What is a woman?

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 11, 2023, 02:17:27 AM

What is this obsession with race in sport?

To show the hypocrisy. It isn't that hard.
Divisions based upon sex are no better than those based upon race.

Yet people would see race based divisions as racist bigotry. But those same people seem quite happy to accept sexist bigotry and defend it.

Yet to answer.

As previously stated “Race” is an arbitrary and unworkable way of division even if anybody but you were suggesting it.
Whereas you want to force women to compete with men to force a “justice” that you seem to be the only champion.

Well, hopefully Jack will be pleased with this one.  Biological males kicking down restrictive societal barriers and bravely winning women's cycling races. 

'This could kill cycling': Race director speaks out on his sport's transgender rules

The International Cycling Union (UCI) seem to just keep kicking this issue down the road and hoping it will go away.

Because by race, the difference in physical aptitude is negligible

If that was the case, black athletes would not dominate the gold medals and medals in general.
There are clearly genetic factors other than sex which play a significant role.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 02:46:48 AM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 11, 2023, 02:17:27 AM

What is this obsession with race in sport?

To show the hypocrisy. It isn't that hard.
Divisions based upon sex are no better than those based upon race.

Yet people would see race based divisions as racist bigotry. But those same people seem quite happy to accept sexist bigotry and defend it.

Yet to answer.

So you need an explicit response that I oppose sexist bigotry?
And I am using race to demonstrate that it is just as bigotted.

As previously stated “Race” is an arbitrary and unworkable way of division even if anybody but you were suggesting it.

Why?

But more importantly, I'm not actually arguing for race based divisions. I am using it as a counter example to show why we shouldn't have sex based divisions.

Well, hopefully Jack will be pleased with this one.  Biological males kicking down restrictive societal barriers and bravely winning women's cycling races. 

'This could kill cycling': Race director speaks out on his sport's transgender rules

The International Cycling Union (UCI) seem to just keep kicking this issue down the road and hoping it will go away.

I oppose the hypocrisy of allowing some males to compete but not others.
Just think, if instead of arbitrarily dividing it based upon sex, they used actual metrics of performance, there wouldn't be this issue.

But the big complaint seems to be that these women aren't able to compete as well as the top male athletes so we can't get money for them.
But if you want to claim that women are inferior to men with regards to sport so they need their own league, that is expected. As they are not capable of performing the same as the top athletes, they should not be paid the same as the top athletes or receive the same coverage, and so on.
There is no rational way of trying to justify their position. They either need to claim these female athletes are just as good as male athletes, destroying any possible justification for keeping them segregated, or they need to admit they are not as good, destroying any possible justification for equal pay, sponsorship, etc.

It is also ridiculous to think this will kill cycling. All it will kill is the allure for lesser athletes, and maybe make people stop watching these lesser divisions.

But this shows a current big conflict in society.
Some people want to be bigoted and keep sport segregated. Some people want to oppose this bigotry in a highly selective manner by allowing trans athletes to compete as the sex they identify as. And the problem is that these go directly against each other. The more rational approach is to reject the bigotry entirely.

It all comes across as a misogynistic rant about women wanting equal pay, but they rarely do, and where they do, such as Wimbledon, it's because they filled the same venue with the same amount of people, in fact in 2010 and 2014 the women's US open finals drew larger audiences in the US than the men's finals, but over all the men earn more than the women.

Now I believe that money should be paid in respect to the draw that those people have, and if you look at women's sport that is largely what happens. But in Jacks world you would push women even further down the pay grade with your misguided “equality” push because you would force them to compete with men presumably to humiliate them into submission, that's not what equality means Jack.

Don't you realise that many people want to both watch women's sport and compete in it because it is apparent to all, that physically of course they can't compete, it doesn't make it any less watchable or skillful. I posted somewhere about watching  the Women's Euro's (football), and it was a breath of fresh air to watching the the over paid pampered diving pricks that have infested the men's game, they get paid a fraction of what their male counterparts do, and will continue to unless they pull the same crowds, that's life.

