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

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I suggest you go to talk to female athletes as to whether they would welcome the idea of competing against men, and the undoing of the division of most sports based on sex, and whether they would continue in their chosen sport when having to compete against men, and you will find that being against the idea is not based in 'prejudice', but an acknowledgement of sex differences.

Have you done that Cteven? That’s how you know, right? Or are your assumptions about women’s opinions one way or the other entirely based upon your own opinions. I’d suggest it’s very much the latter than the former. Of those women that I have talked to, they want to compete with men, but they are prevented from doing so by the organisations rules. I wouldn’t base my opinions on just those I have talked to though, because that wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other. Objectively, the fact is that because of the rules, women who want to, can’t compete in sports with men -


Roche began playing football with the boys on the streets of her native Shankill. After a brief spell with Valeview Shankill FC was curtailed by rules against mixed-gender football, Roche turned out for Cabinteely Girls. She progressed to playing for Stella Maris, where she struck up a forward partnership with Áine O'Gorman in the club's Under-18 team.


Stephanie Roche


Stephanie Labbé doesn’t know the reasoning behind the PDL's rule that forbids women from playing with men but says she thinks it’s an old rule that has never been challenged before. The PDL did not respond to requests for comment.

“I don’t understand it,” Labbé says, adding that she agrees there should be female-specific leagues so that women have a fair opportunity to compete in their sport. “But I think that, for the women that beat those odds and can overcome those disadvantages, it’s time we start thinking about how we can support them and put them in an environment that’s going to push them to the next level.”

It’s strange, Labbé says, to grow up playing mixed football only for the rules to change when you get older. “I don’t understand why, once we become 18 or 19, it all of a sudden becomes so divided and the crossover becomes so rare and foreign to everybody.”

It's not as simple as telling elite female players to just join an equivalent women's team, as many places do not offer women's teams at the same level. Unable to play with the Calgary Foothills, Labbé joined Linköpings FC in Sweden. But she says she plans to try to get the rule revisited so that in future women may be able to have the same opportunities as men.

She’s also received lots of messages from young girls and parents of young girls who currently play with boys and want to continue doing so. “If I can get this rule changed for one of those young girls who dreams of doing this, who may grow up to be ten times the keeper I am today – if I can get this changed so that she can one day play in the PDL, that would be amazing.”


Why are elite female footballers barred from playing with men?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Sorry, but I will trust them over you.

No need to apologise for it Cteven, I know what you really mean is you’ll trust your own opinions over anyone else’s, unless they agree with your opinions of course, then you won’t even question them at all.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you done that Cteven? That’s how you know, right? Or are your assumptions about women’s opinions one way or the other entirely based upon your own opinions. I’d suggest it’s very much the latter than the former. Of those women that I have talked to, they want to compete with men, but they are prevented from doing so by the organisations rules. I wouldn’t base my opinions on just those I have talked to though, because that wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other. Objectively, the fact is that because of the rules, women who want to, can’t compete in sports with men -


Roche began playing football with the boys on the streets of her native Shankill. After a brief spell with Valeview Shankill FC was curtailed by rules against mixed-gender football, Roche turned out for Cabinteely Girls. She progressed to playing for Stella Maris, where she struck up a forward partnership with Áine O'Gorman in the club's Under-18 team.


Stephanie Roche


Stephanie Labbé doesn’t know the reasoning behind the PDL's rule that forbids women from playing with men but says she thinks it’s an old rule that has never been challenged before. The PDL did not respond to requests for comment.

“I don’t understand it,” Labbé says, adding that she agrees there should be female-specific leagues so that women have a fair opportunity to compete in their sport. “But I think that, for the women that beat those odds and can overcome those disadvantages, it’s time we start thinking about how we can support them and put them in an environment that’s going to push them to the next level.”

It’s strange, Labbé says, to grow up playing mixed football only for the rules to change when you get older. “I don’t understand why, once we become 18 or 19, it all of a sudden becomes so divided and the crossover becomes so rare and foreign to everybody.”

It's not as simple as telling elite female players to just join an equivalent women's team, as many places do not offer women's teams at the same level. Unable to play with the Calgary Foothills, Labbé joined Linköpings FC in Sweden. But she says she plans to try to get the rule revisited so that in future women may be able to have the same opportunities as men.

She’s also received lots of messages from young girls and parents of young girls who currently play with boys and want to continue doing so. “If I can get this rule changed for one of those young girls who dreams of doing this, who may grow up to be ten times the keeper I am today – if I can get this changed so that she can one day play in the PDL, that would be amazing.”


