Transgender athletes

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Think of it as people competing with people, in the game of life (also arbitrary in our version)...

These same people would not be interested in watching you in the ring with Mike Tyson. These same people are interested in watching sporting competitions, where all the competetors prowess, strength, speed and ability are at a professional level amd on reasonably level ground. While certainly some sports are able to see men and women compete on a level surface, (darts, chess, equestrian events) the majority of sports, particularly those body contact sports of heavy collisions, see men for obvious factual reasons, to have a distinct advantage in most areas over women. This is why we have the successful methodology of sex segregation, that makes women sports then far more attractive from the spectators point of view, and far more satisfying for the women competing, knowing they have less chance of injury, and a chance of winning. 

Or to repeat myself......

23 hours ago, beecee said:

This thread, despite the title, has essentially been about no sex segregation what so ever in any sport. In other words, a professional woman rugby player, should be allowed to play agaisnt a professional 110 kg male player, IF they achieve the same skill, and endurance levels. The "IF" is an absolute furphy if we get right down to the nitty gritty. The facts are men are generally "STRONGER", they are generally "FASTER", they do generally "HIT HARDER" they are generally able to "ABSORB AND TAKE BIG HITS" far better, they are generally "MORE AGGRESSIVE" the are generally "HEAVIER".

Now certainly we may have some women that might be faster then a professional rugby player, but will they be as aggressive? and stronger? and be able to take big hits? and hit harder? and absorb punishment better? 😁

The transgender argument is another matter, that my reference sport alreay have rules for, based on scientific medical advice, (or the lack thereof) as there is much to learn in that regard and much to measure and decipher.

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How has this morphed into men vs women when it's about transgenders and their suitability to play in leagues outside their assigned birth gender? It's not a given that that trans-women will carry their cis-male characteristics into the female game.

Agreed, as I mentioned a while back.....

23 hours ago, beecee said:

This thread, despite the title, has essentially been about no sex segregation what so ever in any sport.

 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

These same people would not be interested in watching you in the ring with Mike Tyson. These same people are interested in watching sporting competitions, where all the competetors prowess, strength, speed and ability are at a professional level amd on reasonably level ground. While certainly some sports are able to see men and women compete on a level surface, (darts, chess, equestrian events) the majority of sports, particularly those body contact sports of heavy collisions, see men for obvious factual reasons, to have a distinct advantage in most areas over women. This is why we have the successful methodology of sex segregation, that makes women sports then far more attractive from the spectators point of view, and far more satisfying for the women competing, knowing they have less chance of injury, and a chance of winning. 

Or to repeat myself......

Agreed, as I mentioned a while back.....

 

You misunderstand me, you have introduced a 'men vs women' angle to this. All you've done lately is harp on about how much stronger/faster cis-men are. Does that mean trans women are necessarily as strong or as fast as cis-men? No. I wish you would stop repeating yourself... it's waste of space. Repetition does not strengthen your argument.

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You misunderstand me, you have introduced a 'men vs women' angle to this. All you've done lately is harp on about how much stronger/faster cis-men are. Does that mean trans women are necessarily as strong or as fast as cis-men? No. I wish you would stop repeating yourself... it's waste of space. Repetition does not strengthen your argument.

I have misunderstood nothing, and I am not really sure who introduced the "men vs women" angle. Perhaps you can go back and find out?

With transgender people, the only remarks I have made concern the rarity of such people, and the lack of validated medical advice on them competing in sports and whether men or womens, along with the rules of the NRL concerning transgenders, and the same lack of medical facts.

Would you like me to dig up those posts and repeat myself?

I wish you would stop misrepresenting me.

On repeating myself, I find that necessary since most of those repeats are evidence that man and women are unable to compete against each other on a level playing field in body contact sports, and the failed recognition of these facts by some. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by beecee

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You misunderstand me, you have introduced a 'men vs women' angle to this. All you've done lately is harp on about how much stronger/faster cis-men are. Does that mean trans women are necessarily as strong or as fast as cis-men? No. I wish you would stop repeating yourself... it's waste of space. Repetition does not strengthen your argument.

I think one can summarize a lot of these things with a few quotes the first couple of pages. Essentially we need to understand the biology of transitioning better and find a more nuanced view on sex vs performance. There may be some disciplines where advantages are maintained, in which case transgender athletes are better suited to perform in the high performance class, which will be dominated by folks born male, in others that won't be the case. Chris Mosier, a transgender men won national championships in race walking, for example. There are different solutions and scaling for that. Golf was mentioned were handicaps can be introduced. 

