What is a woman?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 07, 2023, 01:21:21 PM

Who is having racially segregated schools racist against? White people or black people and why?

Again, you're just avoiding addressing my question.

So do you think racially segregated schools are fine?
That it is fine to have school for white people only and schools for black people only, as long as there are schools for everyone?

So what is the issue with it?

That it creates a multiclass system on the basis of nothing more than sex, and confined people to what class they can compete in.


The victim is anyone denied entry to compete in a particular group on the basis of their sex.

They also create discriminatory competitive categories based age, weight, ranking and whether you are professional or amateur.  Presumably in "Jack's world" these discriminatory divisions will also all be done away with as well?

I would prefer classifications based upon performance.
Those who classify as the best would be excluded from any other division, not just this round, but several rounds into the future, and good performance in a lower division allows you to qualify for the higher division.

Kind of like how ranked e-sports and chess often work, with different divisions for different ranks, and people moving up and down ranks based upon their performance.

How many people suffer broken bones from playing chess?

How many people suffer broken bones from playing chess?

Have you ever seen chess boxing?

That would be amazing.

So do you think racially segregated schools are fine?

Oh dear, I thought you might be better at this.   

That it is fine to have school for white people only and schools for black people only, as long as there are schools for everyone?

Can I remind you that we are debating women's sport, not racial segregation in American schools.  You appear to have made a category error.

The victim is anyone denied entry to compete in a particular group on the basis of their sex.

So, men are now victims because they can't enter female boxing tournaments?  OK.  I just hope they are getting all the support they need.

I would prefer classifications based upon performance.

So, you would do away with classifications based on weight and age? 

Actually, it doesn't matter.  You've got a very silly fringe idea and you're not making a good case for it.  I'm done with this one.

I'm expecting him to declare that men should be allowed in the women's category because they once hunted the mammoth.

Can I remind you that we are debating women's sport, not racial segregation in American schools.  You appear to have made a category error.

And I am showing a comparable issue.
An issue you don't seem to want to comment on.
Is it because you know the only way to remain consistent with your dismissal of the discrimination is by saying that racially segregated schools are fine; but because you think that they are racist you don't want to say they are fine?

So, you would do away with classifications based on weight and age?

Age should naturally be accounted for by performance and other characteristics.
If an 18 year old is very capable, should they be denied entry to a general level competition? And if they are that good, should they be allowed to compete in an "under 21s"?
Weight is a rarely used. But I don't see why a category based upon performance wouldn't work.

Actually, it doesn't matter.  You've got a very silly fringe idea and you're not making a good case for it.  I'm done with this one.

If you were done, why post again?

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.

FYI your “blacks are best” misses the mark for correctness in several criteria, the first being that the section of the population with darker skin has a greater genetic variance than humanity as a whole, (as do all racial groups) and that it’s not black skinned people that win sprinting medals it’s Jamaicans and African Americans, name a world class sprinter from Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo or Angola.

There is however in long distance running (over 800 Metres), a “Kenyan monopoly”, 21 golds since 1968, but look closer and the vast majority of these come from a small area in the Nandi area of the rift valley, so, far from “black people” dominating long distance events, it’s a tiny dot on the map that does. Move away from skin colour as a measure, you’re sounding racist.

Well, anyway.

Why should lesbians sleep with men?

Kathleen Stock on the idiot activists insisting lesbians must now sleep with men. Worth reading the whole thing, but here's a sample

Such is the message of Robyn Exton, CEO of lesbian dating app HER, mostly aimed at 20-to-30-somethings. Robyn is very enthusiastic about the cause of lesbianism for all. Last week, in honour of Lesbian Visibility Day, she wrote a combative statement on her business’s website, asserting that attempts to confine the category of lesbians to “only those assigned female at birth” involves a “twisted and erroneous” belief “about what being a lesbian can or cannot entail”. “The future of lesbian is trans”, she continued, before declaring: “we must all affirm trans and nonbinary lesbians… we must all become better informed and put in the work”. She concluded: “On Lesbian Visibility Day, let’s ensure that all lesbians are seen, celebrated, and embraced — regardless of their gender. There’s no such thing as a ‘real lesbian’.” Later, she sent out a message to all users to delete the HER app if they disagreed, and made a TikTok video to the same effect.

