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

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

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

Why would I even try and do that when my whole argument is predicated upon changing the way sports are structured, precisely because the way they are structured now doesn’t even allow me to name one athlete? I would only be able to name them if they made a name for themselves by excelling in the sport, but of course your argument is that you can guarantee with 100% certainty there will never be such an elite female athlete, to which I can only say fair enough.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That's absolute bollocks.

Sport isn't about letting everyone have a chance. You sound like you want everyone to have a participation trophy.

Also merit you said was about rewarding hard work. It's not. It's rewarding someone who is excellent at something. How naturally easier it may be for them is of no consequence.

Women and men are different. You accept that. That's why trans inclusion in the opposite sex's sports is wrong.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's absolute bollocks.

Sport isn't about letting everyone have a chance. You sound like you want everyone to have a participation trophy.

...

Women and men are different. You accept that. That's why trans inclusion in the opposite sex's sports is wrong.

No, equal opportunity to participate is not the same as everyone gets a participation trophy. I do accept that men and women are different, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that anyone should be excluded from a sport which they want to participate in whether they wish to compete against either women or men as long as they meet the criteria. At the moment the criteria in athletics are set to exclude women who are determined to have too high testosterone levels, and women are excluded from men’s sports even though they want to compete in the men’s sports, but the current rules in certain sports prohibit them from doing so. If the change in rules aren’t leading to fair play for all, there’s no reason they can’t change the criteria or the rules again. They change the rules arbitrarily as it is.

Quantum Erasure

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He was in Juno. A good film you should watch it.

Nominated for an Oscar aswell...

Dyr

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

One of the things you have to realise about criticial theory is it doesnt run on logic, it just tries to overwhelm logic.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, equal opportunity to participate is not the same as everyone gets a participation trophy. I do accept that men and women are different, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that anyone should be excluded from a sport which they want to participate in whether they wish to compete against either women or men as long as they meet the criteria. At the moment the criteria in athletics are set to exclude women who are determined to have too high testosterone levels, and women are excluded from men’s sports even though they want to compete in the men’s sports, but the current rules in certain sports prohibit them from doing so. If the change in rules aren’t leading to fair play for all, there’s no reason they can’t change the criteria or the rules again. They change the rules arbitrarily as it is.

As long as they meet the criteria....

There is only one barrier really for gender specific sports.

A woman needs to be a woman

A man needs to be a man

Once that criteria is met, it goes down to merit.

Testosterone levels are there to prevent cheating. Sometimes, rarely, a woman may have naturally occurring high testosterone levels, but they are outliers and rules to protect the majority should not change and leave open the door for swathes of cheating.

And women should not get to choose to participate against men in segregated sports. In the same way I can't choose to participate in an under 16's boxing competition.

Honestly, and I'm frankly amazed by this, I am taking the more "feminist" approach to this.

I want women to be able to compete in their sports and not be overshadowed by men who have a genetic advantage.

You seem to want equality not by raising women in sports up, but by handicapping men.

If a woman can't beat a man without a man being handicapped by rules, it's a hollow victory.

Daragh1980

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

Girly Gal

Daragh1980 wrote: »

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

I'm not so sure, but, I do think that puberty blockers should not be given and hormone treatment should not be started before they reach 17 or 18 years of age. There's absolutely no reason they can't live as their preferred gender until then, in fact it's probably a good idea they do to confirm that it is what they truly want.

Daragh1980

Girly Gal wrote: »

I'm not so sure, but, I do think that puberty blockers should not be given and hormone treatment should not be started before they reach 17 or 18 years of age. There's absolutely no reason they can't live as their preferred gender until then, in fact it's probably a good idea they do to confirm that it is what they truly want.

Both ladies are very disappointed with this week’s puberty blockers ruling.

silverharp

Daragh1980 wrote: »

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

Has there been any studies on the parents of trans kids, im guessing there would be some patterns alright

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Ok, I'll bite - what adjustments could be made to ensure that "everyone have an opportunity to compete on an equal footing."