This does not mean that easy solutions exist nor that it is unnecessary to figure out a system where biological women are not (further) disadvantage in earning potential, for example. 

[MigL]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Whatever gave you that idea? My only vested interest is, if I'm fair to other's, other's will be fair to me. 😉

So why is JC not allowed the same ?
Maybe you see 'fairness' differently.

[beecee]

It seems the main discussion point in this debate, (the irrefutable case for sex segregation in certain sports)  has now without doubt been resolved in the affirmative, going on the number of red negs I have received!! 😁 Seems I have certainly twisted a few livers!!😁

Actually a no brainer.  

Onto the thread title......

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sex-matters-why-transgender-athletes-must-not-compete-against-biological-females/

Sex Matters: Why Transgender Athletes Must Not Compete Against Biological Females:

extract:

If Congress and courts had forbidden sex-segregated sports, the way race and religious segregation is prohibited, I would have qualified for my high school team, but I’d never have been the Hall of Famer that I became.

I doubt I’d have competed past high school.

Now imagine if all schools were only responsible for sponsoring one sports team and they put their best students — regardless of gender — on that team.

How many girls and women would make it?

For sure, millions of girls and women would lose out on the educational experience that participation in sports provides. An experience which is also linked to economic success and life-long health.

 

Trans women should compete with biological women, so long as they can demonstrate that they have lost their sex-linked, male-puberty advantage prior to competition in the women’s category.

Lia Thomas cannot make that demonstration.

While she has apparently been complying with NCAA rules requiring hormone therapy for over 2 ½ years now, she still competes with an unfair advantage.

How do we know Lia Thomas’ performances aren’t fair?

The average differential in the men’s and women’s ‘A’ standard times for NCAA championship qualification is 11.41%; meaning the women’s times are 11%+ slower than the men’s qualification times.

About the same differential occurs if you’re looking at almost any group of swimming records or qualification times between men and women, including regional or USA Swimming qualification times, American records, world records, NCAA records.

The gaps between men and women are generally larger in the sprints than they are in the long-distance events.

So, how big is that 11% advantage in swimming times for male swimmers?

Enormous.

To put it in perspective, Olympic superstar Michael Phelps held just a .08% of an advantage over his U.S. teammate and rival Ian Crocker in the 100 butterfly in the 2004 Olympics.

But Phelps held a 12.62% advantage over the women’s gold medalist, Australian Petria Thomas.

Phelps’ advantage over women equates to over 150 times more than the advantage that Phelps had over his male competitors.

If he had that same 12.62% advantage over his male competitors, he would have swam 6.47 seconds faster than he did to win the gold, or a time of 44.78 seconds.

Meanwhile, the gap between first and eighth in the men’s Olympic final was a tiny gap of just 1.31 seconds.

Lia Thomas, however, was not 11% slower. She was only 2.6% slower than she was pre-transition in the 200-yard freestyle, and just 5.76% slower in the 500-yard freestyle.

That is NOT mitigation. It is NOT fair.

I should add that it isn’t Lia’s fault.

The problem is with the NCAA’s rules that permitted Penn to keep her on their women’s team.

(Prior to the NCAA passing its transgender determination rules to USA Swimming, the governing body for college sports followed this rule).

“A trans female treated with testosterone suppression medication may continue to compete on the men’s team but may not compete on the women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one year of testosterone suppression treatment.”

But ‘one year of testosterone suppression treatment’ was not sufficient to level the playing field between Thomas and her female competitors.

If seven-time U.S. Olympic champion Caeleb Dressel transitioned and was somehow able to mitigate the advantage he gained during male puberty, including any legacy advantage, and then broke women’s swimming events, I’d think this outcome was fair.

Dressel is, after all, a once-in-a-generation athlete.

Thomas was never in that category of standout athlete for the many years she competed as a male.

Thomas proved that the advocates who assured the NCAA and their member schools that male puberty could be rolled back in a single year after consistent hormone treatment were wrong.

The rules should follow the evidence, and in this case it is clear: Thomas should not have been in head-to-head competition with biological females.

 

more..................

