First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

bewareofthedog

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Some people are also incredibly dishonest.

I genuinely think there's a tonne of truth in what you said.

Nasty dishonest people hopped on the woke train and because they're defending a "moral cause", they're protected and can be as dishonest and nasty as they choose because it's impossible to criticize them or call out absurdities like the OP. Do so and you'll be shamed all over social media/lose your job etc. Even when people apoligise it's still never enough for them.

Then on the other side of the coin I think there's many decent people some of which are a bit weak minded who brainlessly follow the above types because they see them as being activists for a good cause, when in reality they're shallow dishonest types just taking advantage of the situation and other people.

I might be reading way too far into but that's always been my take on it. There's no way all those blue check mark woke types on twitter and the likes believe half the shít they do be saying. But then again maybe they did start to believe it themselves after a while, that's how cults get started...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that’s the same thing!

It’s not. I might be allowed to participate in an Olympics 100m sprint but i would not be competitive.

And who is suggesting anything about pitting people who are clearly unmatched against each other? Do different categories not exist [in boxing]?

They do, but they max out.

Nope, nobody is arguing that anyone be unequally matched, and it’s disingenuous for you

Do weight categories exist in tennis? Are you suggesting that they are added. What about soccer, or most sports in fact?

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

Because most women have no interest in sports and most don't even know about this.

I mean on here.

chopperbyrne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that’s the same thing!

And who is suggesting anything about pitting people who are clearly unmatched against each other? Do different categories not exist?

Are the only options for Katie Taylor to be pitted against the equivalent of Mike Tyson or something?

If Katie Taylor, almost universally regarded as the greatest female boxer ever, and current undisputed world champion, was put in a match against any of the male champions of the same weight class, she'd be knocked out in the first round.

Nozebleed

chopperbyrne wrote: »

If Katie Taylor, almost universally regarded as the greatest female boxer ever, and current undisputed world champion, was put in a match against any of the male champions of the same weight class, she'd be knocked out in the first round.

and the male fighter would have to give her mouth to mouth. just to be safe.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s not. I might be allowed to participate in an Olympics 100m sprint but i would not be competitive.

Bloodbath was absolutely explicit on this -

BloodBath wrote: »

I never said they can't participate, I said they can't compete.

Although he never said they couldn’t compete before then either when he chose to take me off ignore to respond to my point I was making that women weren’t permitted to participate in sports. By that same token, it wouldn’t matter how competitive you were if you were never permitted to compete in the first place, as many women aren’t, based upon the current criteria which have a very limited range, excluding many women from competing in women’s sports, while still maintaining that they should appreciate they are permitted to participate in the sport at all.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They do, but they max out.

You added [in boxing] to my post so you could make the point about how the different categories max out. I’d have thought that much was obvious in all fairness, regardless of the sport.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do weight categories exist in tennis? Are you suggesting that they are added. What about soccer, or most sports in fact?

No, weight categories do not exist in tennis, and I’m not suggesting that they are added [in tennis], my point was that there are many more categories in ANY sport besides the one category of sex. What does the country an athlete represents in any sport have to do with biology for example?

It has nothing to do with biology, but the country they’re representing has a lot to do with what sports they can train to compete in, and the development of the sport in the countries they represent, and their ability to excel in any sport and the opportunities which are available to them which can mean all the difference in their opportunities to become world class elite athletes, or just the best runner in the village with no exposure to social media and no exposure on social media.

To suggest that sports is just about the ability to break records is just nonsense, and using record times to argue against anyone’s participation in a sport on the grounds of sex is just as ridiculous when in reality, the vast, vast majority of people competing in sports will never qualify to compete in the Olympics, but they’ll still make a decent career for themselves.

One eyed Jack

chopperbyrne wrote: »

If Katie Taylor, almost universally regarded as the greatest female boxer ever, and current undisputed world champion, was put in a match against any of the male champions of the same weight class, she'd be knocked out in the first round.

But who’s arguing that Katie Taylor should be pitted against anyone in a match where the competitors are so clearly unmatched? I’m not disputing the likelihood that she would be knocked out if she were put in the ring with a competitor who could outclass her, hence why I used the example of Carruth bear hugging her to death for the gold medal - wouldn’t box his way out of a paper bag, but he could still win on points in the third round!

Rothko

newhouse87 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Daddy_Nomso/status/1407262011562602497

"ok but this is literally not the whole women in world…there’s obviously a woman out there that can do better …so idk why y’all get so mad when we fight for ourselves"

Lol

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But who’s arguing that Katie Taylor should be pitted against anyone in a match where the competitors are so clearly unmatched? I’m not disputing the likelihood that she would be knocked out if she were put in the ring with a competitor who could outclass her, hence why I used the example of Carruth bear hugging her to death for the gold medal - wouldn’t box his way out of a paper bag, but he could still win on points in the third round!

