Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Who is this horrible “they” in reality, though? This sounds more like another fictional bogeyman / made up enemy than an actual group of people with any meaningful power to effect change. 

    Actually them as a group. On both sides of the argument that come up with absurdly unhealthy compromises. Changes are happening all the time. There have been considerable changes since this thread started.

  2. 1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

    How about 'treated'?

    Okay. Successfully treated with drugs for the purpose of meeting an arbitrary target not set by their doctors, for the purpose of qualifying for and competing in a sport they would otherwise not be eligible to compete in.

    Accurate?

    2 hours ago, Michael_123_ said:

    One of the papers I linked to shows how, after one year of hormone treatment, the transgender women still maintain a 9% competitive advantage over other women.

    At a point well before they eliminate all XY advantages entirely, they will have sufficiently harmed the individual to make up the difference. That seems to be their goal. 

    It's a pretty despicable goal IMO. Fortunately they aren't allowed to do that at High School level and below.

  3. 31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    I've just made my case. Using terms like "successfully drugged" sounds rather derogatory.

    Can you suggest a term that means exactly that that you would be more comfortable with?

    It sounds like your "case" didn't have anything toward attacking my argument.

  4. 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    "Successfully drugged" ?

    Yes. Fortunately surgery is no longer required.

    4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    I think it's clear where the author of this post stands. Don't be disingenuous and fly your "anti-LGBTQIA+" flag.

    You're suggesting my post is disingenuous?

  5. 15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Don't you ever get tired of playing the victim?

    I don't do it. So no.

    The victims here are elite women athletes, those that might aspire to be, and the XY transgenders themselves that are encouraged to compete against XX females at elite levels and told to believe it's healthy and fair.

    Nice argument though, against my post..LOL.

  6. 7 minutes ago, Michael_123_ said:

    The counterargument seems to be that if they can be successfully drugged to the point XY chromosome advantage seems to disappear then it would be unfair not to let them compete, the onus should be on anyone wanting to question it to prove any remaining advantage, and that at the same time anyone questioning it should be considered anti-LGBTQIA+.

     

  7. A moderate Republican (many here would consider that some mythical creature...) would no doubt lose the Trump base, and anyone else might lose most of it...so enabling the most extreme Democrats to make demands of the Democrat agenda and make this much closer than it respectively could be or should be...so yes...it's possible.

    Trump himself? Can't see it but I was wrong last time.

  8. 13 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Recreational sports are one thing; professional are another, and as much about the 'audience' as the athletes.
    The US Women's National Soccer Team is arguably a bigger draw than the men's National Team, yet your method would guarantee that the women get paid less than the men.

    Just something to think about.

    Was that directed at my post? (much of it intended as sarcasm)

    I consider the US Women's Soccer Team elite (and deserve pay based on their ability to generate revenue, not on their eliteness...as high as it is...otherwise they would deserve no more than any other, say, Olympic Champion in other sports that generates considerably less)

    And for some that might have missed it...no the xy chromosome 15 year olds that can beat them are not elite athletes (but they could become one with equal dedication)

  9. 10 hours ago, CharonY said:

    In other words, it might be a good idea to revamp categories and rules so that folks can compete according to ability rather than based on genitals they were born with?

     

    That comment, right there, demonstrates the threat to elite women's sports.

    Which I guess is fine if you consider them less than elite in any case, and that they should compete against other non elite athletes that, for one reason or another (including controlled drug use, whether healthy or not), happen to be at that same performance level overall, as arbitrarily judged by "experts" that think that is possible and reasonable.

    They've come along way baby! And high time they went back?

    Male sports are the real elite sports afterall...and as long as that's not threatened I guess everyone else should just take a seat and applaud...and of course enjoy the other more recreational levels that lesser athletes such as pretty much all with XX chromosomes can reasonably aspire to.

    Well done!

  10. 21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Does anyone believe he has a choice?

    If this was a chess match, why would Prigozhin give up check, with such a strong position?

    Prigozhin doesn't give a shit about a traditional Russian purge....

    Putin likely had the winning position but wasn't absolutely sure, so offered him a draw thinking that should be enough to win the tournament?

    Of course...in chess you can generally trust your own pieces...

  11. 4 minutes ago, MigL said:

    If all goes well ( probably no chance of that happening, however ) that's the end of one bogeyman.
    Only KJU, Xi and Trump left ...

     By that time though...might have to add Prigozhin

    He's probably halfway to Moscow already...(how long did it take him to take Bakhmut again?)

    Now...I certainly hope news of this doesn't discourage any Russian troops on the front lines in Ukraine, LOL.

  12. He seemed to like to point that out. It's quite possible for him to have scored that on a test...almost impossible for that to have been his IQ...even given the limitations of IQ as a measurement of intelligence.

  13. 3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Note that paralympics and similar divisions are not as straightforward as wheelchair or not. Rather they do have measures to scale impairment and either form divisions or alter scoring systems base d on them Arguably something like that would be a way forward rather than outright exclusion.