Your, “more rational approach,”  is not a rejection of bigotry it's a rejection of common sense and shows your underlying bigotry towards women.

It all comes across as a misogynistic rant about women wanting equal pay, but they rarely do, and where they do, such as Wimbledon, it's because they filled the same venue with the same amount of people, in fact in 2010 and 2014 the women's US open finals drew larger audiences in the US than the men's finals, but over all the men earn more than the women.

Now I believe that money should be paid in respect to the draw that those people have, and if you look at women's sport that is largely what happens. But in Jacks world you would push women even further down the pay grade with your misguided “equality” push because you would force them to compete with men presumably to humiliate them into submission, that's not what equality means Jack.

Don't you realise that many people want to both watch women's sport and compete in it because it is apparent to all, that physically of course they can't compete, it doesn't make it any less watchable or skillful. I posted somewhere about watching  the Women's Euro's (football), and it was a breath of fresh air to watching the the over paid pampered diving pricks that have infested the men's game, they get paid a fraction of what their male counterparts do, and will continue to unless they pull the same crowds, that's life.

Your, “more rational approach,”  is not a rejection of bigotry it's a rejection of common sense and shows your underlying bigotry towards women.

It isn't so much as the draw of the crowd, that does play into it, but more so the sponsors and advertisers.  Statistically, male sporting events will draw larger crowds and followings, as such advertisers are willing to spend more to advertise to them, thus the sponsors put out larger payouts knowing they will more than recoup through advertisements.  While there are examples of female sporting events drawing in considerable crowds, the payout amounts and advertisement costs are set because statistically, they female sporting events don't draw near as much.   Companies aren't going to advertise at higher rates on female sporting events because statistically they draw smaller audiences and thus costly advertisements aren't risk worthy.  And sponsors aren't going to risk being on the hook for high payouts when they may not be able to recoup those costs.  It's simply economics and business.

When women's sporting events draw consistent equivalent draws, sponsors will up advertisement prices and thus the payouts to the women athletes will increase. 

Yes, it is true, women aren't as good as men at most sports. There may be a couple exceptions, but even skiing men are faster and can jump farther, and they have tougher courses  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-men-and-women-skied-against-each-other-in-the-olympics/

Who gets paid more isn't the issue. Safety is way more important. I'm sure the individual athletes care about getting paid, everyone does, but they'd probably rather not have their legs broken or skulls cracked.

It all comes across as a misogynistic rant about women wanting equal pay, but they rarely do, and where they do, such as Wimbledon, it's because they filled the same venue with the same amount of people, in fact in 2010 and 2014 the women's US open finals drew larger audiences in the US than the men's finals, but over all the men earn more than the women.

Yet you still brought it up.
Remember this:

Presumably JB has decided that to be “right on” means ditching any attempt at logical thinking and going instead with the fanatic’s headset, until women would be consigned to the lower leagues of almost all sports and therefore lower earnings, all in the name of fairness! Bizarre.

You oppose the idea of using performance as a metric as it would result in women being consigned to a lower league and therefore getting lower earnings.
But your only way to justify keeping them segregated is by claiming that women would be ranked in a lower league, meaning a female division would be a lower league and therefore expect lower earnings.

As for the claim that they rarely do, are you saying that they rarely get paid the same, or they rarely call for equal pay?
Because there are plenty of cases where people call for women to be paid equally.

Now I believe that money should be paid in respect to the draw that those people have, and if you look at women's sport that is largely what happens. But in Jacks world you would push women even further down the pay grade with your misguided “equality” push because you would force them to compete with men presumably to humiliate them into submission, that's not what equality means Jack.

And more irrational BS.
My position has nothing to do with humiliating them into submission.
If they want to be recognised as the best, then they need to compete with the best and demonstrate that they are.