Say I'm a first year competing in college boxing or whatever it might be. I'm a big heavy fella like the lad in the OP but I can't beat the top 10 or so other male fighters, be it that they're naturally more talented than me, or put more work in or whatever it might be.

I have a think about it and decide I want to be a transgender athlete. I get my piece of paper and I'm officially a Woman. I do whatever needs to be done to be allowed to compete in the female division after some time passes I'm ready. I beat my opponents and am now the female champion.

There's examples of this in the real world such as that female activist cyclist on twitter who takes pride in what he done.

Do you think what I did was morally fine and do you support it?

Yes/No answer only please.

ceadaoin.

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Yes/No answer only please.

impossible

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that’s the same thing!

And who is suggesting anything about pitting people who are clearly unmatched against each other? Do different categories not exist?

Are the only options for Katie Taylor to be pitted against the equivalent of Mike Tyson or something? Although now I think about it Michael Carruth would hug her to death for the gold medal :pac:

Nope, nobody is arguing that anyone be unequally matched, and it’s disingenuous for you to try and frame anyone’s argument that way as though there aren’t already separate categories based upon all sorts of other characteristics and skill levels and abilities in sports that have fcukall to do with sex.

so what criteria,apart from weight, would boxers be classified under?

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Say I'm a first year competing in college boxing or whatever it might be. I'm a big heavy fella like the lad in the OP but I can't beat the top 10 or so other male fighters, be it that they're naturally more talented than me, or put more work in or whatever it might be.

I have a think about it and decide I want to be a transgender athlete. I get my piece of paper and I'm officially a Woman. I do whatever needs to be done to be allowed to compete in the female division after some time passes I'm ready. I beat my opponents and am now the female champion.

There's examples of this in the real world such as that female activist cyclist on twitter who takes pride in what he done.

Do you think what I did was morally fine and do you support it?

Yes/No answer only please.

Why would I care? You do you, and all the consequences that come with that, like people such as yourself making up silly scenarios and looking for yes/no answers as if people should care. What I do care about, are policies, rather than zeroing in on individual athletes and claiming that less than a handful of athletes are in any way a threat to women’s sports as though women would no longer be permitted to compete in women’s sports. It’s clearly not the same thing, is it?

lawred2

I think it's outrageously unfair personally. And I'd consider myself rather liberal on most things. But for an athlete to get to the Olympics takes years and years of sacrifice and dedication. The least the organisations set to make millions off these athlete's backs can do is try to guarantee as much as they can a level playing field. This is not that.

suicide_circus

If transwomen are literally women then why wouldn't they compete against women?

Quantum Erasure

suicide_circus wrote: »

If transwomen are literally women then why wouldn't they compete against women?

indeed

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I care? You do you, and all the consequences that come with that, like people such as yourself making up silly scenarios and looking for yes/no answers as if people should care. What I do care about, are policies, rather than zeroing in on individual athletes and claiming that less than a handful of athletes are in any way a threat to women’s sports as though women would no longer be permitted to compete in women’s sports. It’s clearly not the same thing, is it?

No surprise you couldn't answer a simple question which is really the crux of the matter.

Bold part, that's all you seem to do to try and justify your standpoint. You ignore well known science proven median data of male vs female biology and point to extremities and outliners.

Clearly you care about this topic, you seem to have devoted an awful amount of time of writing essays about it here on boards.

You cannot say it isn't happening. You are not a mind reader, you don't know the real motivations of the person in the OP as an example. You can blindly trust human nature and tell yourself that 100% of trans athletes aren't doing it for nefarious reasons but that just makes you a fool.

Personally I think you don't care or at the very least try to ignore the reality that people may have morally questionable motivations for doing such things because you enjoy revelling in the weirdness of it all.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

I think it's outrageously unfair personally. And I'd consider myself rather liberal on most things. But for an athlete to get to the Olympics takes years and years of sacrifice and dedication. The least the organisations set to make millions off these athlete's backs can do is try to guarantee as much as they can a level playing field. This is not that.

Nike are making millions off Chris Mosier who didn’t even make it to the Olympics as a result of injury, and had no issue with throwing Mary Cain under the bus… but that’s probably not the millions, or the level playing field you were talking about, probably not Ronaldo’s billion dollar deal you were referring to either -


What Nike’s $1 Billion Ronaldo Deal Means


That’s the future of sports, you’re kidding yourself if you imagine sports biggest moneymakers have any interest in levelling the playing field when they use athletes to sell their products.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nike are making millions off Chris Mosier

The same Nike promotes hijabs and spend more millions on young teen basketball , American football ,baseball and soccer players and that's before athletics and gymnastics .