Why are elite female footballers barred from playing with men?

Fantastic, another Google search. Here let me do one. Are the girls who took this case prejudiced against themselves?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/connecticut-transgender-athletes-face-federal-discrimination-complaint-from-females-over-title-ix-violations/

I am disputing your accusation of being prejudiced.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No need to apologise for it Cteven, I know what you really mean is you’ll trust your own opinions over anyone else’s, unless they agree with your opinions of course, then you won’t even question them at all.

Haha you edited out the rest of my post! Very telling. I mostly certainly will trust the opinion of numerous scientists over yourself, who can give no clear reasoning as to why the study is wrong other than irrelevant links to how some members of the air force are obese.

There is a difference between being skeptical and questioning, and just being an outright contrarian who wants to put their own opinion on a pedestal.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Fantastic, another Google search. Here let me do one. Are the girls who took this case prejudiced against themselves?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/connecticut-transgender-athletes-face-federal-discrimination-complaint-from-females-over-title-ix-violations/

I am disputing your accusation of being prejudiced.

‘Twasn’t a google search at all, the examples I gave, I gave them in the thread already, because they are a bit more objective than me saying women want to play with men and you saying they don’t.

In the case you’re referring to, it’s obviously not the same thing. They don’t want to compete with the boys, which is fair enough, but for them it’s not just that. They are arguing that THEY are the victims of discrimination, because boys aren’t excluded from competing in the girls events. They want boys to be excluded from the the girls events, so they’re prejudiced alright, but not against themselves. They aren’t likely to win their case either, but they and the parents and the ADF are more interested in generating publicity around the issue.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Haha you edited out the rest of my post! Very telling.

...

There is a difference between being skeptical and questioning, and just being an outright contrarian who wants to put their own opinion on a pedestal.

I’ll do it again too, because I’m only interested in addressing the parts I think are relevant. The only difference Cteven is perspective. That’s all. I could easily level the same accusation at you, but it’s only mud flinging.

You have yet to address the reasons why in your opinion the girls who want to should be barred from competing with men, and you haven’t yet gone anywhere near addressing why women are subjected to violations of their human rights if they want to compete in women’s sports at elite levels and whether or not you think it’s acceptable?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll do it again too, because I’m only interested in addressing the parts I think are relevant. The only difference Cteven is perspective. That’s all. I could easily level the same accusation at you, but it’s only mud flinging.

You have yet to address the reasons why in your opinion the girls who want to should be barred from competing with men, and you haven’t yet gone anywhere near addressing why women are subjected to violations of their human rights if they want to compete in women’s sports at elite levels and whether or not you think it’s acceptable?

What accusation? You are discounting a peer reviewed research paper in a highly regarded scientific journal due to some whimsical article about obesity in the Air Force and your lack of understanding of statistics. You are selectively editing my posts because you know full well you have been posting manure, and cannot in any way back up your claims. The best you can do is post one minor controversy in a vain attempt to undermine said academic journal. And you are now posing questions to quickly move the discussion on and away from the manure. What I will give you is at least you have reduced the word count of your posts. Every cloud has a silver lining I guess.

I'd answer your questions but sure I'm only interested in

One eyed Jack wrote: »

addressing the parts that I think are relevant

so I won't.

Good night and good luck!

John Doe1

As a liberal, I will defend to the death the right for someone to say and believe that are not the right gender but that does not mean I have to agree that it has any basis in biological fact.

The incident with Rachel Dolezal, im black because I feel black is fairly analogical to their whole argument and that was roundly condemned as cultural appropiation.

As an aside, the people who argue this seem to have a real issue with black-and-white thinking which to me as a 30yo man just seems so juvenile.

Quantum Erasure

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I suggest you go to talk to female athletes as to whether they would welcome the idea of competing against men, and the undoing of the division of most sports based on sex, and whether they would continue in their chosen sport when having to compete against men, and you will find that being against the idea is not based in 'prejudice', but an acknowledgement of sex differences.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

... the fact is that because of the rules, women who want to, can’t compete in sports with men -

...

Stephanie Labbé doesn’t know the reasoning behind the PDL's rule that forbids women from playing with men.... she agrees there should be female-specific leagues so that women have a fair opportunity to compete in their sport. “But I think that, for the women that beat those odds and can overcome those disadvantages, it’s time we start thinking about how we can support them and put them in an environment that’s going to push them to the next level.”

Seems to me, OEJ, that you're arguing for trans women to compete with men, and for women who want to, to be able to compete with men as well.