Otherwise, they can be separated based upon performance to compete with those of similar capability.

And with how sport works, it isn't just the draw of people but also sponsors.
If you fill a stadium, but don't have sponsors you will get paid less than those that don't quite fill a stadium but have very good sponsors.

Don't you realise that many people want to both watch women's sport and compete in it because it is apparent to all, that physically of course they can't compete, it doesn't make it any less watchable or skillful. I posted somewhere about watching  the Women's Euro's (football), and it was a breath of fresh air to watching the the over paid pampered diving pricks that have infested the men's game, they get paid a fraction of what their male counterparts do, and will continue to unless they pull the same crowds, that's life.

Or until there are enough sexist bigots complaining that women aren't being paid the same and demanding that they should be paid the same, even when drawing in less and not being able to compete at the same level.
And that has already had an affect with some places giving men and women equal pay for unequal work.

Your, “more rational approach,”  is not a rejection of bigotry it's a rejection of common sense and shows your underlying bigotry towards women.

How does opposing sexism show underlying bigotry?
The reality is that you are the one who is being bigoted, and because you cannot justify your bigotry you project that onto others.
I am NOT being bigoted towards women by opposing sex based segregation.
Just like someone who oppose race based segregation is not bigoted towards a race.

Ok, let's try a different approach.

Question for JackBlack:   Please define what you think the term "sporting" means.

Alternatively:  What is the purpose of sport?

JB will continue trundling around his little track in a world in which he is the only true non bigot, whilst saying things that prove he is, by putting up strawman arguments that we are all saying women should be paid the same as men, in all circumstances, therefore they must compete with men or else.

The logical end game of your argument is that there is no more women’s only sport, because otherwise it’s enforced bigoted segregation!!

Have you asked any women about this? Do you know any women?

Have you asked any women about this? Do you know any women?

I doubt he's asked any men about this.  This is Jack's little one man crusade that nobody asked for.

It is very weird that his main focus is money and race.

It is very weird that his main focus is money and race.

It's like they (women) don't really matter.

What I don’t get is his adamance that completely stopping women from competing against each other, thus fulfilling their obvious desire to do so and in doing have a career in their chosen sport, is in their best interest and a result of him (and him alone) knowing exclusively what is bigoted.

What I don’t get is his adamance that completely stopping women from competing against each other, thus fulfilling their obvious desire to do so and in doing have a career in their chosen sport, is in their best interest and a result of him (and him alone) knowing exclusively what is bigoted.

So, what you are saying is that you'd like to bring back racial segregation in schools?

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 12, 2023, 07:59:53 AM

What I don’t get is his adamance that completely stopping women from competing against each other, thus fulfilling their obvious desire to do so and in doing have a career in their chosen sport, is in their best interest and a result of him (and him alone) knowing exclusively what is bigoted.

So, what you are saying is that you'd like to bring back racial segregation in schools?

(pssst. you forgot to say "more delusional BS." No JB post or caricature is complete without it.)

Ok, let's try a different approach.

Question for JackBlack:   Please define what you think the term "sporting" means.

Alternatively:  What is the purpose of sport?

This is highly contextual.
For some, sport is just for simple enjoyment, where anyone can play against anyone, regardless of athletic ability (but disability like not being able to work may be an issue). And those which are more capable generally don't try their hardest, to keep it fun.
In other contexts, that of competitive sports, it is to find the best, at which point people will either try their very best, or do what is necessary to win.

So if you are thinking of it in the context of fun, there is no need for division. If you are looking at in in the context of a competition to find the best, excluding people because they are too good is unfair and the purpose is entirely avoided.

JB will continue trundling around his little track in a world in which he is the only true non bigot

I'm not the only non bigot.
But if you need to resort to accuse others of bigotry because they oppose sex based segregation, then it demonstrates that you are a bigot.

When you need to pretend to justify your claims by repeatedly lying, to vilify what the opponent says, it indicates you are more likely to be the bigot.

