What is a woman?

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on Today at 08:48:28
No, dodge all you like, men would dominate, if there were medals and money to be had and a middling bloke could get it by beating women, then they would.

HOW?
If it is divided based upon ability so all competitors have a roughly equal chance of winning, how would men dominate?

Seriously! See MN-Wolf’s comparisons, women wouldn’t make the Olympics, the world cups tennis grand slams, any of that if a man was allowed to play against them in their ability group, how can you not understand that?

How does opposing sexism constitute misogyny?

You are not opposing sexism, you are underhandedly pushing it whilst trying to sound reasonable.

And please, you of all people shouldn’t be playing the don’t resort to insult card.

Seriously! See MN-Wolf’s comparisons, women wouldn’t make the Olympics, the world cups tennis grand slams, any of that if a man was allowed to play against them in their ability group, how can you not understand that?

Because it is pure BS, based upon not using ability groups and instead just having everyone compete with everyone else.
They were not comparing females to males of similar ability. They were comparing females to the best males, with significantly greater abilities.

If you grouped people together based upon ability; then in any ability division where there were both males and females, you would expect to find both males and females winning. You would not simply expect males to dominate. That would require the males to have significantly greater ability.
This is not difficult to understand.

What part do you fail to comprehend? The idea of grouping by ability?

You are not opposing sexism

I most certainly am opposing it.
I guess you think those people trying to end racial segregation were actually pushing racism while trying to sound reasonable?

This site compares Olympic women's times against high school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/

So the evidence is in,  and I conclude that under JackBlack's scheme, women will no longer play competitive sports.

I estimate that better than 50% of the population would vote against such a scheme. 

But I doubt he will understand.

Because it is pure BS, based upon not using ability groups and instead just having everyone compete with everyone else.
They were not comparing females to males of similar ability. They were comparing females to the best males, with significantly greater abilities.

If you grouped people together based upon ability; then in any ability division where there were both males and females, you would expect to find both males and females winning. You would not simply expect males to dominate. That would require the males to have significantly greater ability.
This is not difficult to understand.

What part do you fail to comprehend? The idea of grouping by ability?

We're saying that would be a horrible idea. All the "elite" athletes would be men. What you are advocating for is definitively classifying women as weaker than men. That's what's going to happen, because yes, the males do have significantly greater strength, which improves overall ability. YOu refuse to acknowledge a fact that we can demonstrate by looking at basic statistics. The records of women aren't lower because of social brainwashing. You fail to ge the point that women being in the same overall system as men for ability does not guarantee that any women will be in the top ranks.

Early in this thread, I mentioned an ability based system as a possible solution. However, I moved on as others showed me why that won't work. The website SCG linked shows that pretty conclusively. It's not cherry picked data, it shows the situations in which Olympic women beat high school boys. If we had an ability based system, and merged these groups, women would be a pretty rare site. This isn't even equal opponents, as it would be Olympic against Olympic. Keep that in mind.

I mean I know you don’t have it in you to concede, but look at what Spacey has found, 16/18 yr. old boys against the times and achievements of the 2016 women Olympians.

28 golds to the kids, one to the women, in running from 100M to 800M not one Olympian posted a time that would have qualified them to enter, or in high jump.

In Swimming, even though that year there were multiple world records set by the women, they were beaten by 16-17yr old boys, in the 16 swimming disciplines the women would have got one bronze.

Yet you keep saying, males of a similar ability, like just because you have it in your head it’s a thing, women have at this moment the chance to compete against those of similar abilities, make money get the medals, they are other women.

When they did the tennis challenges way back, Billy jean King beat a man, but he was 29 years older and it turned out he’d bet heavily on himself losing because he had debts. So the ability group for the winner of 39 major women's titles, would be her dad if he needed some cash, I can see that making the sponsors happy.

This site compares Olympic women's times against high school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/

And your point is?
Are you suggesting that these boys, even though they are faster than women, have the same ability as women?

So the evidence is in,  and I conclude that under JackBlack's scheme, women will no longer play competitive sports.

With a simple single category, the overwhelming majority wont play competitive sports.
With ability based categories, plenty can.