Pick any sport you like and come up with some "adjustments" that could be made if women and men were to both compete against one another in that particular sport?

political analyst

Daragh1980 wrote: »

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

Have they been interviewed under their real names? If so, I think one of them was interviewed in the Irish Independent earlier this year.

grassylawn

Girly Gal wrote: »

I'm not so sure, but, I do think that puberty blockers should not be given and hormone treatment should not be started before they reach 17 or 18 years of age. There's absolutely no reason they can't live as their preferred gender until then, in fact it's probably a good idea they do to confirm that it is what they truly want.

That is the rationale for puberty blockers. They can delay developing secondary sexual characteristics until they are old enough to decide. The idea is that they can just discontinue the blockers and develop their genetic sex or they can proceed to hormone treatments etc to transition.

I entirely disagree with the concept, but I see how people might think it is a good idea.

Daragh1980

political analyst wrote: »

Have they been interviewed under their real names? If so, I think one of them was interviewed in the Irish Independent earlier this year.

Correct. The sex-positive parent.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly, and I'm frankly amazed by this, I am taking the more "feminist" approach to this.

I want women to be able to compete in their sports and not be overshadowed by men who have a genetic advantage.

You seem to want equality not by raising women in sports up, but by handicapping men.

If a woman can't beat a man without a man being handicapped by rules, it's a hollow victory.

It’s true that anyone can adopt any position they like on anything and call themselves a feminist nowadays, but I wouldn’t insult anyone by immediately assuming they’re a feminist just because they have ideas in common with them

But basically you’re arguing in favour of equality of outcomes, whereas I’m arguing in favour of equality of opportunity, and that means that women competing with men are also paid the same as men and receive the same benefits as men. Men’s sports are generally speaking vastly more well paid than women’s and there’s much greater investment in men’s sports than women’s sports. Women should be given the opportunity to be able to participate at the same level as men. That way there wouldn’t be “women’s sports” or “men’s sports” as such, though like I said, organisations and governing bodies could still segregate by sex if that was important to them, and individuals could join whatever organisation and compete in that organisations events in the categories they trained for. I wouldn’t expect a 100m sprinter to compete in marathons for example.

The genetic advantage argument is as arbitrary as the sex argument IMO. It ignores so much other context and conditions in sports. Using the logic that sports are segregated to give women a chance and forecasting that women’s sports would die a death if men were permitted to compete, is predicated upon two assumptions which we know already are not true - women lose out to other women all the time and it doesn’t put those women off competing in spite of the fact that they know they can’t possibly win. The second assumption is that men if they were permitted to compete, would always win. Even if it were true that men would always win, it doesn’t follow that women would never want to participate in the first place, nor does it follow that women would quit the sport in their droves, and what’s more, they are now incentivised by the fact that they are being paid equal to men and they receive the same level of investment and support as the men do.

This wouldn’t just mean that some women will lose out, there’s no denying that, but also it means that some men will lose out, that can’t be denied either. It would fundamentally change how sports are organised, structured and participated in. The US would still take home the bulk of medals in competitions, while poorer countries which do not have the capacity for the same level of investment such as Ireland, plenty of athletes from here train on training programmes in the US, will still be proud that they qualified at all. A bit like the example set by the Thai ladies football team after getting their asses handed to them by the US ladies team (an example of not just a win, but humiliating their competition, just for good measure) - they took it as a learning experience and vowed to improve and invest in the sport and try and get a full time national league going. Such plans require significant investment, and I still don’t imagine they would be able to invest in the sport to the same level as a country like the US, but that doesn’t put them off trying. I’m not sure having a few Thai men on their team would have them fare any better against the US women’s team, but they would have that opportunity.