It's not as simple as telling elite female players to just join an equivalent women's team, as many places do not offer women's teams at the same level.

also that theres not enough women competing in sports to a higher level. How would that situation improve if womens divisions were done away with altogether?

Quantum Erasure

Apropos of nothing, I'll link a screenshot of a Twitter post, that I found on reddit, that I've posted elsewhere on Boards...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115557544&postcount=7927


(Yeah I know that gender identity and sexual orientation are totally separate things, but...)

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Seems to me, OEJ, that you're arguing for trans women to compete with men, and for women who want to, to be able to compete with men as well.

Trans women, trans men, men, women, they would all be competing together. Removing the sex testing from sports would also be a good thing IMO. The sports would just be mixed, as they are in every other social sphere where there is no discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

also that theres not enough women competing in sports to a higher level. How would that situation improve if womens divisions were done away with altogether?

It would be one less barrier of entry for people to overcome, both men and women. If one is of the opinion that there aren’t enough women competing in sports at a higher level, then they should encourage women to compete at higher level, same as is done in every other social sphere. It’s something like this initiative. It’s like someone saying there aren’t enough trans people competing in sports at a higher level, how can the situation be improved? In a couple of ways - drop the sex and gender discrimination, encourage more young people into sports at an earlier age, and provide opportunities for their development within the sport without discrimination as to their sex or gender.

The way it’s set up currently is a bit like a dog in a manger tbh - “we want to protect women’s sports for the few women we allow to play sports that nobody wants to watch because the women aren’t as good as the men so that’s why they’re not paid the same as the men, but this way we’re being fair to everyone!” It’s clearly not a setup that offers the same opportunities to everyone without discrimination as to their sex or gender, nor does it reward everyone equally for their achievements without discrimination as to their sex or gender. It just seems like these measures and the people who want to keep them, are more interested in protecting the men’s sports tbh. As someone said earlier in the thread - the standards would drop if women participate with men. I don’t think they would, they certainly haven’t dropped because women entered the labour market. If anything, they have only increased in environments where there is no discrimination as to the sex and gender of the candidates or employees or entrepreneurs.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Trans women, trans men, men, women, they would all be competing together. Removing the sex testing from sports would also be a good thing IMO. The sports would just be mixed, as they are in every other social sphere where there is no discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

Have you ever played any sport? There are a few limited sports in which sex is irrelevant but not too many.

suicide_circus

I went to a mixed primary & secondary school. Boys and girls did PE together until the age of 11 or 12 but after that we were sex segregated. This was not done for the laugh.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have you ever played any sport? There are a few limited sports in which sex is irrelevant but not too many.

Of course I have, there were no barriers to me participating in the sports I wanted to participate in either. I know plenty of people who can’t say the same thing though. The sex barrier is relevant only for keeping people out of the sport. It’s not relevant to the sport itself. Unless one imagines a sport requires testicles or a vulva to participate in any sport, but I think their sex organs are only relevant in adult entertainment.

suicide_circus

Mad. Completely mad.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

I went to a mixed primary & secondary school. Boys and girls did PE together until the age of 11 or 12 but after that we were sex segregated. This was not done for the laugh.

Was the secondary school in Carlow by any chance?

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Was the secondary school in Carlow by any chance?

No i didnt have the pleasure, nay, honour of being educated in Carlow.

jam_mac_jam

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I have, there were no barriers to me participating in the sports I wanted to participate in either. I know plenty of people who can’t say the same thing though. The sex barrier is relevant only for keeping people out of the sport. It’s not relevant to the sport itself. Unless one imagines a sport requires testicles or a vulva to participate in any sport, but I think their sex organs are only relevant in adult entertainment.

Its nothing to do with their sex organs, its to do with men's biological advantages over women, men are bigger, stronger and faster.

If you make sports mixed all you do is kill all women's sports. You keep women out of men's sport because they cannot compete at it at a high level.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

No i didnt have the pleasure, nay, honour of being educated in Carlow.

Ahh I dunno did that one go over your head or was it just a shìte joke, could be both I suppose, but what I was joking about was this recent fiasco -

Carlow school principal denies girls were told not to wear revealing clothes

I went to mixed primary, single sex secondary schools myself, did plenty of mixed sports and activities such as Irish dancing and music outside of the school too. I wanted my child to attend a single sex school, but the school he attended was a mixed sex school which offered more opportunities for his personal development than the single sex school. I know women who attended single sex schools and mixed sex schools and their opinions are a mixed bag depending upon their own individual experiences and their own personalities.