Based on an Ellen episode drawing on popular stereotypes about voracious lesbians stealing men’s wives, there’s a joke that whenever you recruit enough women to the sapphic cause, you win a toaster. Exton seems to think she can win a toaster for her preferred version of lesbianism by hurling insults at the unconvinced. If you fall into this category, she suggests, you are a “irrelevant has-been lez-bean”, a “fascist”, a “transphobic bigot full of hatred”, and a “sad, hateful clown”. As seduction techniques go, it’s a bold one.

By redrawing the maps of womanhood and manhood, so fundamental to human life in numerous ways, transactivists such as Exton have redrawn several other maps. One of these represents sexual orientations — heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual — once understood as involving distinctive patterns of attraction between the biological sexes by definition, but now no longer. Ignoring everything that we know about human sexuality, primary and secondary sex characteristics are now treated as the negligibly important physical wrapping for the irresistibly hot gender identities pulsing away within.

According to this demented sexual metaphysics, if a male identifies as a woman and is also attracted to women, he counts as a “trans lesbian” — which also means he is a lesbian, and you had better not object to him popping up in the app you just paid for. The head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, agrees; the difference between female and male “lesbians” is now treated by LGBTQ+ authority figures as no more important than the difference between Scottish and English ones.

Madness.

I think this discussion needs some clarification.

Fact 1:   Genetic traits confer physical advantages that can be advantageous in sports.   Blacks are generally faster at sprint races,  Kenyans are good at long distance endurance running.  Somebody who is 6'8" could be good at basketball.  Etc. etc.

Fact 2:   We don't segregrate mens sports based on genetics.   ( We could,  but at present we don't ) 

Fact 3:   We *DO* segregate a lot of sports acording to gender. 

So to be consistent,  we should segregate running events based on genetic and racial criteria,  just like we segregate sports based on sex?  Is this fair?

Or the opposite extreme is to eliminate genetics from sport altogether,  no sex  or racial discrimination,  which is what I think JackBlack is saying.

I know what he’s saying, but it’s stupid reductionism, it makes sense to have weight limits in fighting sports, it makes sense to have gender splits along how you were born, for the same reasons.

Jamaican and African Americans currently dominate sprinting, that (as shown above) doesn’t encompass all black people, the “all black people” thing is a myth, the Chinese at this time win a lot of table tennis, is that genetic or cultural? If you are athletically minded, living in Jamaica would your inclination be towards sprinting or table tennis?

FYI, It used to be cricket, which they (as part of the West-Indies) dominated during the 1980’s. Prompting some “white” commentators to bemoan about “black” supremacy being unfair.

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.

No, it is quite logical thinking. Removing segregation, and showing the hypocrisy of opposing racial segregation while accepting sex based segregation.

Your statement is also quite nonsensical. If women would not be as good, and therefore be restricted to a lower league, while should segregating it on the basis of sex mean they get paid the same? Why should athletes be paid equal to those they cannot compete with?
How does segregating it on the basis of sex, which is argued on the basis that women aren't good enough to compete with men, not making this female only league a lower league?

And the public does seem mixed on this. Some people think that female athletes should be paid the same as men, even though they are competing in a lower league. Others think that as they are not competing in the highest category and instead have their own, that they should not be paid the same.

FYI your “blacks are best” misses the mark for correctness in several criteria, the first being that the section of the population with darker skin has a greater genetic variance than humanity as a whole, (as do all racial groups) and that it’s not black skinned people that win sprinting medals it’s Jamaicans and African Americans, name a world class sprinter from Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo or Angola.

Remember, when focusing on this, you need to do it as a comparison. How correct is it compared to "men are the best" (i.e. women need to be able to compete in a category free from men so they can compete and have a chance to win)?
What is the genetic variance among men compared to humanity as a whole?

Your statement is also quite clearly incorrect, unless you want to claim the section of the population with darker skin aren't part of humanity? Otherwise, how can a subset of humanity have a greater variation than the whole of humanity?

It is all men that are winning medals, or only a certain portion of them?

So I think the correctness is quite comparable, and useful at showing the double standard.

Move away from skin colour as a measure, you’re sounding racist.