It’s not just about equality of opportunity between men and women, but rather it’s about equality of opportunity on all grounds, not just sex. That way, the people with the best skills and talent and motivation really do become elite athletes, and not only that but their welfare is considered an important aspect of their participation in sport too. It would undoubtedly put a dint in the “win at all costs” mentality that is evident in countries producing athletes like the US, China and Russia, with what appears to be in some cases very little concern for the athletes welfare, but I don’t see the current setup as one that is based upon merit, it appears to be based upon who is able to get the best value for their investment, hence the level of cheating already involved in sports, indeed to win at all costs, because it costs a lot to compete in the first place.

You say it’s a hollow victory if a woman can’t beat a man without men being handicapped by rules, but if women are treated as though they are ‘handicapped men’ in the first place, and never given the equal opportunity to compete with men, then arguments that they shouldn’t be able to compete against each other under the same rules and the same qualifying criteria ring just as hollow IMO, especially when we know that there are women who want to compete with the men and vice versa - there are men who want to compete with the women. In reality the only thing that appears to be stopping them is the moral panic being perpetuated that women’s sports will die and women won’t want to compete, but that’s simply not true. Some women won’t want to compete, some men won’t want to compete, but those who still want to compete because they love the sport, will be able to do so - nobody is excluded, everyone has equal opportunity to participate, and the outcomes will be a true reflection of who are the elite athletes or competitors in the sport. That also accommodates your idea of merit - reward for excellence. It’s a hollow victory if you feel you haven’t actually excelled because you know there is better than you out there, but you’re not allowed to compete against them.


EDIT: This is the example I was trying to think of in relation to what I was saying about cheating and the “win at all costs” mentality earlier. I knew cheating was endemic in both women’s and men’s sports, but this ones a cracker

The “Dirtiest Race”

The 100-meter event at the 1988 Seoul Games has been called the “dirtiest race” because of drug use by the competitors. Although Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson initially won, he was stripped of the medal just days later, after testing positive for stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. Johnson later claimed that it wasn’t really cheating if everyone else was using drugs. While that was maybe not the most-convincing argument, Johnson had a point. His gold medal was given to second-place finisher Carl Lewis, an American who had tested positive for banned stimulants during the U.S. Olympic trials that year but had avoided a suspension. Britain’s Linford Christie, who was upgraded to the silver medal, tested positive for pseudoephedrine, but the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later cleared him, after he blamed the test result on ginseng tea.

8 Olympic Cheating Scandals

Quantum Erasure

Well, you've got playing devils advocate down to a fine art, I'll give you that....But theres no way, I believe, that you actually believe in what your saying... just try read it back with a critical mind. (I haven't read past the second paragraph, and I'm not going to bother trying engage with you, given what I've already read) in other words, you win

I mean, other than arguing for trans women to get to compete with men, I don't know what you're actually going for...

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Well, you've got playing devils advocate down to a fine art, I'll give you that....But theres no way, I believe, that you actually believe in what your saying... just try read it back with a critical mind. (I haven't read past the second paragraph, and I'm not going to bother trying engage with you, given what I've already read) in other words, you win

I mean, other than arguing for trans women to get to compete with men, I don't know what you're actually going for...

I’m not trying to “win” anything, there’s no devil’s advocate because I don’t see it as a zero sum game. I could just as easily have accused people who are against the idea of using people they didn’t care about before to argue against equal treatment for people they care about even less. Summary of the post above yours is just basically saying the “arguments” against the idea don’t stand up to any scrutiny when there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite of those same arguments is already true. The argument basically comes down to the point that there’s more context involved than simply boiling the argument down to sex and making any determination solely on that basis.

It’s just fearmongering and basing arguments on stereotypes from their own perspective are the only arguments against allowing people to participate and compete in their chosen categories, ignoring all other context and conditions. Their arguments are basically catastrophising the same as any other forms of argument which were used to perpetuate discrimination against any group of people throughout history while claiming it was for their own good. Like the US women’s team claiming that they trounced the Thai women’s team as it would have been “disrespectful” not to have done so -

Women's World Cup: Alex Morgan defends USA celebrations against Thailand

Apply your own critical faculties to that justification for a display of what was, IMO, the epitome of unsportsmanlike behaviour. They did it because they could get away with it.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not trying to “win” anything, there’s no devil’s advocate because I don’t see it as a zero sum game. I could just as easily have accused people who are against the idea of using people they didn’t care about before to argue against equal treatment for people they care about even less. Summary of the post above yours is just basically saying the “arguments” against the idea don’t stand up to any scrutiny when there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite of those same arguments is already true. The argument basically comes down to the point that there’s more context involved than simply boiling the argument down to sex and making any determination solely on that basis.

