Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

You're comparing those who don't agree with trans-women competing in female competition with racists and now eugenicists, clearly with nothing to back it up and don't like being called out on it, re-quoting my posts doesn't add anything here. Again, if you want to actually argue those points, you can start backing it up, there has been no "historical rhythm" to gender, weight and disability sport categories except to add them and allow others to compete at sports as well.

History might suggest creation of another category for those ineligible for the female categories but at a disadvantage in the male category either through hormone suppression or not having gone through male puberty.

The paralympics rather than the negro leagues would be the more relevant historical example.

I don't think you know what you're saying anymore hence the absurdity of bringing eugenics and the negro leagues into it. It means next time you call someone racist, you won't be taken seriously.

To give your argument one final shove into oblivion:

Countries without race problems also have gender, weight and disability categories for sport, implying that the negro leagues occurring in a country with a racism problem somehow means that gender categories will be revisited is absurd, you may as well proclaim the earth could be flat for all the relevance it has.

We'll leave the eugenics argument alone, I'm not sure what you were thinking there.

In other news, there is now a non-inclusive World Transplant Games starting today and an ultra-runner of previous good standing has been disqualified for use of a car to come third in a competition.

🙄

a) that point of comparison doesn't work because it was in one country which had a huge racism problem, the reason it was being used was to try and paint it as a racism issue when it isn't. "At best" the poster is implying that the science behind male and female differences in sporting ability is science that will end up debunked somehow when there is no scientific basis for it. The argument is purely inclusion and all that brings or fairness and all that brings, those arguing on the inclusion side fail when their argument is brought to it's logical conclusion (no gender, weight, disability categories anymore).

b) I haven't had a transplant, is it ethical for me to compete in the transplant games? Or maybe use a car to run the 100m because that's how fast I feel I can go. The reasons the games exist is because transplants take a huge toll on the body and in most but not all cases, athletes performance is degraded afterwards, this is a chance for them to draw attention to transplants (and getting people to tick the box to allow more to occur) and compete against people who have been through similar experiences.

It becomes an argument into the absurd and arguments about living the life or the % being small don't work because fundamentally what is occurring is unfair and as long as fairness has primacy in sport, the rules and regulations will be changed accordingly (as I predicted back near the beginning of this thread) to try and paint multiple sporting organisations worldwide as either racists, eugenicists or transphobes doesn't work and isn't credible.

And it is an awful situation to be in that someone, through no fault of their own, is unable to compete at the top levels in sport in their assigned gender because it's unfair to the other athletes, but no science or time will change that because once you accept the science, then the rules will also be entirely driven by science.

He's literally posting absolute nonsense and then resorting to racism etc. because there is no coherent argument.

Read the thread I think we’ve long been over that.

You’re all welcome to disagree and go off in the echo chamber, but discriminated people are never discriminated against forever, science changes, history repeats. That’s the real thrust of what I said, I can see what people have latched onto with ironic memes- a recent as a century example of this happening. You all are making a storm in a teacup here over the citation

Wishing you the best.

“Biological reality?”

^ this is biological reality. That’s even a cis woman.

So you couldn't answer the question, or you're avoiding answering the question? I've seen you fail to comprehend the diference between gender and sex before on this thread, which is why I'm asking.

Cool soundbite chief but it doesnt remotely answer the question that I asked, its just more obfuscation and avoidance from you.

So for the avoidance of doubt, can you answer either or both of these questions below?

1) Are you trying to say because there isnt many millenia worth of information on trans athleticism then its not possible to say that a MTF trans athlete has or could have advantages over natural women athletes?

2) Do you think thats a coincidence or could it be because biologically, the average male athlete will be physically stronger / bigger than the average female athlete?

What an incredible, but not unexpected, cop-out. I have read the thread, and have made a few posts in the thread along the way.

Allowing or disallowing someone to compete in a sports category is not discimination if the catagories are not in themselves discrimatory, but have valid reasons for existing to enable sporting fairness. That's why categories exist on the basis of weight, age, sex, and other criteria, but are not considered disciminatory. There are good reasons for that. But then I'm not sure that you complete lack of knowledge of sports allows you to comprehend this.

The vagaries of (ironically binaray) American politics which you are obesssed with are irrelevant to this wider global reality.

They already of course are, demanding leagues that are trans exclusionary.

in the sense paralympians are case by case and trans athletes are case by case I agree with you there. Sadly that’s only every few years, and there’s not a special league for one 11 year old girl in Tennessee in the sport she plays (track and field), nor would that be a practical solution for allowing persons to keep their civil rights while enjoying physical activity.

Given the example hormone therapy, that is likely to change, improve etc. with time and gender affirming care with it, and the particulars of the cases.

No one having entered a bike race identifying as a bicycle I reject the premise of the strawman.

Im sure women are gonna love this take: “Women are to men what paralympians are to athletes”

thats in direct contradiction to your previous statement. Are you recanting your previous statement or standing behind it.