Again, I'm using it to show the hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting that we should segregate on the basis of race. I am using it to show how people oppose equivalent segregation.
Why is it racist to think sport should be segregated on the basis of race, especially when you even note one small area producing a lot of medals; while segregating on the basis of sex shouldn't be deemed sexist?

I think this discussion needs some clarification.

Fact 1:   Genetic traits confer physical advantages that can be advantageous in sports.   Blacks are generally faster at sprint races,  Kenyans are good at long distance endurance running.  Somebody who is 6'8" could be good at basketball.  Etc. etc.

Fact 2:   We don't segregrate mens sports based on genetics.   ( We could,  but at present we don't ) 

Fact 3:   We *DO* segregate a lot of sports acording to gender. 

So to be consistent,  we should segregate running events based on genetic and racial criteria,  just like we segregate sports based on sex?  Is this fair?

Or the opposite extreme is to eliminate genetics from sport altogether,  no sex  or racial discrimination,  which is what I think JackBlack is saying.

That pretty much sums it up.
I find it hypocritical to ignore some genetic aspects which influence athletic performance while using others to segregate into classes.

That we should either segregate sport to give everyone a "fair" chance at winning, where other people in the same division would be equally likely to win if they trained the same; or we recognise that genetic difference can give people a natural advantage for sport and stop trying to have everyone have an equal chance at winning.

Your whole premiss misses the point and the origins of gender segregation in sport, that is to make that sport watchable and therefore lucrative, most sports started out as men only in a man only world, when the world “woke” up to women’s rights, part of those rights was a place in sport, as there was already rankings and weight classes for men. Quite rightly as a featherweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight was unfair to the detriment of both the combatants and the watchers who have generally paid to see the match, so by extension only a muppet with either a wish to see women humiliated or someone slavishly following a line of thought that divisions mean prejudice, where here it patently doesn’t.

Your whole premiss misses the point and the origins of gender segregation in sport, that is to make that sport watchable and therefore lucrative, most sports started out as men only in a man only world, when the world “woke” up to women’s rights, part of those rights was a place in sport, as there was already rankings and weight classes for men. Quite rightly as a featherweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight was unfair to the detriment of both the combatants and the watchers who have generally paid to see the match, so by extension only a muppet with either a wish to see women humiliated or someone slavishly following a line of thought that divisions mean prejudice, where here it patently doesn’t.

I don't think it misses the point at all.

Divisions meaning prejudice is intrinsically tied to what control people have over it.
People do have control over their weight, at least some. They don't have control over their sex.

I see segregation of sport on the basis of sex as no more justified than segregation on the basis of race.

Why are you conflating segregation with ability standards?

Official world championship track and field events
100 m
200 m
400 m   
800 m
1500 m
5000 m
10,000 m
100 m hurdles
110 m hurdles
400 m hurdles
3000 m steeplechase   4 × 100 m relay
4 × 400 m relay   Long jump
Triple jump
High jump
Pole vault   Shot put
Discus throw
Hammer throw
Javelin throw
Heptathlon
Decathlon



Gather the best 50 in the world in each of the above categories.

How many of the 50 for each category are women?

Why are you conflating segregation with ability standards?

If it is about ability standards, there is no need to include sex, it could just use ability.
Using sex makes it segregation.
Using sex makes it no better than racial segregation.

Gather the best 50 in the world in each of the above categories.

How many of the 50 for each category are women?

How many of them are Caucasian? How many are Asian? How many are Inuit? How many are native American?

So, this is a hill you’re willing to die on? That allowing women to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to men, is as bad as racism?

Because that is beyond dumb.

So, this is a hill you’re willing to die on? That allowing women to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to men, is as bad as racism?

Because that is beyond dumb.

It's an argument I understand, because I used to argue that if you can prove a=b, then a=b must hold for all conditions, and that includes extremes, if some statement fails at the extremes, then it fails logically.  It's the way mathematical proofs are argued,  and only admits true or false.

Unfortunately the world is not logical, and there are shades of grey, some things are true but only within certain limits.

JackBlack is correct logically,  but fails to understand the limits of logic when it comes to human behaviour.

So, this is a hill you’re willing to die on? That allowing women to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to men, is as bad as racism?

If you don't want women's sport to be destroyed then you're clearly a massive racist.

