite sport full stop

I wasn’t ignoring your point. I just don’t agree with you is all -

Why are elite female footballers barred from playing with men?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We do know. We can already compare men's and women's sports. For example, running times in Athletics.

I have absolutely no idea what relevance your Nike Vapor fly ban has.

It was claimed they gave competitors an unfair advantage over their competition? I said as much in the post, it was in the link and all! I have no idea how you managed to miss the point and that was only one paragraph! One paragraph!

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn’t ignoring your point. I just don’t agree with you is all -

Why are elite female footballers barred from playing with men?

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in football laws of the game that segregates gender. Local leagues might do so to promote the female equivalent of the league, that is it

Your own link talks about non segregated leagues up to u18,after that the biological difference is just too big to ignore.

You don't agree with the point because it goes against your ideology, and you don't seem to understand competitive sports, which is why you've link dumped about shoes, about the Williams sisters, about anything else and refuse to engage with the hard evidence provided to you by Olympic times in solo events etc.

You are now actively trying to ruin women's sports and as someone who has coached women's teams, I won't have it, sorry.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was claimed they gave competitors an unfair advantage over their competition? I said as much in the post, it was in the link and all! I have no idea how you managed to miss the point and that was only one paragraph! One paragraph!

An unfair advantage hence why there are calls for them to be banned. I don't see how this backs up your point?

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was claimed they gave competitors an unfair advantage over their competition? I said as much in the post, it was in the link and all! I have no idea how you managed to miss the point and that was only one paragraph! One paragraph!

An unfair advantage like testosterone in women's sports?

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in football laws of the game that segregates gender. Local leagues might do so to promote the female equivalent of the league, that is it

Your own link talks about non segregated leagues up to u18,after that the biological difference is just too big to ignore.

You don't agree with the point because it goes against your ideology.

You have to be taking the proverbial? I’ve given you an example which goes against your ideology. The fact that I disagree with you is very much relevant when I’m able to provide evidence to support my opinion which directly contradicts your opinion!

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

An unfair advantage hence why there are calls for them to be banned. I don't see how this backs up your point?

My point, is that they were able to introduce a rule which banned them.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have to be taking the proverbial? I’ve given you an example which goes against your ideology. The fact that I disagree with you is very much relevant when I’m able to provide evidence to support my opinion which directly contradicts your opinion!

Laws of the game, football, fifa, look up and quote me where they segregate gender. Ill wait, until then you keep your "proverbial". What you pointed to was local league rules, they same way ages are differentiated locally.

So no, you didn't provide evidence, Jack.

You however think that the rules of entire sports should be changed to ensure "all can play", despite the fact that both men, women, and transmen are all fine with the status quo, it's only trans women who are not good enough to make it at their natal sex's sport to succeed who want the world to change.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You simply don’t know that. Nobody does, because sports aren’t set up like that. You spoke of the principle of meritocracy in sport, ignoring the fact that meritocracy doesn’t mean anything, investment means everything. That’s why women’s sports are where they are, and men’s sports are where they are - investment in the sports is what makes the difference, it’s absolutely not based upon merit. The medals are just for show!

Well that's horse****.

Simply not true. Women's sport is where it is because it's not as good as men's.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can be guaranteed if the governing bodies wanted to, they would find a way to introduce measures to open the sport up to allow all competitors to compete on an equal footing regardless of their protected characteristics.

Competitors at elite level both male and female already compete on an equal footing, for example no amount of money is going to make an elite female sprinter beat elite male sprinters, sport doesn't work like that. Also you talk about the Nike Vapor Fly, if it's available to all athletes it negates it's advantage, it's only those who chose not to use them that are at a disadvantage.
So even if somehow something was invented to allow elite female athletes increase their performance to match elite male athletes levels, wouldn't it also be available to male athletes so their performance would increase proportionately, so the net gain for female athletes versus male athletes would be negated, unless of course male athletes are not allowed access to it, so then not everyone is competing on an equal footing ( female athletes would be given an unfair advantage).