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

https://www.fsunews.com/story/opinion/2022/03/20/trans-athletes-should-not-compete-womens-sports/7108799001/

extract:

In conclusion, I make the following case: trans athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports because it results in a regression in women’s equality and they won’t be able to showcase their skills and style. Additionally, in certain combat sports like MMA where punches, kicks, and jabs are thrown, numerous women have been seriously injured when fighting transgender athletes. It is for these reasons and those mentioned above that women’s sports should remain exclusive to biological women. 

extract:

This is also the case when it comes to women. Sports give women the opportunity to show the world that they too can be extremely athletic and should be given the chance to show off their skills without having to compete against men. Because science has concluded time and time again that men are biologically stronger than women in terms of absolute strength, women need their own category of sports so that they can compete fairly with one another. 

Edited May 30, 2022 by beecee

[beecee]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/dec/10/calls-athletes-compete-group-resisted

Why calls for athletes to compete as a homogenised group should be resisted:

In response to the impact of transgender athletes some advocate the sexes competing together, a move others argue would banish women from top-level sport:

Can you imagine sport without separate men’s and women’s categories? A world where Serena Williams never got a sniff of 23 majors – not with Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic in her path – and the golden British women’s hockey team of Rio 2016 never even took to the field. It sounds like a dystopian nightmare. In fact it was an idea mooted on Radio 4 last week in a Woman’s Hour discussion about whether transgender women should play women’s sports.

extract:

But the biological gap is real – and David Epstein’s brilliant book, The Sports Gene, has numerous examples that show it. As Epstein notes, up until the age of 10, girls and boys have similar bodies and their top running speeds are almost identical. But after puberty, “when boys are literally on natural steroids”, men’s and women’s records “are no longer in the same athletic universe”.

extract:

Under International Olympic Committee rules, athletes do not need “surgical anatomical changes” to compete as a woman. Rather they need to demonstrate their testosterone level in serum has been under 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months. Testosterone, as the renowned sports scientist Ross Tucker explains, is the key determinate for the IOC. “It means you could have entirely male physiology and anatomy, except for the testosterone levels, then declare that your gender identity is female, and compete in women’s sport.”

The IOC’s policy is an attempt to ensure trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sport – while also trying to ensure fair competition for women. It is an uneasy juggling act, given the strong voices on all sides.

The big question, of course, is how much of an advantage trans athletes might have when they transition. Science does not offer a full answer. However, pioneering research from Joanna Harper, a medical physicist who was born male and later transitioned, shows that when runners take hormone-suppressing medication they end up with similar gender-graded performance standards as women as they did as men. Therefore fears that trans runners or cyclists could have a large advantage in endurance sports appear unfounded.

But it is not that simple. “People say transgender women have advantages in sports and, you know what, it’s true,” says Harper, who advises the IOC and is recognised as a leader in the field. “Even after transition, on average, transgender women are taller, bigger and stronger than cisgender or ‘normal’ women. However, transgender women have disadvantages too. When they transition they have substantial loss of muscle strength and aerobic capacity, which causes them problems with agility, quickness and stamina.”

Transitioned athletes “undoubtedly benefit” from the muscle memory of years of strength training – according to Harper – although more research is needed to find out by how much. That is not easy given the lack of funding and the need for exercise physiologists at universities to work with endocrinologists at gender clinics.

more.........................

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Three points so far made in this thread......

(1) Sex segregation as per the status quo in certain sports has been determined to be the only fair and equitable system particularly for women.

(2) The subject of transgenders competing in sports, is a problem that as yet, science and medicine has not resolved.

(3)  The rarity of transition/transgender athletes, along with the still uncertain application of science and medicine, points to a debatable issue with no certainty either way and voices on either side.

Appears I have been on the right track mostly since this thread started. 😉

Yeah I know, I'm  blowing my own trumpet!!!!!😜

Edited May 30, 2022 by beecee

[naitche]

On 5/27/2022 at 2:03 AM, Peterkin said:

Why would you think that? Is there a historical basis for this belief? What is the reason women chose this option when/if they had other options?

I'm not saying it's wrong; just that it's contrary to anecdotal testimony I've heard*. It also sounds vaguely like the seperate-but-equal arguments for racial segregation - the result was separation but no equality.     

*Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques  (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance! 