I estimate that better than 50% of the population would vote against such a scheme. 
But I doubt he will understand.

That a large portion of the population are hypocritical and happily defend sexism and attack those opposing it by labelling them as sexist? I understand.
A very large portion of the population believe in a magic sky fairy.

We're saying that would be a horrible idea.

Why?
Because people would compete against those of similar ability, rather than arbitrary threshold for sex?
Entirely overcoming the issue intersex athletes face which can currently have quite drastic consequences for them?

What you are advocating for is definitively classifying women as weaker than men.

You mean exactly what your side has been repeatedly arguing?
Again, the only way you can even pretend such sexism is justified is if you claim women are weaker than men.
It requires classifying female only leagues as lower than men, and stating the elite athletes are male.

Otherwise, it all falls apart.

That's what's going to happen, because yes, the males do have significantly greater strength, which improves overall ability.

So what you are saying is that women are weaker than men, and you need to classify them as that, so they get their own division?

You fail to ge the point that women being in the same overall system as men for ability does not guarantee that any women will be in the top ranks.

That is a baseless claim which makes no sense. So there is nothing to recognise there.
Again, the argument is that men will dominate because they have a greater ability.
If you classify based upon ability, then those men with greater ability wont be competing in the same division. Instead, only mean with abilities comparable to these women (or less) will be allowed to compete in that division.
That means that they will not be expected to dominate.

You are literally trying to claim that if a woman competed against a man of the same ability that the man will still certainly win.
It makes no sense.
If they have the same ability then each is equally likely to win.

The website SCG linked shows that pretty conclusively.

No, not in the slightest.
It demonstrates a difference in ability.

If we had an ability based system, and merged these groups

Then these women would not be competing with these boys, instead they would compete with those of similar ability.

I mean I know you don’t have it in you to concede, but look at what Spacey has found

That people of different ability perform differently?

Yet you keep saying, males of a similar ability

People of similar abilities, not just males.
The point is to remove sexism.
And if you truly think that no males would be of similar ability, then it should produce the same outcome, so there is no reason to oppose it.

Jesus you're an idiot.

If 16 year old boys are beating Olympic record holding women, then just who the fuck would they be competing against and who would watch it?

Here's a thought, leave it as it is, where everyone (especially women) are happy.

Jesus you're an idiot.

If 16 year old boys are beating Olympic record holding women, then just who the fuck would they be competing against and who would watch it?

Here's a thought, leave it as it is, where everyone (especially women) are happy.

I'm not convinced he's an idiot, I think he just doesn't  try to understand what we are saying, in his world it's more important to be right and "win" the argument. He is the Sheldon Cooper of sports.   Reality is not his friend.

I'm not convinced he's an idiot

OK....

I think he just doesn't  try to understand what we are saying, in his world it's more important to be right and "win" the argument.

...that sounds like the description of an idiot.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 16, 2023, 05:06:20 PM

This site compares Olympic women's times against high school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/

And your point is?
Are you suggesting that these boys, even though they are faster than women, have the same ability as women?

No Jack, I'm showing you that even male high school athletes have greater ability than Olympian female athletes. I'm showing you this with the knowledge that Olympic athletes train every day like it's a job, and that male high school athletes can't train as much because they still have to go to class for half the day. I'm showing you this so maybe you will think about how you would categorize people based on ability and what it would look like in the end.

I'm asking you to consider that women are human, and we are fully aware that life isn't fair, but we'd still like a chance to excel at sports. To show the world who the best female athletes are. To have fun playing in amateur leagues without worrying that we'll be broken by some overzealous male player. To play professionally without that same worry. And, yes to have the opportunity to make some money.


If you feel like it, please describe how you would determine athletic ability for the purpose of setting up teams and individual competitions.

EDIT to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/400_metres

The current men's world record is held by Wayde van Niekerk of South Africa, with a time of 43.03 seconds. Van Niekerk is also the Olympic record holder. Steven Gardiner is the reigning Olympic Champion. Michael Norman is the current world champion and the world indoor record holder with a time of 44.52 seconds. The current women's world record is held by Marita Koch, with a time of 47.60 seconds. Shaunae Miller-Uibo is the reigning women's Olympic champion and world champion. Femke Bol holds the world indoor record at 49.26 (2023). The men's T43 Paralympic world record of 45.07 seconds is held by Oscar Pistorius.[2]

Even the men's Paralympic world record is faster than the (not Paralympic) women's record.
 