For example:

putting up strawman arguments that we are all saying women should be paid the same as men, in all circumstances, therefore they must compete with men or else.

I have never said that EVERYONE is saying that.
Instead, I have appealed to the FACT, that people are saying women should be paid the same.
There are countless examples of that.
For example:
https://thewomensgame.com/news/10-ways-to-explain-to-a-sexist-mate-that-womens-sport-deserves-equal-pay-533670/page0
https://theswaddle.com/equal-pay-in-sports-why-female-athletes-should-be-paid-the-same-as-male-athletes/
https://www.sportanddev.org/latest/news/gender-pay-gap-sports
https://thewordyboy.com/professional-female-athletes-be-paid/
https://www.planetspark.in/elements/should-professional-female-athletes-be-paid-the-same-as-male-athletes-in-the-same-sport

There have even been lawsuits:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/sports/soccer/us-womens-soccer-equal-pay.html

And even you had the same kind of BS idea:

Presumably JB has decided that to be “right on” means ditching any attempt at logical thinking and going instead with the fanatic’s headset, until women would be consigned to the lower leagues of almost all sports and therefore lower earnings, all in the name of fairness! Bizarre.

You object to the idea of removing sex based segregation as it would result in women having lower earnings.
This is an implicit appeal to the idea that women need their own league so the top female athletes can be paid the same (or have equal earnings) to top male athletes.

But because your position is inherently contradictory as the only way to try and justify segregated sports is by claiming women are not as good as men, which would directly lead to the conclusion that there should be no expectation for equal pay just like there isn't between different leagues, you then want to pretend it is a strawman to suggest people want them to be paid the same.

The logical end game of your argument is that there is no more women’s only sport

That's right. There wouldn't be any bigoted segregation.
Just like there aren't any white only bathrooms.

What I don’t get is his adamance that completely stopping women from competing against each other

How?
They are still able to compete against each other, they just wouldn't be allowed to exclude people based on sex. Just like they can't exclude people based on their race.

It also isn't just me suggesting it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/sports-gender-sex-segregation-coed/671460/
https://theconversation.com/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports-89305
https://www.hhrjournal.org/2019/06/sex-segregation-in-sport-a-denial-of-rights-and-opportunities-for-health/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports/9329054


But sure, keep sticking to your fantasy where opposition to segregation is bigotry.
Maybe go join the KKK while you are at it, I'm sure they would love to be comforted by people supporting segregation.

It is very weird that his main focus is money and race.

That isn't the main focus. The main focus is that segregation is bad.

Race is used as an example where the vast majority agree that segregation is bad, even if there are physiological difference which make certain groups better at certain sports that other groups on average (just like physiological differences associated with biological sex).
It is to show the blatant hypocrisy. Segregation on the basis of sex is no better than segregation on the basis of race. Both are bigoted. Both are equally justified.

The only real distinction between them is social attitude. Where the vast majority of people today are quite happy to discriminate and segregate on the basis of sex, but think doing so on the basis of race is entirely unjustified.
But if in the past we went a different route, and instead of eliminating segregation on the basis of race, we eliminated it on the basis of sex, we would have the opposite situation now, where you would be arguing to keep race based segregation in sport and think sex based segregation is unjustified.
It is purely social condition which makes people think segregation on the basis of sex is justified when there is no greater rational basis for it than segregation on the basis of race.

And money is used as a simple example which further demonstrates the hypocrisy of those advocating for sex based segregation in sport; with plenty demanding equal pay, while demanding different leagues. And so far the only even remotely coherent argument against it is that if we didn't segregate sport based upon sex, women would be relegated to a lower league where they would be paid less. But how is that any different to a female league being a lower league where they would be paid less?

You didn't really answer the question,  but I admit it was a leading question.  So let's try a different tack.

Have you ever played sport?  If so what sports have you played?