Women have pushed for inclusion in sports such as equestrian etc. Those sports where men and women compete together are not under contention for transgender inclusion afaik, and I have not noticed anywhere women are trying to combine classes for men and women in the sports still segregated.(at least in western countries) seems they are content with  segregation in those sports and the option was chosen in recognition of  womens disadvantage otherwise. That competition in those sports would not be equal.

There  also seems little interest for trans men to compete as men in those same sports. In recognition of the disadvantage they would have ?

The sporting arena is increased. 'Classes" are added.

 

So I guess it is equal but separate, the difference being that this separation allows  equal participation in a single, given space. ie the sporting arena which already consists of separate but equal  sports. Its just another sport to increase  that space. Equal footing in a given space/arena.

Where racial segregation is a separation of the space itself.  Each space is lessened.

It was never done in recognition of equality. The equal but separate was a lie. Division of a single space based on the differences of the halves, can not be equal.

Sorry for your niece missing out on valuable grounding in her chosen sport. I doubt there is any reason at that age and older for segregation. 

 

 

On 5/27/2022 at 2:23 AM, CharonY said:

Yes obviously the athletes should be part of the conversation, no doubt about that. That does include transgender athletes. And rather unfortunately quite a few of the laws and rulings do not include consultations with said athletes which, as you said, is patronizing. Note that discussions on this board are purely speculative as AFAIK no one here has ruling power for any sports. It should also add that there is also the issue that sometimes a women's league is desired as women have less support in certain sports due to certain performance assumptions (which we discussed in context of jockeys).

 

That is not what was proposed, from what I can see.

I think that (or some variation of it) seems to be  what most advocating to integrate transgender athletes are basically proposing. I should add that the differences should not be sexual, but performance traits relevant for a given sports that are likely to be sex-associated. 

It sounds like they are proposing doing away with the segregation altogether. I am not. Just adding open classes. Not where advantage or disadvantage is measured in selection(any more than already done), but where the sports are changed or adjusted so that sexual advantage or disadvantage are nullified as far as possible. It might increase overall interest in sports from both a spectators or participants perspective. I would find that more interesting and believe over time, a win in open would be seen as more prestigious.

Enable an evolution, instead of imposing states. Imposition isn't done in recognition of equality, and is more likely to meet with an equal and opposite force.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m with JCM on this one. We can all advocate for better without having direct personal involvement. We can and should be be allies at any time and on any issue we want. 

Indeed, but my point is, why advocate for worse or cry foal when you're not the one being foaled.

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How has this morphed into men vs women when it's about transgenders and their suitability to play in leagues outside their assigned birth gender? It's not a given that that trans-women will carry their cis-male characteristics into the female game.

Because it's fundamentally the same question and there are always going to be outlier's, in any spectrum of humanity, that challenge our preconception's/assumption's/bias; to dismiss the possibility that a woman can beat a man, is as absurd as saying a woman can't become a man...

6 hours ago, beecee said:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/dec/10/calls-athletes-compete-group-resisted

Why calls for athletes to compete as a homogenised group should be resisted:

How can one part per million, possibly be called homogenised? 

Don't bother getting pedantic to avoid the question, we both know what I mean; but just in case, I mean that, how can one player per league/sport possibly be a problem?

14 hours ago, MigL said:

So why is JC not allowed the same ?

John Cuthber is allowed to do whatever he damn well pleases... 😉

Edited May 30, 2022 by dimreepr

[iNow]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

why advocate for worse or cry foal when you're not the one being foaled.

Probably has something to do with horsing around

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Probably has something to do with horsing around

You'd think, but I'm talking fowl...

[iNow]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You'd think, but I'm talking fowl...

So you’re chicken? 

[Moontanman]

What about women who have transitioned to be male, are they competitive? 

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What about women who have transitioned to be male, are they competitive? 

How long is a piece of string? It's not answerable until an indivdual is measured. This reinforces the point that performance should govern competition class eligibility and not gender per se. A more useful question  would be "Do transitioned cis-females gain a performance advantage over their pre-transitioned selves?"

Edited May 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because it's fundamentally the same question and there are always going to be outlier's, in any spectrum of humanity, that challenge our preconception's/assumption's/bias; to dismiss the possibility that a woman can beat a man, is as absurd as saying a woman can't become a man...

Will never change the fact that certain sports will always be segregated according to sex, and with the blessing of the majority of sports people and spectators.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can one part per million, possibly be called homogenised? 

