dimreepr

In the context of this thread, average isn't good enough to win, and that piss' off a lot of people; if you don't believe me just visit a pee-wee game, and check out who's going postal!!! I can't show you something that your unwilling to see... 😣

Well for one, the elite levels are pushing the envelope within the chosen field of play, so that's where the best data is; let's not forget that the elite level is, by definition, designed to route out the outlier's of human physiology. (edit, which we're happy to celebrate, as long as the women don't look like men) I hope you don't think this question in any way turns the tables, if anything it puts more pressure on you to come back with at least one reason why my reason/ing is wrong? Besides, why is it only elite athlete's that 'deserves your' protection? It's not our job to understand it for you, there's now 83 page's of very patient explanation's; not everyone gets it first time round, and we're not aloud to beat it into you, so I suggest you read it again, because some of the subtle stuff obviously did a fly-by... 🧐

Of course not, they haven't played 'yet'; how can you possibly explain a game that hasn't been played? But if you really want to know what my version of fairness is, it's very Darwinian, "let them fight"... 😉

Of course it's a no, because 'they' will always be wrong, despite reason (you've said it before); you've yet to explain why you support this particular "ism" of thought... 🧐

Think about it, Reg (what did the Roman's ever do for us?)...

Wait what now? If that's your excuse for logic, it's little wonder you struggle with the concept.

I'm no expert on transgenders, I think I know one (we talk but I've never asked) and she had tits; I'm pretty sure most of them want to see biological changes... But more to the point, does that mean if you could write the rules, you'd let them play?

I've had a think about what it tells me, either your X, something I can't say, cus you'd report me, or Y, you've got a spreadbet on how many page's this will get to, or XY, you're a troll.

Another diversion instead of an answer, it tells me a great deal...

Excuse after excuse to hide the reason for your objection to the perfectly workable solution of, let them play first (test for possibility of monetising and fair competition, ITO 😉). All of your replies, since I suggested that we put the brakes on this roundabout, have been nothing but spin/excuses. One last try, because you're clearly inteligent; what is the reason you object to the above solution?

OK, thanks for the explanation as regards HRT, I'll take it as read if you like (cough citation), but that aside, how can you have evidence of how well they play together, if they aren't allowed to play together? And so the wheel spins, and is never going to be resolved/halted; as long as people KNOW that it's wrong to try. Now, please answer the question/s, I know you know I meant and stop being deliberately obtuse, pretty please with knobs on ("clean the fucking car")...

Please explain. I understand your position just fine, because if it isn't that you object to them playing, before any evidence can be collected, then wtf have we been talking about in the past 80 page's?🥱 More to the point, answer the question, pretty please, any one of them, I don't mind, just once, but for the love of god/whoever not more spin... 🙏

Well, the only argument/objection you seem to have is a fundamental part of being a transsexual, namely HRT, and however you try to spin that, it's just an excuse to object. So for me it's a dead end, so I'm not going to spin again, until I see an actual reason for your basic position on this...

Well said +1 I wonder if that will be enough to bring this sad little roundabout to a halt??? 🤒

How big are you???

Well, Schrodinger's cat is designed to show the absurdity of comparing the little with the big, and you seem to be doing that, but in the antipode. I'm just pointing out that this topic is, macro, so the micro need not apply...

OK, but which part?

But this is Schrodinger's cat in reverse, it has no place in this particular conversation...

Indeed, so what's your point, in the context of this topic?

Really? It's big enough for steotypes to emerge...

It's never been a binary question, even if we take the obvious, sex for reproduction, there's 4 group's: 1, men that can, 2, women that can, 3, men that can't, 4, women that can't, 6 if we include those that choose not to partake, 8 if we include those that can't attract a mate. And that's a question of life and death, and we're only talking about a game FFS. For me, it's because you've already dismissed the language to describe it out of hand; for instance, a large part of what it is to be male/female is subjective, so you know what it feels like to be a man because you are one, so in your imagination what it feels like to be a woman is simply the opposite of that. IOW You lack the understanding, because you've dismissed the language needed as bullshit. 😉

Indeed, we will continue to grow until physics says we can't...

Is it though? Women are very bad driver's... 😲

Well, he didn't explain it very well... 😉