I served on the Board of Management at a Catholic school and there were some on the Board that wished to maintain the ehh, “purity” of what they imagined was the Catholic ethos. It wasn’t difficult to know what they were at, so when the school was approached by a mum who’s child was transgender who was interested in enrolling her child in the school, it only became obvious afterwards that she had no genuine interest in enrolling her child in the school. She just wanted to cause conflict. The point being, there are plenty of people who will act in bad faith in circumstances where there are no discrimination, but that shouldn’t mean that the vast majority of people who are genuine should be discriminated against and denied opportunities because of the thoughts of a few bad actors.

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Its nothing to do with their sex organs, its to do with men's biological advantages over women, men are bigger, stronger and faster.

If you make sports mixed all you do is kill all women's sports. You keep women out of men's sport because they cannot compete at it at a high level.

Except that rationale isn’t used to keep men out of men’s sports on the basis that some men have natural biological advantages over others. They’re celebrated for it, whereas women who have natural biological advantages over other women, suspicion is immediately cast upon them that they might be men, and it’s an easy accusation to make, that anyone can make it and their claims are investigated, putting women athletes through the ordeal described in some of those accounts in the report I provided earlier.

Making sports mixed won’t kill either women’s sports or men’s sports, and the only reason women can’t compete at higher level is because of the arbitrary rules that prohibit them from being given the opportunity to do so. It’s like arguing that men can’t compete at a high level so they shouldn’t be allowed to. That justification for discrimination doesn’t make any sense. Give women the opportunity to compete at elite levels, and then one can judge whether they can or they can’t. I imagine there will be some men who will argue that they are being denied opportunities because “their place” has been taken by a woman, but that’s their own sense of entitlement is showing.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Give women the opportunity to compete at elite levels, and then one can judge whether they can or they can’t. I imagine there will be some men who will argue that they are being denied opportunities because “their place” has been taken by a woman, but that’s their own sense of entitlement is showing.

Jesus christ, you are actually arguing that women aren't winning in elite sports because they aren't trying hard enough, or their commitment is lacking. Biology prohibits them from winning in sports in general. You've been given examples of the Williams sisters being beaten by a bloke, the US world cup winning team being beaten by boys, Michelle Wie in golf, and many many more examples.

These women are excellent athletes, fantastic, and their commitment is tremendous - you do a disservice to every woman playing a sport if you think that biology isn't severely limiting them when it comes to competing with men. It's not about "giving them a chance and getting rid of arbitrary rules", it's biology you dafty!

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Jesus christ, you are actually arguing that women aren't winning in elite sports because they aren't trying hard enough, or their commitment is lacking. Biology prohibits them from winning in sports in general. You've been given examples of the Williams sisters being beaten by a bloke, the US world cup winning team being beaten by boys, Michelle Wie in golf, and many many more examples.

No I’m not. Women are winning in elite sports, and the only thing which prevents them from going further isn’t biology, it’s arbitrary rules which deny them the opportunity.

Smacruairi wrote: »

These women are excellent athletes, fantastic, and their commitment is tremendous - you do a disservice to every woman playing a sport if you think that biology isn't severely limiting them when it comes to competing with men. It's not their about "giving them a chance and getting rid of arbitrary rules, it's biology you dafty!

Oh give over! I’m doing women a disservice by acknowledging that they are just as capable as men, and you’re not doing women a disservice by claiming they can never be as capable as men because they’re limited by biology! Biology doesn’t have the capacity to care one way or the other for rules and classes defined by humans. That’s the influencing factor on women’s or men’s participation in sports, not biology. Biology doesn’t care, people do.

Smacruairi

Why do we have under 16 teams? And then u/18 teams? and then senior teams? why are sports divided into age groups at all?

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why do we have under 16 teams? And then u/18 teams? and then senior teams? why are sports divided into age groups at all?

Why can’t you address what I wrote in my post above instead of engaging in whataboutery?

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why can’t you address what I wrote in my post above instead of engaging in whataboutery?

"Women are winning in elite sports, and the only thing which prevents them from going further isn’t biology, it’s arbitrary rules which deny them the opportunity." I've demonstrated that this is wrong, along with other posters based on my examples of Michelle Wie, Williams Sisters, Us Football team etc. They were not able to compete with men owing to their biology. There also is the multitude of Olympic records which are totally divided by sex and are easily comparable - please compare men's marathon times to women's marathon times in Dublin marathon for example.