Don't bother getting pedantic to avoid the question, we both know what I mean; but just in case, I mean that, how can one player per league/sport possibly be a problem?

As already detailed. Yes rare circumstances and secondly, not fully understood and real doubts on the science available.

from the link..................

In conclusion, I make the following case: trans athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports because it results in a regression in women’s equality and they won’t be able to showcase their skills and style. Additionally, in certain combat sports like MMA where punches, kicks, and jabs are thrown, numerous women have been seriously injured when fighting transgender athletes. It is for these reasons and those mentioned above that women’s sports should remain exclusive to biological women. 

extract:

This is also the case when it comes to women. Sports give women the opportunity to show the world that they too can be extremely athletic and should be given the chance to show off their skills without having to compete against men. Because science has concluded time and time again that men are biologically stronger than women in terms of absolute strength, women need their own category of sports so that they can compete fairly with one another. 

Edited May 30, 2022 by beecee

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

without having to compete against men. Because science has concluded time and time again that men are biologically stronger than women in terms of absolute strength, women need their own category of sports so that they can compete fairly with one another. 

All men are stronger than all women? False. Your gross generalizations are getting old. 

Edited May 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

(1) Sex segregation as per the status quo in certain sports has been determined to be the only fair and equitable system particularly for women.

(2) The subject of transgenders competing in sports, is a problem that as yet, science and medicine has not resolved.

(3)  The rarity of transition/transgender athletes, along with the still uncertain application of science and medicine, points to a debatable issue with no certainty either way and voices on either side.

Appears I have been on the right track mostly since this thread started. 😉

 The problem as I see it is that certain individuals, hear that word "discrimination" and automatically, without too much thinking, see evil intent and immediatley rail against it. It could  be described as PC gone mad. The facts are that in sport at least, it is justifiable, and important in many sports, particularly as has already been supported, and proved, body contact sports such as both rugby codes of football.

 

The following is as it should be......

"The UK Equality Act makes quite clear that you can exclude on the basis of sex where sex is important for safety."

Then we have that rare and difficult aspect with regards to transgenders. For that I'll gladly pass onto the experts, sport executives and medical scientists to fathom and solve....

 

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

All men are stronger than all women? False. Your gross generalizations are getting old. 

Sorry Stringy, wrong and misplaced again. I have always said that generally speaking, men are stronger, then women. You are quoting from an article that I gave. 

ps: And no where in the article did they say "all" 

Your gross misinterpretations and bias are getting old. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/21/coe-warns-transgender-athletes-pose-risk-to-integrity-of-womens-sport

Coe warns transgender athletes pose risk to integrity of women’s sport

World Athletics president calls for new rules across all sports

• Warning comes after Lia Thomas wins NCAA swimming title:
• Sebastian Coe has claimed that the “integrity and future of women’s sport” is at stake after the American swimmer Lia Thomas became the first transgender woman to win an NCAA swimming championship last week. The World Athletics president also called on the International Olympic Committee to introduce regulations that can be applied across every sport and insisted that “gender cannot trump biology”.

Thomas, who swam for the University of Pennsylvania men’s team for three seasons before starting hormone replacement therapy in 2019, made history by winning the 500-yard freestyle in Atlanta but has faced protests since starting to compete as a woman. Asked how important the challenge of transgender women is in athletics, Lord Coe said: “I think that the integrity of women’s sport – if we don’t get this right – and actually the future of women’s sport, is very fragile.”

 

more......................

Edited May 30, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

All men are stronger than all women? False. Your gross generalizations are getting old. 

Getting?

[StringJunky]

@beecee if you quote it as source without caveats, you will be assumed to agree with it verbatim.

Just now, iNow said:

Getting?

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

@beecee if you quote it as source without caveats, you will be assumed to agree with it verbatim.

I certainly agree with the basis of the source, but you would also know that in all my posts, I have always used the words generally. or mostly. You already know that I suggest.

But your desire for one-upmanship is noted.

"The UK Equality Act makes quite clear that you can exclude on the basis of sex where sex is important for safety."

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Getting?

Age shall not weary them. Particularly in repeating facts.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Will never change the fact that certain sports will always be segregated according to sex, and with the blessing of the majority of sports people and spectators.