Tens of millions of kids want to be the next Ronaldo ,Messi ,kobe ,Tom Brady ,
Very few are or ever will que up to be the next Chris mosier

Welcome to marketing 101

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

No surprise you couldn't answer a simple question which is really the crux of the matter.

Bold part, that's all you seem to do to try and justify your standpoint. You ignore well known science proven median data of male vs female biology and point to extremities and outliners.

Clearly you care about this topic, you seem to have devoted an awful amount of time of writing essays about it here on boards.

You cannot say it isn't happening. You are not a mind reader, you don't know the real motivations of the person in the OP as an example. You can blindly trust human nature and tell yourself that 100% of trans athletes aren't doing it for nefarious reasons but that just makes you a fool.

Personally I think you don't care or at the very least try to ignore the reality that people may have morally questionable motivations for doing such things because you enjoy revelling in the weirdness of it all.

It appears you’re not much of a mind reader either, but you’re entitled to believe whatever you wish. It’s when you suggest that other people should be punished or denied rights based upon your assumptions about their motivations which I’m guessing you’re arguing should be written into policies which affect everyone who wishes to participate in a sport, is what I mean when I say I care about policies, as opposed to imagining the motivations of any individual must be nefarious when the disadvantages by far and above outweigh any possible advantages they would have of engaging in kind of behaviour you’re suggesting, and for what reward? Vilification on a global scale?

I can say it isn’t happening, you can say it’s happening, but in order to be taken seriously, you have to be able to provide credible evidence that what you’re suggesting is happening. People have always had the right to the presumption of innocence in law, and we only ever punish people when it is proven they are guilty of wrongdoing. I would find it morally questionable if we started from the presumption that anyone is guilty until they prove otherwise.

I haven’t ignored science or data or anything else, and as for extremities? Here you are trying to make the point that women’s sports are under threat on the basis of looking at one individual who isn’t even an elite athlete, they’re average, but somehow you’re trying to convince people they represent a threat to women’s sports in a sport where none of the competitors look like women!

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nike are making millions off Chris Mosier who didn’t even make it to the Olympics as a result of injury, and had no issue with throwing Mary Cain under the bus… but that’s probably not the millions, or the level playing field you were talking about, probably not Ronaldo’s billion dollar deal you were referring to either -


What Nike’s $1 Billion Ronaldo Deal Means


That’s the future of sports, you’re kidding yourself if you imagine sports biggest moneymakers have any interest in levelling the playing field when they use athletes to sell their products.

?

I was referring to the IOC. Not Nike.

chopperbyrne

This is the list of world champion boxers at the lowest weight category for males: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions#Minimumweight/Mini_flyweight/Strawweight_(105_lb/47.6_kg)

30lbs lighter than Katie, and only one of them matches her in height.

They would still all knock her out, though might take longer than a round.

Anyone advocating for males and females to compete directly against each other in physical sports would want their heads checked.

The women's 100m sprint record has not been broken since 1988 when it was set by (an almost certainly doping) Florence Griffith-Joyner with a time of 10.49s.

The men's record had already been sub 10s for twenty years at that time, and has been lowered over a dozen times since to 9.58s.

Outside of extremely fringe cases like ultra marathons, women simply cannot compete with men in physical sports.

Do you want men to wear weights to keep it fair like in horse racing?

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

The same Nike promotes hijabs and spend more millions on young teen basketball , American football ,baseball and soccer players and that's before athletics and gymnastics .

Tens of millions of kids want to be the next Ronaldo ,Messi ,kobe ,Tom Brady ,
Very few are or ever will que up to be the next Chris mosier

Welcome to marketing 101

The very same Nike is right Gatling.

I don’t think very few will ever queue up to be the next Chris Mosier if current rates are anything to go by, they’re only on the increase, so it’s not unreasonable to assume that some transgender children will be inspired to participate in sports competitions inspired by Chris Mosier in the same way as transgender children are inspired by Ronaldo to participate in soccer and want to be kitted out in Nike gear.

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t ignored science or data or anything else, and as for extremities? Here you are trying to make the point that women’s sports are under threat on the basis of looking at one individual who isn’t even an elite athlete, they’re average, but somehow you’re trying to convince people they represent a threat to women’s sports in a sport where none of the competitors look like women!

Your argument a few months ago was that it hasn't happened yet in major competition, a year or two from now you'll argue there's only a dozen or so such athletes. And on and on it will go.

Just so you know, what you're doing is very transparent. Not everyone is stupid and people see through it.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

?

I was referring to the IOC. Not Nike.

I know you were, I was making the point that the IOC don’t make any money, the corporations behind it do -


World’s biggest franchise: Who profits from the Olympic Games?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The very same Nike is right Gatling.