If sports are to be played with men and women mixing then there must be a handicap system put into place.
That would be non-contact sports by the way.

Jesus you're an idiot.

I'm not the one pretending people of different ability are of equal ability.

If 16 year old boys are beating Olympic record holding women, then just who the fuck would they be competing against and who would watch it?

People other than 16 year old boys.

Here's a thought, leave it as it is, where everyone (especially women) are happy.

If everyone is happy, why are there so many people calling for either an end to sex based discrimination in sport, or for it to be modified?

No Jack, I'm showing you that even male high school athletes have greater ability than Olympian female athletes.

Which doesn't refute what I have said at all.

I'm showing you this with the knowledge that Olympic athletes train every day like it's a job, and that male high school athletes can't train as much because they still have to go to class for half the day.

Not all Olympic athletes train every day, all day.
Plenty still have a different job.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6989303/The-surprising-secret-lives-Olympic-athletes-work-two-jobs-just-make-ends-meet.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/5-awesome-sportswomen-also-holding-down-regular-jobs_uk_5af2dd8ae4b0a0d601e87e00
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristenharris1/olmpic-athletes-day-jobs

I'm asking you to consider that women are human, and we are fully aware that life isn't fair, but we'd still like a chance to excel at sports. To show the world who the best female athletes are.

Why do you need to show the world who the best FEMALE athletes are?
Why is it so important to make a special category for females?

To have fun playing in amateur leagues without worrying that we'll be broken by some overzealous male player.

Again, you are fine with men being "broken", by other men, and women being "broken" by other women?

If you feel like it, please describe how you would determine athletic ability for the purpose of setting up teams and individual competitions.

A simple system would be trials, where people get divided into categories based upon their performance at the sport, which would include prior performance at events.

Even the men's Paralympic world record is faster than the (not Paralympic) women's record.

Oscar Pistorius is not a good reference. Concerns where raised over if their leg springs gave them an advantage, with tests demonstrating that it did at least in some conditions, with such enhancements banned until a court overruled.
If they are excluded, and I just look at what divisions were at the 2020 Paralympics, the only divisions which have a performance above the top female athlete are:
T12 for visual impairment at 47.59 s
T13 for visual impairment at 46.70 s
T20 for intellectual impairment with a previous record of 46.86 s
T47 for below wrist or below elbow amputation at 47.38 s
T53 for those using a wheelchair at 46.61 s
T54 for those using a wheelchair at 45.72 s with a previous record of 43.46 s.
T62 for below knee amputation at 45.85 s with a previous record of 45.78 s

The only one remotely noteworthy for your claim is T62, but they still have their upper leg and knee in tact.

Oh well, that changes everything. Women can beat him if he runs on his nubs.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 16, 2023, 05:06:20 PM

This site compares Olympic women's times against high school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/

And your point is?
Are you suggesting that these boys, even though they are faster than women, have the same ability as women?

No, we're saying they are more able than women. The definition of ability is:

the quality or state of being able, especially : physical, mental, or legal power to do something

(Source: Merriam Webster) So, they're more able. So making men and women compete together would be fair, but end women's presence in sports. Elite women would be competing with high school boys, while the men stay in their own leagues, untouchable by less able women. Is that really the system you're advocating for?

A simple system would be trials, where people get divided into categories based upon their performance at the sport, which would include prior performance at events.

Which goes on all through sport now, and people decide quite early on (teens) if they have a chance at “making” it, and as all categories would be open to men, any route leading to money or fame would be swamped with men, 16yr olds faster than the pinnacle of women sprinters and 55yr old men capable of beating no-1 seeded women tennis players, (as he beat Margaret Court before he played Billy Jean King), women would not go in to professional sport, and JB in the name of progress has trashed 50% of world sport. Nice one tiger.