The difference between a woman and a man is this:



This occurs at the most fundamental, quantum level.

This single particle, a subquark, is to be found in the lower abdomen area, it is called the red bindu. In the thalamus gland area, a subquark with an inversely rotating vortex is placed.

One can change the outward appearance, but not that single subquark which makes all the difference.

You didn't really answer the question,  but I admit it was a leading question.  So let's try a different tack.

Have you ever played sport?  If so what sports have you played?

I answered focusing on the purpose.
I have only played sports for fun, not professionally. And that was playing with males and females, and no one had any issue.
I don't see why listing all the sports played would be helpful.

It also isn't just me suggesting it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/sports-gender-sex-segregation-coed/671460/
https://theconversation.com/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports-89305
https://www.hhrjournal.org/2019/06/sex-segregation-in-sport-a-denial-of-rights-and-opportunities-for-health/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports/9329054

Love the way you just googled it then linked the URLs without reading them.  One of them is behind a paywall, so unless you subscribe to The Atlantic I guess you haven't read  - it appears to be about schoolgirls wanting to play in the boys teams.  Which is increasingly the norm in the UK pre-puberty  The hhrjournal isn't calling for an end to sex based segregation in sport  - I'm not really sure what it's about, something to do with not forcing intersex athletes to take testosterone suppressers or something.  It feels like the writer really struggled to get to the minimum wordcount. 

The abc and theconversation articles are exactly the same, one is just a reprint (it even clearly states this), so again you've clearly not read them.  It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever read.  A scientifically illiterate sociologist suggesting we should segregate sports on the basis of muscle mass and for endurance sports include VO2 max.    Considering the only reliable way to measure muscle mass is an MRI this will make for some interesting set ups.

Before every sporting event now everyone will have to pass through a MRI staffed by a team of radiographers and wait until the radiologist has assessed the competitors muscle mass.  Then they can move on through the sports science lab to this:



Then they can start their Sunday league soccer match.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2023, 01:49:34 AM

You didn't really answer the question,  but I admit it was a leading question.  So let's try a different tack.

Have you ever played sport?  If so what sports have you played?

I answered focusing on the purpose.
I have only played sports for fun, not professionally. And that was playing with males and females, and no one had any issue.
I don't see why listing all the sports played would be helpful.

I wanted you to understand that your concept of no restrictions on who can play,  would mean the end of sport for most women. 

Listing the sports you are familiar with would go a long way to understanding for the rest of us as to why your attitude is what it is.

Golf and ten pin bowling are not in the same category as rugby, boxing or weightlifting.

I think I'll have to leave him posturing in his white knight costume, not truly reading what people say, just so sure that women playing sport against other women is the same as apartheid.

I'm convinced now there are no women in his life which is sad.

Love the way you just googled it then linked the URLs without reading them.

Why? Because it isn't a word for word repeat of my statement?

it appears to be about schoolgirls wanting to play in the boys teams.  Which is increasingly the norm in the UK pre-puberty

The paywall is JS based and trivial to bypass.
It is focusing on someone in the equivalent of year 11. That is not pre-puberty.
The fact they have to jump through so many hurdles should also highlight that.

It also includes an example of the opposite case, of a male student wanting to play on a sport that is typically seen as for girls only, so there was no male team for them to play on; and how after being allowed for most of it, at the end he was excluded due to blatant sexism. And it wasn't about their ability because
"There are players on teams that we play that are faster than me, that are stronger than me, that can hit the ball harder than me. So I knew that [the league’s] arguments didn’t really have any basis in that regard.".

One of the students has even written to the NY education department "formally requesting" they revoke these blatantly sexist guidelines as they are violation of Title IX and the equal protection clause of the US constitution.

So they were excluded from the sport because the same sexist bigotry you are here advocating for. You are no better than the racist bigots defending racial segregation.