Women are indeed just trying to do that. Then lo and behold those women win a swimming race and suddenly plebes are up in arms that she won…

go for it I don’t know who you are from Adam anyway - I frequently identify as the pope, myself (see my post history). Not sure what it’s got to do with the topic. Rachel Dolezal says hello.

Women are indeed just trying to do that. Then lo and behold those women win a swimming race and suddenly plebes are up in arms that she won…

If you include women with dicks that is.

I see you ignored Ross Tucker and the science again

What’s penises have to do with it? Besides Riley Gaines allegedly upset at seeing one that is.

The comment seems very transphobic. “The science” is about testosterone not penises.

Are paralympians not considered athletes in your book?

The previous record was set in 1995 - 23 years previous (this record was set in 2018). The changes in bike frames, and more importantly gearing, have been huge since 1995. The average speed in the Tour de France increases by around 0.42% each year. If you take that as a metric, the speed increase would be circa 9.66% over a 23-year period. The previous record set in 1995 was 167mph and if you apply the average TDF speed increase of 9.66% in the period, the expected speed would be 183.13mph - her record was 183.9.

Secondly, a lot of this record is about control and not raw power as they are towed for the first two miles of the five-mile course and released at a speed of over 100 mph. It's worth noting the article doesn't say she released at 100mph, it says she released at a speed over 100mph. This could be 100.05mph, or it could be 112mph - this has a huge impact.

The reason I am pointing this out is that you chose a very specialised event to demonstrate that a woman is capable of beating a man in a sporting event. I wonder how many people attempt it, and how often - a very limited sample is nowhere near as accurate a predictor versus a large sample set.

It's also worth pointing out that aerodynamics plays a significant role in this, and women are slighter and more compact, therefore, it would give them an advantage - It's hard to quantify whether this advantage equalises, or is more of an advantage, compared to the extra power a man has. I'm only pointing this out as IMO, to use this as proof that a woman could beat a man physically, is flawed.

a) The point of comparison does work, because the basis of the comparison is common to both circumstances, ie - discrimination, and whether or not that discrimination can be justified. The point being made is that ‘the science’ which was used then to justify discrimination, just didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Scientific research later showed that the arguments being used to support discrimination had no scientific merit. Didn’t take a genius to work that out in the first place, but hey ho. There is no contradiction whatsoever between fairness and inclusion, because the basis of what is fair or unfair can only be determined by including everyone first, and then determining what constitutes fair or unfair treatment, based upon reasonable grounds, as opposed claims that discrimination is supported by scientific evidence. That’s just plain old pseudoscience -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

b) You’re doing it again, by asking is it ethical for you to compete in the Transplant Games, when the question is rather whether or not it is fair to exclude a person who’s received a transplant from competing in the Olympic Games or athletics competitions organised by the WA or any other sporting body on the basis that their new organs confer an unfair advantage over their competitors. Evidence could only be anecdotal at best, particularly if they were winning competitions. Anecdotal evidence could not legitimately be considered scientific evidence. You can’t argue that there’s anyone seeking an organ transplant to compete in the World Transplant Games so there’s no reason to assume anyone is claiming to be transgender solely because they’re a bit shìt in the category they are limited to by current rules, created not by nature, biology nor science, but by man, or, humans at least (I don’t mean to labour the point, merely to cover all the bases, I’m sure you get the idea), and they want to hoover up all the medals in a category in which they would be perceived to have any advantage whatsoever, ignoring the glaringly obvious disadvantage that, well, they’re assumed to be cheating right from the off merely because of their participation, and any achievements they make in their chosen sport will be tarnished with accusations of cheating or having an unfair advantage over other competitors.

Neither science nor time nor any sort of technological progress will have any bearing on the ability of anyone to compete in the category of their preferred gender, simply because those are not the factors which inhibit their participation.

The factor which inhibits their participation are the rules of the governing bodies of any sport. Those decisions are absolutely not driven by science, they are driven by political ideology, one which means that competition is limited to regarding sports competitions as a demonstration of superiority, and you can’t do that if you’re just going to allow anyone to compete, because then you can’t demonstrate how superior you are to everyone else if everyone else can demonstrate that they can do the same thing as you can do! Kinda tears the arse outta the whole concept really, that’s why it’s necessary to exclude people and call it being fair to everyone, because events like the Olympics where there are eight times as many media people for every athlete are big money generators where most of the actual participants won’t get any financial benefit, they’ll be lucky to go home with a goodie bag they can flog on eBay to fund their further development and career in their chosen sport, while large corporates use the events to advertise their latest products, and then there’s the odd upstart who tries to use the event to further their own political ideology, knowing that it’s being broadcast to a global audience.

Took the words right out of my mouth there.

From the article:

Great achievement all the same, but sod all to do with the sex of the cyclist.

I'll point out (having been interested in the science behind land speed records) that this record is more about the equipment and safety of cycling a low friction bike on a very flat surface behind a wind shield than pure athletic ability and power. There is nothing stopping any human from achieving this, though it is a very risky pursuit.

edit: covered by RoboRat already.

Figure out a system of handicapping athletes in certain sports like track and field possibly. Extra weight and so on.