Phi for All

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

Saying you aren't a racist while using non-standard terms like Anglo-Saxon is a lot like saying you aren't a creationist while using non-standard terms like Darwinian evolution. You seemed confused, so I spelled it all out for you. Or perhaps you replied to the wrong thread?

This seems similar to folks who've posted here claiming NOT to be a creationist, yet they use terms like "Darwinian evolution". Riiiiiiight, you're not a creationist.

Because you phrase it just like this, but it gets heard as "I want women to get hurt" or "it's more entertaining when average people can compete" or "any woman can compete against the top elite men in all sports". And I don't see those supporting transgendered athletes misinterpreting the opposite stance in the same way. The pushback I've been getting seems mostly arguments from incredulity and don't be a snowflake and we already have categories.

The GOP has dressed all these concepts up as scarecrows, stuffing them with straw and misrepresenting the stances behind each in a fallacious endeavor to knock them all down. Progressivism is also mischaracterized, as we've seen quite recently with FOX News and Tucker Carlson promoting the Great Replacement theory, helping indoctrinate white supremacists across the country and, imo, directly leading to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo. The GOP, FOX, and Carlson all have a LOT of blood on their hands, imo.

Under the second amendment, as long as she didn't plan for that to happen, it's her right to risk her child's life that way (the American way).

It seems like all the arguments you mention either mischaracterize opposing arguments, or argue from incredulity, or are outright strawmen attacks. If you can meet the physical requirements necessary to compete at a certain level, can you explain to me again why your age or gender is an issue?

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class.

If you were looking for a binary result (is capsaicin present in ANY amount - yes or no), that would be a pretty cool school project. What you're talking about has some real commercial applications. This site https://www.zpchilligroup.com/ claims to have such a device.

The meme has been around a while, without Skeletor, so perhaps this is He-Mansplaining? I got hung up on the bad punctuation.

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did. My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?

This must be the logic JCM mentioned.

Reading back over the arguments, I didn't miss them. It wasn't my arguments I was going by (I'm not a sports fan at all anymore, haven't been for a long time), but rather better arguments offered by participants other than you or beecee. Like setting standards for the industry that involve actual sporting capabilities like strength, endurance, agility and other performance factors, and establishing categories of competition that reflect those standards. So that a person of any gender and age can compete in the categories they qualify for. I didn't see logic anywherre else.

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?