It’s just fearmongering and basing arguments on stereotypes from their own perspective are the only arguments against allowing people to participate and compete in their chosen categories, ignoring all other context and conditions. Their arguments are basically catastrophising the same as any other forms of argument which were used to perpetuate discrimination against any group of people throughout history while claiming it was for their own good. Like the US women’s team claiming that they trounced the Thai women’s team as it would have been “disrespectful” not to have done so -

Women's World Cup: Alex Morgan defends USA celebrations against Thailand

Apply your own critical faculties to that justification for a display of what was, IMO, the epitome of unsportsmanlike behaviour. They did it because they could get away with it.

I don't see the relevance of the US women's team victory over the Thai that you keep bringing up, the only thing that proves is that the standard of teams making the women's world cup varies greatly. The reality is that same US women's team are an elite women's team, but, would be also rans against even lower level profession men's teams., even the current Irish men's team, (who wouldn't exactly be elite level), who haven't won a game or even scored in ages would annihilate the US women's team.

bewareofthedog

It's all good campaigning for Women to be paid as much as Men in sports, but where does the money come from?

There's far more money in men's football for example because it draws much bigger crowds, draws more TV viewers, which draws more advertisers, which in turn draws more sponsors etc.

No matter how much investment in put into Women's football they'll never get even semi close to the level professional male youth teams play at, that's the reality.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

I don't see the relevance of the US women's team victory over the Thai that you keep bringing up, the only thing that proves is that the standard of teams making the women's world cup varies greatly. The reality is that same US women's team are an elite women's team, but, would be also rans against even lower level profession men's teams., even the current Irish men's team, (who wouldn't exactly be elite level), who haven't won a game or even scored in ages would annihilate the US women's team.

Unless you’re choosing to be purposely obtuse, it’s not that difficult to see that the disparity in outcomes isn’t solely based upon the sex of the participants.

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unless you’re choosing to be purposely obtuse, it’s not that difficult to see that the disparity in outcomes isn’t solely based upon the sex of the participants.

What's your point?

It was two Women's teams, the no1 seed thrashed one of the worst seeds.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

It's all good campaigning for Women to be paid as much as Men in sports, but where does the money come from?

I’m told the Williams sisters aren’t short of a few bob

But seriously though, it comes from the same sources as the men’s game. I have very little interest in the men’s game but until the last year or so most of the sports content on Sky was wall to wall men’s football, and when they showed a women’s game of football, it was an outrage, an outrage I tells ya, tokenism, progressive woke types and all the usual stuff. It’s not that the sport isn’t popular, it’s that women aren’t even given a chance, so the idea of being taken over by the men in “their own game”? I just can’t see them making the sport any more popular than it isn’t already if I’m being honest, without the same level of investment as the men’s game which we’ve been used to for decades.

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m told the Williams sisters aren’t short of a few bob

But seriously though, it comes from the same sources as the men’s game. I have very little interest in the men’s game but until the last year or so most of the sports content on Sky was wall to wall men’s football, and when they showed a women’s game of football, it was an outrage, an outrage I tells ya, tokenism, progressive woke types and all the usual stuff. It’s not that the sport isn’t popular, it’s that women aren’t even given a chance, so the idea of being taken over by the men in “their own game”? I just can’t see them making the sport any more popular than it isn’t already if I’m being honest, without the same level of investment as the men’s game which we’ve been used to for decades.

No amount of investment will overcome biology. The general public will not invest the same amount of money or time to watch a sport like soccer being played at a low level compared to the high level the men's game is played at.