I don't know why you are still arguing with him about this, it's not like there is any wider debate about it.  This is just JB's one man weird crusade.  Which I doubt goes any further than the internet.  Unless he turns up and girls soccer games to shout "sexist" and "segregationist" at them until the police lead him away.

The debate is to what degree (if any) women's sports should compromise in letting transwomen compete.

You are right, my wife has told me also to stop arguing with crazy people from strange countries where global warming is cooking brains, I asked her about her thoughts on this as a woman and she said, “Is he an idiot?”, but then again, she’s obviously been brainwashed by bigots too.

No, we're saying they are more able than women.

Which means they are not comparing people of similar ability.
Which means it doesn't support the claim that in a division based upon ability males would dominate and no females would win.

So making men and women compete together would be fair, but end women's presence in sports. Elite women would be competing with high school boys, while the men stay in their own leagues, untouchable by less able women. Is that really the system you're advocating for?

Other than having high school boys compete, that is the system you are defending, with women relegated to a lower league, with the elite athletes remaining in their own league, untouchable by less able women.

as all categories would be open to men, any route leading to money or fame would be swamped with men, 16yr olds faster than the pinnacle of women sprinters and 55yr old men capable of beating no-1 seeded women tennis players

Again, if the males would dominate, they clearly aren't the same ability, and so a categorisation based upon ability wouldn't allow them to compete there.

This is just JB's one man weird crusade.

You sure do love your fantasy don't you?

The debate is to what degree (if any) women's sports should compromise in letting transwomen compete.

The debate is to what degree is blatant sexism in sport justified.

I asked her about her thoughts on this as a woman and she said, “Is he an idiot?”

Yes, a typical bigoted response.

A simple system would be trials, where people get divided into categories based upon their performance at the sport, which would include prior performance at events.

Great, and the category of "fastest, strongest, highest ext" will all be watched and celebrated as the men win all of those categories. And the other 1000 categories get ignored. The fastest women on earth will be running 5 weeks after they have already handed out all the awards, and everyone has already gone home. She will get a lovely medal, maybe even beating 16 year old Little John and no one will remember or even know she competed. She wont get any sponsorship, because no one watches or cares to watch all 1000 new categories you have created, just to ensure everyone on earth gets a spot.

Women wont bother to play sports, because the only time you see them on TV for sporting will be as part of the news casting team.

Jack, think about the males of similar ability to females. High school boys, or older men? For example, Laurel Hubbard was a washed up weightlifter in the male category, didn't compete for 16yrs, transitioned and made it to the Olympics at 42yrs old. The average peak age for weightlifters (male or female) is about 26yrs old.

Your idea of deciding who gets to compete solely based on ability would relegate women to the lower leagues, or out of competition like the Olympics almost entirely. What would women have left, ribbon dancing? The elite athletes, based on ability, are male. This is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of women, because we've been raised on the bullshit notion that males are the default human, that we have to aspire to be like men or we're worthless.

I don't know why you are still arguing with him about this, it's not like there is any wider debate about it.  This is just JB's one man weird crusade.  Which I doubt goes any further than the internet.  Unless he turns up and girls soccer games to shout "sexist" and "segregationist" at them until the police lead him away.

The debate is to what degree (if any) women's sports should compromise in letting transwomen compete.

Even this debate is fraught with nonsense. The ideological view is that if transwomen can't compete against women then they can't compete at all. Like they're being banned from sports entirely.

This paper https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3 "Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage" And this one https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 "How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation", come to the same conclusions about the retention of male advantage. 

No, It’ll be fine Spacey, who wouldn’t watch the women’d-v’s-50 plus men singles and the 14yr-old boys-v-women’s freestyle.

I'm just happy Jack is down here in the bowels of the forum fisking my posts like a champ.

Even this debate is fraught with nonsense. The ideological view is that if transwomen can't compete against women then they can't compete at all. Like they're being banned from sports entirely.

Well, yeah.  The "right" to compete in women's events is often put across by TRAs like it's some kind of fundamental human right, in line with freedom to be free from torture or slavery or whatever.  "Our forefathers died so that a brave and fabulous bloke could win that 100km women's cycling event!"