We also have this:
"She said that this complexity means it doesn’t make sense to separate sports by sex in order to protect women athletes from getting hurt. “If safety was a concern, and there was evidence to select certain bodily characteristics to base safety cut-offs on, then you would see, say, shorter men excluded from competing with taller men, or lighter women from competing with heavier women, across sports.”"
So not directly calling for an end, but saying it doesn't make sense.

It does highlight how weight is used to separate boxing, but then calls out that it still isn't used to remove sex segregation. Which is an interesting question. For boxing, if weight is so important, why can't males and females of the same or similar weight compete against each other? Otherwise, weight classes shouldn't be considered enough inside a sex either.

It even appeals to research (which I haven't read), highlighting that differences between sexes are more complex, and that there may be more diversity within a sex than between sexes, and ones that suggest the sex gap may be more due to society than biology.

And it even ends with this nice little quote:
"But as long as laws and general practice of youth sports remain rooted in the idea that one sex is inherently inferior, young athletes will continue to learn and internalize that harmful lesson."
So, do you think women are inferior and can't compete against men?

The hhrjournal isn't calling for an end to sex based segregation in sport  - I'm not really sure what it's about, something to do with not forcing intersex athletes to take testosterone suppressers or something.

It indicates that cases like this raise questions about sex segregation in sport:
"the questions it raises about sex segregation in sports more generally, and whether this is itself a violation of human rights."
It provides examples of co-ed sports where women can enjoy participating.
But they were focusing on it more from a mindset focusing on inclusion of trans and intersex athletes.

As it is asking questions on if sex segregation is a violation of human rights, I would say it falls more on the side of sex segregation bad than sex segregation good.

The abc and theconversation articles are exactly the same, one is just a reprint (it even clearly states this), so again you've clearly not read them.

And it being a copy doesn't really mean much. The abc had the choice to either include it or reject it/ignore it, and they have chosen to include it, showing that it isn't some fringe idea that no one believes.

It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Why? Because it advocates for segregation on the basis of ability rather than based upon blatant sexism?

Considering the only reliable way to measure muscle mass is an MRI this will make for some interesting set ups.

Considering muscle mass can't easily change overnight, they wouldn't need to be screened immediately before every competition.
It could be run in a similar manner to current sex testing, but before the games start.

I think I'll have to leave him posturing in his white knight costume, not truly reading what people say

Says the one repeatedly making up pure BS about what I have said to try to vilify me because you can't honestly and rationally defend your sexist bigotry.
But hey, it's not like your sexist bigotry has caused any deaths or serious harm. Oh wait, it has.

I wanted you to understand that your concept of no restrictions on who can play,  would mean the end of sport for most women. 

Listing the sports you are familiar with would go a long way to understanding for the rest of us as to why your attitude is what it is.

Golf and ten pin bowling are not in the same category as rugby, boxing or weightlifting.

You can drop the "women" part of that.
A small subset of elite athletes would mean the end of competitive sports for most people. Males and females.

But It wouldn't do anything against recreational sport. Men and women would still be able to play together recreationally.

My attitude is quite simple, segregation (a form of discrimination) on the basis of sex is sexist bigotry and entirely unjustified, and no better than racial segregation.
If you wish to appeal to the average performance or various athletic abilities of male and female athletes, than that already provides an alternative to segregating on the basis of sex. That means you can use those measures to decide who can compete with who, making multiple separate leagues where everyone can compete in a league appropriate to their abilities; rather than arbitrarily segregating based on sex.

It means you would avoid humiliating sex testing, which has resulted in people committing suicide after "failing" such tests, and others undergoing sterilisation and genital mutilation procedures to pass such tests. It would avoid questions over if the 3 medallists in the bigoted 800 m at the Rio Olympics in 2016 should have been allowed to compete or if the 4th place should have gotten gold. It would avoid questions over how trans people and intersex people are allowed to compete. As it would be based upon their performance rather than their sex/gender/gender identity.