The Australian national women's team lost 7-0 to the newcastle jets, a semi amatuer aussie under 15 team. Man utd women lost 9-0 to Salford cities youth team, whose senior team resides in football league two. I'd be fairly confident neither team went at full pelt either for fear of causing injury.

Tennis is a different story, it's still an entertaining watch because a ball is being pinged back and fourth constantly.

bewareofthedog

Girly Gal wrote: »

I don't see the relevance of the US women's team victory over the Thai that you keep bringing up, the only thing that proves is that the standard of teams making the women's world cup varies greatly. The reality is that same US women's team are an elite women's team, but, would be also rans against even lower level profession men's teams., even the current Irish men's team, (who wouldn't exactly be elite level), who haven't won a game or even scored in ages would annihilate the US women's team.

Just to add a bit more context to this after a quick google, the Womens US national team who are world champions got hammered in a match against Dallas's U-15 team. Some people really underestimate the difference in physicality between both genders.

Candamir

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 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 IAAF do not require XX females to lower their testosterone. What you have written grossly misrepresents the rules. The rules apply ONLY to DSD (Differences of Sexual Development/ Intersex)athletes, in other words athletes who have high circulating testosterone due to their male chromosomes.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

No amount of investment will overcome biology. The general public will not invest the same amount of money or time to watch a sport like soccer being played at a low level compared to the high level the men's game is played at.

The men’s game has had decades to develop; the women’s game? Not so much. You might as well be saying nobody’s going to watch Lionel Messi when they can watch Peter Crouch because there’s no overcoming biology. It’s not about overcoming biology, it’s about what each player brings to the game, their different skills and strengths, not just whether or not they can bend a ball like Beckham.

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Tennis is a different story, it's still an entertaining watch because a ball is being pinged back and fourth constantly.

One could judge soccer by the same standard? It’s just pinging a ball back and forth? Except there’s more to both sports than just pinging a ball back and forth.

One eyed Jack

Candamir wrote: »

The IAAF do not require XX females to lower their testosterone. What you have written grossly misrepresents the rules. The rules apply ONLY to DSD (Differences of Sexual Development/ Intersex)athletes, in other words athletes who have high circulating testosterone due to their male chromosomes.

What are you claiming I misrepresented? I said female athletes? They’re still female athletes, albeit with what are developmental sex disorders which are considered to give them a biological advantage over their competition which is other biological females. Biology doesn’t give a shyte what is classed as a disorder if you’re going to demand that we restrict ourselves to biology, because biology doesn’t have the capacity to care one way or the other like we as humans do, as a result of biology.

Wouldn’t mind but in the post you quoted I provided the links to information which provided evidence both for, and against the basis for the decision by the IAAF, because if I didn’t, I would be asked to provide evidence anyway for every post I make that resembles a claim. It’s the easiest way to stifle a discussion, best get it out of the way, and still people complain when I provide evidence to support my opinions. I even provide evidence where a claim is questionable and the science is far from conclusive.

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The men’s game has had decades to develop; the women’s game? Not so much. You might as well be saying nobody’s going to watch Lionel Messi when they can watch Peter Crouch because there’s no overcoming biology. It’s not about overcoming biology, it’s about what each player brings to the game, their different skills and strengths, not just whether or not they can bend a ball like Beckham.

Messi is one of a kind. Crouch, sure who'd want to watch him. Get back to me when the best Womans soccer has to offer is not getting hammered by amatuer boys under 15 teams.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Messi is one of a kind. Crouch, sure who'd want to watch him. Get back to me when the best Womans soccer has to offer is not getting hammered by amatuer boys under 15 teams.

They’re both one of a kind in all fairness! Crouch holds the record for the most header goals, he towers about a foot over Messi but Messi is still incredible to watch, as is that goal by Crouch in fairness, one of the best goals in the game. And here’s some more, our own Stephanie Roche in there and all -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY4TM7dV1YU

Good football is good football no matter who’s playing.

EDIT: I’m wrong about Crouch. He only holds the Premier League record.