zapatos
-
Posts
7307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
85
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zapatos
-
-
1 minute ago, mistermack said:
What rules are you offering?
Handicapping.
0 -
10 minutes ago, mistermack said:
What are these rules, that will make it fair for both groups?
Can you think of anything, anyone in this thread has mentioned over the past 88 pages? Anything at all? Testosterone levels perhaps? Handicaps? Different rules for different sports? Number of transgender players on the field at a time? Olympic rules for participation? Trying different strategies and collecting data as they are evaluated for fairness?
1 -
7 hours ago, Intoscience said:
it's unfair to include them in the group with which they identify because that is unfair on the group.
It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.
0 -
9 minutes ago, mistermack said:
That's clearly a bad-faith post.
If you have to twist and squirm like a squirmy thing, rather than address the issue, then it's obvious you haven't got a valid argument. Again
Will you please just re-post the question you are accusing me of dodging?!?!
0 -
For some reason I feel like we're being trolled.
0 -
19 minutes ago, mistermack said:
"What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs. "
That isn't a question. I still don't know what you are referring to.
0 -
4 minutes ago, mistermack said:
So you get to dodge the question?
As far as I can tell you only asked one question ("Can you refute that?"), and I did refute it. What question do you think I've dodged?
0 -
9 minutes ago, mistermack said:
When you have women's sport, as distinct form men's sport, then what qualifies as a woman IS the issue. You can't wish it away.
Re-read the thread. We are trying to determine how/if to allow transgender athletes to compete. Everyone else is discussing whether or not testosterone levels are meaningful, or even safe to use. They are trying to decide if muscle mass can be measured, or if different sports would require different rules.
You do not get to decide above all other opinions what constitutes a woman, and who should be allowed in the 'women's' category due to your definition. You don't get to end this debate because YOU decided what a woman is NOT.
1 -
46 minutes ago, mistermack said:
What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs.
Can anybody refute that?
Sure, I'll refute that.
And the reason I can do so is because it is made up. Any of us can make up any definition we wish. Which makes this a distraction. The "definition" is not the issue. The issue is how/if we allow people to compete in the existing categories.
0 -
I've run across many inhabitants of earth who I don't think would be considered to have super strength on even the smallest of planets.
0 -
Seems to me he was pretty clear...
QuoteModerator Note
From rule 2.3
References to drug use are not permissible unless the references are scientific or otherwise useful as part of a discussion
Your post was about drug use, it was not a scientific reference, and there was no discussion or invitation to discuss.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Steve81 said:
There's a handy tool, it's called Google. Find it yourself. If you find evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it, and I will retract my statement.
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you offered to provide evidence your assertion was correct. It now seems you expect me to provide evidence regarding your assertion.
Getting snippy with me just continues your downward slide all because of a simple request for further information. I hope you lose this chip on your shoulder before you are shown the exit.
1 -
1 minute ago, Steve81 said:
Do you accept my revised statement that Genady agreed with as self evident, or would you still prefer I try and find a study someone did to prove my point?
I'd like to see a study please.
0 -
2 hours ago, Steve81 said:
This is the kind of stuff that will get kids interested in science in the first place, and want to learn more.
The only reason I didn't ask for a citation was that @Genady beat me to it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true but it sounds like one of those things people say because everyone else says it. Sort of like "If you make the work environment more fun your workers will be more productive!" Except that is not true.
After all, how do you know that kids get interested because of fun experiments, rather than kids interested in science already will like the fun experiments?
If you don't like being questioned about your assertions you are going to have a rough go of it here.
0 -
7 hours ago, Intoscience said:
But the impact of that small minority is large. Large enough that within their chosen category they will go on to dominate and break world records way surpassing anything set previously effectively relegating all the other competitors to competing for runner up positions.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a citation. This is an awfully bold and predictive assertion. If your statement is true it will have a huge impact on the ability of trans women to compete. On the other hand, if you just made this up then you are arguing in bad faith.
7 hours ago, Intoscience said:My point is that transgender women want to be identified distinctly from a man, so what distinction are they using to achieve this?
Well, presumably because their brain is telling them they are distinct. Surely the brain is as much a part of a person's identity as are their dangly parts.
0 -
1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
As I have mentioned many times in this thread, right from the early on in it, you need to be able to anticipate the results of any rules you might make.
I don't know how many times I have pointed this out to Swansont when he keeps asking "where are they?" while citing current low numbers and ignoring obvious evidence that XY athletes have known advantages.
As they move away from testosterone targets, as they should, the numbers will surely go up... as society becomes more accepting of transgenders, as it should, the numbers surely will go up...
...unless of course there are other rules in place to prevent it.
Agreed. Things will change over time, and we should not assume that testosterone level is the only factor that can go into making competition equitable and ensuring XX athletes can remain competitive. Throughout this thread I have tried to envision a multifaceted approach evolving over time as we learn more.