You should ask yourself why that article you linked conflates trans with "intersex".

You should ask yourself why that article you linked conflates trans with "intersex".

Which one?
Are you sure it wasn't just including 2 examples? Where intersex athletes currently face significant issues with competing, sometimes only finding out they are intersex after failing a sex test before a competition? As well as highlighting issues for how trans athletes would compete?

Trans rights activists have co-opted intersex issues in order to confuse people. For example, using "assigned female at birth" or "assigned male at birth". There are cases where an infant is born with ambiguous or abnormal genitalia, and the doctor and parents decided it would be easier to raise the child as the sex they "assign" to the infant. They know the actual sex of the infant, and assign it the opposite. Trans activists want people to think their sex was also mistakenly assigned, and not observed.

The article conflates DSDs (disorders of sexual development) with third genders (culturally created categories) in order to make the leap that sex segregation in sports is a human rights violation. All those people with special gender identities are still whatever sex they were born as.

It's a ridiculous article.

Trans rights activists have co-opted intersex issues in order to confuse people. For example, using "assigned female at birth" or "assigned male at birth". There are cases where an infant is born with ambiguous or abnormal genitalia, and the doctor and parents decided it would be easier to raise the child as the sex they "assign" to the infant. They know the actual sex of the infant, and assign it the opposite. Trans activists want people to think their sex was also mistakenly assigned, and not observed.

The article conflates DSDs (disorders of sexual development) with third genders (culturally created categories) in order to make the leap that sex segregation in sports is a human rights violation. All those people with special gender identities are still whatever sex they were born as.

It's a ridiculous article.

They have co-opted equality issues, i.e. treating people equally rather than in a discriminatory fashion.
But typically when they do so, they contradict themselves with their blatant sexism.

But that doesn't mean they are conflating anything. They are providing examples.

And again, the purpose of me providing this is to demonstrate it isn't just a fringe idea where I am the only person advocating for it. i.e. it is not just me and me alone.

It's a ridiculous article.

The hhrjournal one?  Yeah, as I said it has a "does this meet the word count?" feel.  Very poor piece of confused scribbling.

Jack isn't using these articles in any coherent argument, he's just in full gish gallop mode.

Jack isn't using these articles in any coherent argument, he's just in full gish gallop mode.

Are you capable of responding honestly?
I explained what they were used for, to demonstrate that it is not just me calling for an end to blatant sexist bigotry.

But because you can't refute anything said, you just look for ways to ridicule.

Do you believe that humans (and all life) are the result of millions of years of evolution? If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are sexually dimorphic? Is it bigotry to know that men have, on average, twice the lean upper body mass than women? Men are nearly twice as strong as women.

Earlier in the thread you asked Jimmy this emotive question - "So, do you think women are inferior and can't compete against men?" It's meant to make him look like a chauvinist if he answers honestly. If you believe that evolution is true, you should be able to see that males and females evolved differently, to fulfill different roles in the survival of our species. Most sports are a display of male strength. Men are faster, men have more powerful muscles, men have more fast twitch muscle fibers, etc. Women, on the other hand, have more slow twitch muscles, which gives us more endurance. We are slightly better than men in very long distance running. If there were other sports built around the strengths women have, what do you think they would look like? Women survive drought and famine better than men, but I don't think anyone wants to potentially starve to death for sport.

None of that means that women don't enjoy the sports that were invented to display the male physique. It does mean, that in almost every sport, men have the advantage. Not just a tiny advantage, but a huge one. The result of this basic truth is that most sports superstars are men, and that's okay.

The difference between a woman and a man is this:



This occurs at the most fundamental, quantum level.

This single particle, a subquark, is to be found in the lower abdomen area, it is called the red bindu. In the thalamus gland area, a subquark with an inversely rotating vortex is placed.

One can change the outward appearance, but not that single subquark which makes all the difference.

How many red bindu subquarks are in this picture?