 

On 5/30/2022 at 7:32 AM, beecee said:

This thread, despite the title, has essentially been about no sex segregation what so ever in any sport. In other words, a professional woman rugby player, should be allowed to play agaisnt a professional 110 kg male player, IF they achieve the same skill, and endurance levels. The "IF" is an absolute furphy if we get right down to the nitty gritty. The facts are men are generally "STRONGER", they are generally "FASTER", they do generally "HIT HARDER" they are generally able to "ABSORB AND TAKE BIG HITS" far better, they are generally "MORE AGGRESSIVE" the are generally "HEAVIER".

Now certainly we may have some women that might be faster then a professional rugby player, but will they be as aggressive? and stronger? and be able to take big hits? and hit harder? and absorb punishment better? 😁

 

Along with all the facts presented supporting sex segregation in certain sports, the transgender issue remains a problem, mainly due to the inconclusive scientific evidence that we know so far. 

The problem here so far is that certain individuals, that are attempting to red card me,🥱 (particularly with compulsory sex segregation) are failing miserably according to the scientific evidence, and essentially should be encouraged to debate the facts as presented and not the person, showing again that sometimes  standing up to extreme PC will draw the wrath of some. 😏

 With the transgender aspect, and transgender participation in sport, the reasons why this is so controversial is that there isn't any ideal scientifically supported scenario of keeping everyone completely happy, which has been pointed out in a few links, along of course with the rarity of the situation. 

The reality of the situation as highlighted in some of the links, is that you cannot have total fairness in all situations by lowering testosterone, and you need to show that fairness is not only done, but be seen to be done. That sadly due to the inconclusive nature of the subject and lack of total scientific verification, may see the need to exclude some transgenders or accept the undesirable and spoiling unfairness aspect by including transgenders.....particularly trans women.

Edited May 30, 2022 by beecee

[beecee]

In the meantime, the greatest sporting rivalry on the planet on June 8th at Sydney's Stadium Australia will take place. The two State of Origin teams have been selected and are now in camp undergoing medical and fitness tests.

Of course the NRLW also have their own State of Origin sides that compete against each other. 

                                                                                                    

The Women's State of Origin side: Lucky Coach!!! 😁 

Got my VB, peanuts, and position in my Lazy Boy rocker ready and waiting!!!!😉

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 5/29/2022 at 6:21 PM, StringJunky said:

You misunderstand me, you have introduced a 'men vs women' angle to this. All you've done lately is harp on about how much stronger/faster cis-men are. Does that mean trans women are necessarily as strong or as fast as cis-men? No. I wish you would stop repeating yourself... it's waste of space. Repetition does not strengthen your argument.

You are correct of course in your implication. But it doesn't mean they are not either. If Bruce Jenner had transitioned in 1976 she would still been able to compete in the male decathlon and obviously had the potential to break the World and Olympic record for what is often considered "World's greatest athlete".

Now, could she have won the women's heptathlon, after a 2 year drug induced testosterone reduction to closer to female than male range? My opinion is yes, and I am more than certain Caitlyn Jenner would agree.

But I am also pretty confident 1976 Bruce Jenner was not using steroids to get his World record results, and would not have agreed to any testosterone reducing treatment to compete in the female category.

[beecee]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because it's fundamentally the same question and there are always going to be outlier's, in any spectrum of humanity, that challenge our preconception's/assumption's/bias; to dismiss the possibility that a woman can beat a man, is as absurd as saying a woman can't become a man...

Generally of course, and as you well know, any preconception/assumption is well founded on observational and biological evidence, that yes in most all circumstances, a women generally speaking, will not beat a man in certain sports, as has been shown with many links. Of course though if I got on a tennis court with Ash Barty or Serena or Venus, they would obviously smack my arse in quick time. Noting of course, as per a previous link, both Serena and Venus, couldn't even come close to beating a male professional tennis player ranked 203 in the world. The same obviously applies with many other sports. Men and women, are different, and I for one, appreciate that fact. 

😁😋😍😛

Edited May 31, 2022 by beecee

[J.C.MacSwell]

Okay Beecee. I can understand your placing your framed photo on your wall...but how did your wife feel about your four guests?

[beecee]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Okay Beecee. I can understand your placing your framed photo on your wall...but how did your wife feel about your four guests?

😁 Out of sight, out of mind!

Actually the two on the left are our channel 9 sport commentators, Danika Mason  and Yvonne Sampson......