"Biology doesn’t have the capacity to care one way or the other for rules and classes defined by humans. That’s the influencing factor on women’s or men’s participation in sports, not biology. Biology doesn’t care, people do."

Biology has divided people, and thus rules of sports are devised to adhere to that natural separation, the exact same way we divide sports based on age.

Why are sports divided on age? or do you just think that 12year olds don't beat 20year olds because they haven't been given the chance to win sprinting competitions. I don't think this is whataboutery at all - age is a natural way to separate things fairly, likewise with gender. It's for the good of competition.

Put it all into one big melting point and you're removing the chance for most to compete at a top level. Weight classes even exist to further offer people chances in sports, not to mention Paralympics, special olympics etc. Do we just throw them all together and say "best of luck". No, we don't, as it's not right, and neither is expecting women to have to compete with men in physical sports when biology is a massive contributor to success.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why can’t you address what I wrote in my post above instead of engaging in whataboutery?

Says you!

Hi here's a wall of text with 6 different irrelevant links. Did you ever get around to explaining why the US militarys Don't ask don't tell policy was relevant to the research described in the Guardian article by the way? Whataboutery isn't exactly any better than strawmanning.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

I've demonstrated that this is wrong.

You haven’t demonstrated it’s wrong, all you’ve done is ignored a whole boatload of context to narrow down the argument and zero in on specific examples and say “that proves my claim that the differences in sporting abilities are down to biology, ha!” I don’t think anyone is disputing that at an individual level, individuals are going to have biological advantages over others which combined with developing their skills and talent will make them pretty much unstoppable, and there are some competitors who will attempt to compete against their competition of the same sex by cheating and hope they don’t get caught. Those competitors are rightfully punished, because they’re breaking the rules!

Smacruairi wrote: »

Biology has divided people, and thus rules of sports are devised to adhere to that natural separation, the exact same way we divide sports based on age.

Biology hasn’t divided people? Unless you’re claiming biology has a consciousness that it is capable of determining... anything! The rules of sports create that separation, and they are devised to maintain that separation. I see in another thread on here that breakdancing is set to become an Olympic sport in 2024, and I think it was yourself that mentioned e-sports which don’t discriminate against competitors on the basis of their gender or sex. It kinda puts a dint in your whole “sports are designed to adhere to that natural separation” argument. The development of any sport is based upon numerous factors, and the competitions are designed by organisations to test competitors abilities and allow participants the opportunity to show off what they can do.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why are sports divided on age? or do you just think that 12year olds don't beat 20year olds because they haven't been given the chance to win sprinting competitions.

You’ll have to ask someone who cares to make that argument about that. I don’t see anyone here advocating for removing discrimination based upon age.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Says you!

Hi here's a wall of text with 6 different irrelevant links. Did you ever get around to explaining why the US militarys Don't ask don't tell policy was relevant to the research described in the Guardian article by the way? Whataboutery isn't exactly any better than strawmanning.

By way of providing context for the data they were examining. The policy essentially prevented people who are transgender from disclosing their gender identity for fear of facing discrimination in the Military. It’s the reason why a lot of serving members of the Military wait until they are out of the service to come out. I’m aware of how sample sizes work and they are expected to be representative and all the rest of it, but in this case, I don’t consider 75 candidates to be representative of a whole lot. I suspect the numbers are far higher, and I don’t think the sample size they used was sufficient to make the inferences the authors of the study have done.

silverharp

There is more money in gender split sports,take Tennis, Wimbledon gets more bums on seats because they have a M/F category. There would still be some kind of a market to see the best females play men they could compete with but it wouldnt compensate and would be impossible to incorporate into a knockout competition so would have to be a separate thing anyway

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y

You’ll have to ask someone who cares to make that argument about that. I don’t see anyone here advocating for removing discrimination based upon age.

Well that's convenient that you will post links to absolutely everything else, from Nike shoes to the Williams sisters to the US military, but won't answer the question which shows the absolute glaring hole in your logic.

Men and women are biologically different, and to ignore that reality is to ignore the drastic physical benefits bestowed upon the male sex. Your assertion that women are deprived the chance to prove themselves by men is absolutely nonsense - the exact opposite, their own leagues have been made to account for the biological biases that exist, the exact same reason why we differentiate with age.

You are doing severe damage to women's participation in sports with your dangerous adherence to this ideology, let alone risking the safety of competitors in physical sports.

If women wanted to compete with men in physical sports, they would ask for it - they are loud, proud competitors and would demand it. SO why are women not clamouring for mixed participation? Because they understand the inequality far greater than you.