I think for non-contact sports a compromise is letting biological males (who meet certain criteria around transitioning) compete in events, just not counting their placing or times.  My guess is many of them don't want this, as they are narcissists who want to end up on the podium and be "celebrated" on twitter.  Or maybe that is unfair, I don't know.

Quote from: Magicalus on May 17, 2023, 09:58:23 PM

No, we're saying they are more able than women.

Which means they are not comparing people of similar ability.
Which means it doesn't support the claim that in a division based upon ability males would dominate and no females would win.

Yes, yes it does. We are comparing the lowest level of male play to the highest level of female play. If women can't win here, they don't stand a chance against the highest level of male play. It is essentially impossible to compare groups of equal ability here, unless you want to drag middle-schoolers in. And what's the argument there? Women can win against a bunch of pre-pubescent kids, so they're equally as able as men?

I just joined the covno and havent read pas the ladt post.

Semantics
Ability vs skill vs phsyical strength vs size


On average
20% stronger and taller

Postpubescent male vs postpube female the females need to be in the upper level of exceptionlism and competing against the average male.

Jack’s argument makes perfect sense if you take the view that women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Jack’s argument makes perfect sense if you take the view that women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

But don't have the balls to say it?

Jack’s argument makes perfect sense if you take the view that women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

haha!
so mean


but
i hear (i don't watch much) that basket ball and hockey are more interesting becuase they are smaller and don't rely on powering through opponents
they do more plays and stuff




but what is his point?
what is "ability"?

Great, and the category of "fastest, strongest, highest ext" will all be watched and celebrated as the men win all of those categories. And the other 1000 categories get ignored.

And who cares if they get ignored?

Are you suggesting women need their own separate category for women so that even though they aren't as good they can pretend to be as good and pretend to get sponsorship?
If they aren't as good and would be in a lower category, why should they get as many sponsorships or have people excited to play?

Do you feel the same about the weight divisions in boxing? That has 17 different categories.

Jack, think about the males of similar ability to females. High school boys, or older men?

Or just others that aren't as good as the elite males.

More importantly, think of the more complex and nuanced issue of intersex individuals.
Ranking based upon ability entirely avoids the issue of how intersex or trans athletes compete.
They compete based upon their ability, not based upon what label they want to use.

Your idea of deciding who gets to compete solely based on ability would relegate women to the lower leagues

And your idea is that the female league is a lower league. That women are already relegated to a lower league.

we've been raised on the bullshit notion that males are the default human

And biologically, that is incorrect, based upon males needing extra genes to cause them to be male.
Maybe they are reptiles.

that we have to aspire to be like men or we're worthless.

If you think males are far more athletic, then isn't that exactly what these female athletes are trying to do, be like men?

I think for non-contact sports a compromise is letting biological males (who meet certain criteria around transitioning) compete in events, just not counting their placing or times.  My guess is many of them don't want this, as they are narcissists who want to end up on the podium and be "celebrated" on twitter.  Or maybe that is unfair, I don't know.

And the same accusations can be made against females.
Are they just narcissist who want to end up on the podium and be celebrated, even though they aren't the best?

Yes, yes it does. We are comparing

You are comparing a collection of people of different ability.
You are complaining that the top male athletes, even in a lower division, still beat female athletes.
Effectively claiming that female Olympians is a category below that of high school boys.

But guess what? A bunch of males are already excluded from that because they aren't elite male athletes.

And what's the argument there? Women can win against a bunch of pre-pubescent kids, so they're equally as able as men?

The argument is that discrimination on the basis of sex is entirely unjustified, especially when people try to "justify it" by suggesting that elite female athletes should be treated the same as elite male athletes, with similar spectators and similar awards, when they they turn around and contradict it by saying that they need to stay separate because elite female athletes have vastly lower ability than elite male athletes.

But that is just blatant hypocrisy.
If you think women are so vastly inferior and the female category is such a lower category, then you should have no issues with people (and sponsors) not caring, not watching and so on. This also means the objection that divisions on ability would put females in a much lower category than elite males have no merit, as you are saying that is already what the female category is.

what is "ability"?

A measure of how well someone performs in the sport, so 2 people of equal ability have equal chance of winning.
This will vary with sport.