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

Competitors at elite level both male and female already compete on an equal footing, for example no amount of money is going to make an elite female sprinter beat elite male sprinters, sport doesn't work like that. Also you talk about the Nike Vapor Fly, if it's available to all athletes it negates it's advantage, it's only those who chose not to use them that are at a disadvantage.
So even if somehow something was invented to allow elite female athletes increase their performance to match elite male athletes levels, wouldn't it also be available to male athletes so their performance would increase proportionately, so the net gain for female athletes versus male athletes would be negated, unless of course male athletes are not allowed access to it, so then not everyone is competing on an equal footing ( female athletes would be given an unfair advantage).

No, the whole point is that regardless of their sex, the competition would be fair to all competitors. Your argument is essentially the same as looking at someone who is an elite in the sport, and examining why they’re better than their competitors, so any way in which they have a biological advantage which makes them that much more elite than their elite competitors immediately means any biological advantage they have is ‘unfair’.

Merit as I’m given to understand it, is based upon reward for work or effort. So if their biological advantage gives them an edge over their competition which means their competition has to work harder - their competitors should be rewarded, not them. It just doesn’t make any sense?

Since we’re talking about elite athletes anyway, can we at least agree that they are by definition of being elite, rare among the population? It’s accepted as fact that elite female athletes have higher testosterone levels than among the general female population. This is a natural biological advantage they have over their competition, and yet if their testosterone levels are too high, they are expected to lower their testosterone levels in order to qualify for competition. They are effectively being handicapped to make the competition fair, rather than recognise that they are the elite among the elite!

Personally, I think there’s more to it than just their biology, but the science on it is far from settled -

Testosterone limits for female athletes based on 'flawed' research

Just for balance -

Naturally produced testosterone gives female athletes “significant” competitive edge

The competition would be fair?

What do you mean? Are you advocating that everyone have the same chance of winning despite not having the same ability?

Merit is being rewarded for excelling in a particular field. Not because you put in work.

Vic_08

This thread has once again degenerated into a ridiculous series of blind alleys generated by a single poster who simply cannot argue a topic without spamming walls of off-topic nonsense in order to defend the indefensible.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The competition would be fair?

What do you mean? Are you advocating that everyone have the same chance of winning despite not having the same ability?

Merit is being rewarded for excelling in a particular field. Not because you put in work.

I’m saying that everyone have the opportunity to compete on an equal footing, and that would mean making adjustments to the rules in order for everyone to compete in a sport that is fair to everyone overall. I don’t think it simply comes down to biology or physiology which makes one athlete better than another.

I’m not seeing the distinction between what I said and what you’re saying regarding merit to be honest - it’s recognition, or reward. One doesn’t excel in their chosen sport by sitting on their arse and phoning it in on the day.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the whole point is that regardless of their sex, the competition would be fair to all competitors. Your argument is essentially the same as looking at someone who is an elite in the sport, and examining why they’re better than their competitors, so any way in which they have a biological advantage which makes them that much more elite than their elite competitors immediately means any biological advantage they have is ‘unfair’.

Merit as I’m given to understand it, is based upon reward for work or effort. So if their biological advantage gives them an edge over their competition which means their competition has to work harder - their competitors should be rewarded, not them. It just doesn’t make any sense?

Since we’re talking about elite athletes anyway, can we at least agree that they are by definition of being elite, rare among the population? It’s accepted as fact that elite female athletes have higher testosterone levels than among the general population. This is a natural biological advantage they have over their competition, and yet if their testosterone levels are too high, they are expected to lower their testosterone levels in order to qualify for competition. They are effectively being handicapped to make the competition fair, rather than recognise that they are the elite among the elite!

Personally, I think there’s more to it than just their biology, but the science on it is far from settled -

Testosterone limits for female athletes based on 'flawed' research

Just for balance -

Naturally produced testosterone gives female athletes “significant” competitive edge

You're correct that elite level athletes are rare among the general population, as I've already stated elite female athletes would wipe the floor with the average male from the general public in their chosen sports, however, they are no match for their elite male counterparts, no amount of extra funding or training will close the gap fully, a very marginal gain might be made, but, not enough to make them competitive with their elite male counterparts. If you don't believe or accept this, you should easily be able to list 5 or 6 elite female athletes who can consistently compete and occasionly win against elite Male athletes in there chosen sport