    As per the other discussion it would be beneficial to quantify advantages (rather than using assumptions and extrapolations) assess ways to categorize these advantages and figure out a way to incorporate those findings (e.g. scoring or otherwise). And, as also previously discussed, if we find decent measures, one can form divisions based on them without even needing to figure out if or when someone transitioned.

    The worst way to deal with it is probably getting lawmakers involved.

     

    Some (certainly not all) trans athletes would consider what I think you are suggesting to be outright exclusion.

    But I would agree that it's a reasonable way forward.

    (But would the US Women's Soccer Team share their gate receipt driven pay with them? They would be doing the same job...or better)

  14. Noone has come up with a demonstrably fair and safe way to include trans females in the vast majority of elite female sport. (even in principle without insistence on and allowing harmful use of drugs to do so, arbitrary targets set for them and their doctors notwithstanding)

    The would be true of trans males, if for some reason they weren't allowed in female sports. They can't compete at elite level against males, in the vast majority of male sports.

    When it can be demonstrably done fairly and safely is the time to include them at elite level (unless they want to compete without a fair chance to win). To do otherwise is inviting a disaster for female sports, even if you think few trans athletes will take up the invitation. It wouldn't be, and wasn't, a healthy situation for anyone, trans athletes included.

    Again note that wheelchair athletes have their own divisions. Their inclusion in sports is not analogous to trans females wanting inclusion in elite female sports.

  15. 14 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Unfortunately we cannot even agree on what is 'extreme'.

    I remember the teacher who got in trouble for using the word 'niggardly', which I found to be extreme.

    However I don't feel that trying to find a place in sports for a subset of my fellow humans any more extreme than trying to accommodate those who are confined to wheelchairs.

    Trying to find the middle ground is tough when I feel I'm already in the middle and you feel I am at the extreme.

    Frankly, unless you are advocating for a system to allow those in wheelchairs to compete with a "fair and reasonable" chance of winning against elite athletes at the highest level in any sport of their choice, including allowing and encouraging drug use whether healthy or not, you are falling short of the extreme advocates for transgenders.

    10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    We have an extremely small subset of humans who feel non-typical enough about their gender at birth to change it, and go through all that entails (definitely not a "whim" event). Once they've done it, they just want some acceptance, but instead their lives are threatened regularly, and they're blocked from participating in many aspects of life, and one aspect they particularly enjoy. My morals won't let me come down on the side that wants to persecute these humans for the temerity of wanting to sport. I'm not a sports fan any more, but, to me, this fuss about transgenders really makes sports fans seem weak and fearful and hateful. It just reinforces the big bully jock stereotype for me.

    Systemic problems often seem to get solved by overcorrection and radical action. We've been off course for quite a while, so just steering a bit left isn't going to work. We may need to go hard a-port for a ways to get where we want to go. That's if y'all want to go to the same place, where our equal rights are guaranteed and actually in writing, and humans are respected more for themselves than how well they fit our expectations.

    So you pick a side, and you overcorrect. 

    Sports fans include most all of transgender athletes. Do you look down on them as well, or just those on the side of the argument you didn't pick?

    The extremely small subset of humans may not be as small as you think. Without restrictions the female (born male) versions would dominate most female sports. Many XX chromosome individuals have the temerity of wanting to sport at elite levels as well. They need a separate division to do so, unless you exclude or place unhealthy restrictions on XY individuals that want to compete directly with them. 

     

     

     

  16. 8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

     

    Kidding? Sorry, I don't get it.

     

    If as the title of the thread suggests "whiteboards are racist"....then surely suggesting someone is, to their detriment, "stained" could have racist implications...

    Now...obviously you didn't mean it that way, and you will no doubt be forgiven...for now...though bets are off down the road if someone more woke than anyone here manages to find it...

     

    All tongue in cheek...of course

  17. On 5/19/2023 at 10:36 AM, Phi for All said:

    Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it. 

    More of a stain? What exactly are you subliminally implying by that Phi? (I kid...)

  18. Given that Wagner is a"for profit" business, are their soldiers more of a liability dead or wounded to the point of not ever being able to fight again? Are they considered veterans of the same standing as other Russian troops, or are they Wagner's "problem", or in fact pretty much their own problem?

    Also would be interesting to know how they get paid, both the soldiers and Wagner itself, and with what incentives.

    I think the answers might reflect on the "meat grinder" tactics of Wagner, and how long they may remain significant to Russia's war.

    Obviously no one apparently cares much about them as humans, least of all Putin.

  19. 3 hours ago, exchemist said:

    The logic of your post indicates 90. Is this a trick question? 

    I presume the difference between the two is a measure of elasticity in the arteries. A difference >40 could suggest inability to stretch sufficiently, under the pressure of the pulse of the heartbeat.

    But I'm not medical. 

    When I was still rowing, mine used to be 100/60. Nowadays it is 120/80. I'm 68. 

     

    Not a trick question. If the answer is 90, then the pulse pressure limitation would trump that of the diastolic.

    Those are certainly good numbers you have for any age.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.