It's nothing more than a marketing ploy for the pink dollar more than anything ,I remember they gave a upcoming teen soccer player a huge sponsorship deal ,he ended up a massive flop ,kids don't want to be losers these days look at football especially kids follow who ever wins the premier League , with kids participating less and less years in and year out this may inspire a single child to take up a sport while alienating tens of thousands of others ,less mass participating means less money and support for ground roots sports ,it's the same as every child should be awarded for something despite making no effort ,

based upon the current criteria which have a very limited range, excluding many women from competing in women’s sports, while still maintaining that they should appreciate they are permitted to participate in the sport at all.

Women are "prohibited" from mens sports for the very reason we are discussing - biological differences. They can't compete. Compete != participate.

You added [in boxing] to my post so you could make the point about how the different categories max out. I’d have thought that much was obvious in all fairness, regardless of the sport.

Other sports don't have weight categories. As you are about to admit

No, weight categories do not exist in tennis,

That should have been that, but then the typical word salad because the initial argument about weight categories can't be defended.

and I’m not suggesting that they are added [in tennis], my point was that there are many more categories in ANY sport besides the one category of sex. What does the country an athlete represents in any sport have to do with biology for example?

An country an athlete represents is clearly a totally different thing since it is designed for international competitions, i.e. competitions between nations. And many sports have any restrictions, there's no limit on Spanish golfers, or French Tennis players.

To suggest that sports is just about the ability to break records is just nonsense, and using record times

Strawman. Nobody suggested that the that's just what sport all about. However sports are competitive and about winning.

to argue against anyone’s participation in a sport on the grounds of sex is just as ridiculous when in reality, the vast, vast majority of people competing in sports will never qualify to compete in the Olympics, but they’ll still make a decent career for themselves.

illogical argument follows illogical argument. Here you are saying that because most people can't win the Olympics we should eliminate sex categories.

A few years ago if someone claimed that trans ideology would lead to the ending of women's sports it would be decried as far right scare mongering. Now we have arguments demanding the end of sex categories.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A few years ago if someone claimed that trans ideology would lead to the ending of women's sports it would be decried as far right scare mongering. Now we have arguments demanding the end of sex categories.

This is just what is happening for the world to see because it's a high profile event. But it's happening from the bottom up and has been for a few years - high school and college female athletes are missing out to males which ultimately results in fewer actual females being able to participate in the highest levels of sports. Wait until people see what the next Olympics looks like. By then it will be too late though.

Here's a thread I started on this very topic 3 years ago. Anyone with a brain could see it coming

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057846455

Gentlemanne

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Remember, half the population has a double digit IQ.

Some people are also incredibly dishonest.

Low intelligence + dishonesty = virtue signalling in the hope people will think you have value.

What these people don't realise is the only people on their side are the other dishonest, low intelligence virtue signallers. Everyone else just thinks they're painful morons.

Incredible analysis, professor.
Not sure where IQ is relevant here at all. As Stephen Hawking said everyone who brags about their IQ is a loser

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Your argument a few months ago was that it hasn't happened yet in major competition, a year or two from now you'll argue there's only a dozen or so such athletes. And on and on it will go.

Just so you know, what you're doing is very transparent. Not everyone is stupid and people see through it.

My argument has always been that the number of transgender athletes will increase, because I expect it would based upon how other trends have seen an increase when they were permitted to participate in sports and compete in competitions. Children who are transgender now will of course grow up to become elite athletes and corporations will no doubt want to have them associated with their brands, especially American corporations, who also finance most of the world’s wealthiest competitions.

You’re right that I pointed out at the time a few months ago there weren’t any male to female athletes competing at elite level, because there weren’t at the time. Months later there is, and you would have been claiming months ago that it would be the end of women’s sports. Which of us was correct then? Which of us is correct now? Which of us will be correct in a decades time when there will be as many transgender athletes competing in all sports at all levels as there are openly gay and lesbian athletes competing in sports at all levels? The generation who are children now.

I would hope what I am doing is transparent, that nobody should have to struggle to see that what I support are treating all people as equals regardless of characteristics according to International Human Rights Law, that Caster Semenya for example shouldn’t have to go to the ECHR in order to have her human rights vindicated because of her naturally biological higher testosterone levels which contributed to her becoming an elite World Class athlete and an inspiration to many people for any number of numerous reasons -


Caster Semenya appeals to European Court of Human Rights over 'discriminatory' testosterone limit

Yeah_Right

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I care? You do you, and all the consequences that come with that, like people such as yourself making up silly scenarios and looking for yes/no answers as if people should care. What I do care about, are policies, rather than zeroing in on individual athletes and claiming that less than a handful of athletes are in any way a threat to women’s sports as though women would no longer be permitted to compete in women’s sports. It’s clearly not the same thing, is it?

You really don't understand elite level sport and the dedication and sacrifices that go in to competing at that level. I'd go as far as saying that you don't understand why people participate in sports.