I think testosterone levels alone will have a limited ability to encompass all of women's sports. Testosterone probably have a larger impact where you have individual sports and reliance on muscle mass (e.g. weight lifting) and less of an impact on team sports that rely less on muscle mass (e.g. synchronized swimming). You wouldn't even have to check testosterone levels (theoretically) for weight lifting if you introduced handicapping. For instance, add 'x' pounds to the bar for the transgender woman to accomplish the same lift as a cisgender woman.
2 -
31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
You said my concerns were not justified citing the current ratio as 2200 to 1, did you not?
You said XX cannot be competitive if they must compete with XY without serious restrictions on trans women. I disagreed and cited the ratio as my reasoning. As far as I can tell we were both looking at a snapshot in time. That is, we are talking about now.
I don't mind talking about how/if XX can remain competitive if that ratio changes. While that ratio may change in the future I am also sure in the future we'll be factoring in changes to the science of hormone levels, transitioning, muscle mass, competitive classes, development of handicapping systems, ratio of trans vs cis allowed on the field at once, equitable funding for training, and all the other ideas people come up with on how to allow everyone to compete equitably.
0 -
7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
Explain exactly how either is a healthy goal if you believe 2200 to 1 should be maintainable.
When did I say "questionable testosterone targets" is a healthy goal? When did I say "unfair social stigmas" was healthy?
When did I say 2200 to 1 should be maintainable?
Perhaps you can answer the questions I asked of you.
0 -
13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
Am I?
Yes
13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:How many of those (bolded) are competing without serious restrictions? (I'm fairly certain the answer is none, even if they've gone through HRT in the past, any requirement to which is a serious restriction in itself)
Even if the answer was 100%, the cisgenders outnumber the transgenders 2200 to 1. How is that one person stopping those 2200 from being competitive? If I'm competing in the Pac-10 and you are competing in the ACC, how have you stopped me from being competitive?
In addition, what is wrong with serious restrictions? Getting back to an earlier comment I made, why would handicapping be such a terrible thing?
0 -
38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
Essentially this means that unless XX athletes are given their own space, they cannot be competitive at elite level without very serious restrictions put on any inclusion of XY athletes.
I understand why you think there would need to be very serious restriction on XY athletes, but it feels to me as if you are overstating the impact on XX athletes.
After a short search I found that there were perhaps 100 trans women competing in NCAA sports, compared to about 226,000 women competing in NCAA Women's Championship Sports.
QuotePrivacy laws make it tough to identify the exact number of transgender athletes competing in public school sports, but researcher and medical physicist Joanna Harper estimates the number can't exceed 100 nationwide.
"While we don't know the exact number of trans women competing in NCAA sports, I would be very surprised if there were more than 100 of them in the women's category," Harper told Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006
Quote226,212 — The number of student-athletes competing in NCAA women's championship sports in 2021-22. That represents a 5% increase (10,726 student-athletes) from 2020-21, the largest percentage increase for women since 2000-01.
To suggest that women cannot be competitive at elite level without serious restrictions on XY athletes seems to be an overstatement. Since there are about 2260 cis women to every one trans woman in the NCAA it seems likely most cis women will go their entire NCAA careers without ever going head-to-head with a trans woman.
0 -
9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:
If your model is perfect...
It's not perfect and it's not mine..
9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions...
Another of your misunderstandings.
10 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:...instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model.
Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model.
11 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.
Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion.
0 -
As an observer to this conversation I think I see @tmdarkmatter's difficulty.
Your approach to learning these concepts is to develop a model in your head then to ask what is wrong with it. You'd be better served by reading about these concepts then asking for others to explain those parts you don't understand or would like further clarification on. Your false model is simply causing you roadblocks as you keep trying to tie things back to that.
Imagine you wanted to be an auto mechanic. When you go to your first class and the instructor tells you how something works, if it doesn't fit with your (false) preconceived notion of how the engine functions their description won't make any sense to you. You should jettison your model, start over, and learn the model that already exists.
0 -
7 hours ago, Intoscience said:
I said "people" maybe i should have said "certain people"
Maybe you should tell us who you think is virtue signaling instead of hiding behind vague language in order to avoid having to support your accusations. You can't have it both ways. If you think "certain people" are virtue signaling then tell us who they are and why you think that, so we can debate your accusation and discover if it is true. Otherwise you are simply trying to enhance your own position by erecting and toppling straw men, which is arguing in bad faith.
0 -
52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to deathTime - Pink Floyd
Thought I'd cheer you up.
😁
0
Transgender athletes
in Biology
Posted
You've already decided that a solution is impossible and thus dismiss any ideas out of hand. As such, any further debate with you is a waste of my time as anything I say in the future has already been dismissed by you in the past.
I believe I'll limit my interactions to only include those people who are willing to entertain the ideas of others before rejecting or accepting them.