Because that is beyond dumb.

Indeed.  Very dumb and very weird.  He seems fixated on it though.

JackBlack is correct logically, 

He isn't.  As you said yourself, this isn't a formal logic problem.  To treat it as such is a category mistake.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 10, 2023, 04:32:30 AM

So, this is a hill you’re willing to die on? That allowing women to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to men, is as bad as racism?

Because that is beyond dumb.

It's an argument I understand, because I used to argue that if you can prove a=b, then a=b must hold for all conditions, and that includes extremes, if some statement fails at the extremes, then it fails logically.  It's the way mathematical proofs are argued,  and only admits true or false.

Unfortunately the world is not logical, and there are shades of grey, some things are true but only within certain limits.

JackBlack is correct logically,  but fails to understand the limits of logic when it comes to human behaviour.

Thank you, Razor, for explaining it from the point of view of a person probably on the spectrum, I was thinking that he was just a pedantic asshole, so I have learnt something and apologise for my terrible thoughts.

Ohhh, okay thinking of human behavior like a math problem.



"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience."

So, this is a hill you’re willing to die on? That allowing women to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to men, is as bad as racism?

Because that is beyond dumb.

No, it isn't beyond dumb.
Again, do you think allowing white people to compete against themselves because of the obvious differences in physicality to black people is as bad as racism?

Both are segregation, and both are equally justifiable.

It's an argument I understand, because I used to argue that if you can prove a=b, then a=b must hold for all conditions, and that includes extremes, if some statement fails at the extremes, then it fails logically.  It's the way mathematical proofs are argued,  and only admits true or false.

Unfortunately the world is not logical, and there are shades of grey, some things are true but only within certain limits.

JackBlack is correct logically,  but fails to understand the limits of logic when it comes to human behaviour.

It isn't a matter of pure logic.
It is a matter of hypocrisy.
And I fully understand how so may people can act in such an illogical manner.

People are happy to proclaim that they are against race based and sex based discrimination, and would oppose it; including calling out bigots that would discriminate.
That is until it comes to a form of discrimination they are happy with due to their social conditioning. This then causes them to oppose those opposing such discrimination, often acting like those who oppose such discrimination are bigots themselves.

No Jack.

I think I see where you are coming from but it's just wrong.

All across the world people are happy to compete, it's other people on the outside looking in who manufacture divisions, and see difference as unfair.

No body I know wants a split along racial lines in sport, it isn't necessary, and it isn't a thing that women should compete with men, it would ruin woman's sport and rob us of that dimension. That a few people out there want to compete in women's sport as a different sex to what they were born to, would, because of their muscle mass and underlying physiology, make that unfair too, if enough of them are available they can have their own races like the small gathering of wounded British soldiers did in 1948 and that grew into the Paralympics.

There's no bigotry in that, just empowering people to be able to test themselves against an equal as possible field.

I never really understood just how much stronger men are than women until I helped my brother build a wall on our mom's house. He is in his 40s, he's overweight, he smokes, he doesn't work out, but he is freakishly stronger than me. Well, he just seems freakishly strong, because it's quite normal for men to be that much stronger than women. This isn't "social conditioning", it is reality.

People are happy to proclaim that they are against race based and sex based discrimination, and would oppose it; including calling out bigots that would discriminate.
That is until it comes to a form of discrimination they are happy with due to their social conditioning. This then causes them to oppose those opposing such discrimination, often acting like those who oppose such discrimination are bigots themselves.

Let's try an argument from the extremes...

The basis of sport is competition, that is who is strongest, fastest, who has the best reflexes and endurance and so on.

Now, pose a hypothetical situation where there is a race of super beings, maybe they are aliens, maybe they are robots, it doesn't matter.

So they win every sporting event with ridiculous ease, and nobody else has a chance. 

Is that fair?  More to the point is that sporting?

The real basis of sport is that there is a presumption of equal chance, and that's the whole point.  It's a competition.

We can't level the playing field completely,  but gender is a reasonably workable criteria.   

All across the world people are happy to compete, it's other people on the outside looking in

You mean those who can't compete?

If they happily divided in on the basis of race would you be fine with that?

There's no bigotry in that

It is no less bigoted than divisions based upon race.

Let's try an argument from the extremes...

The basis of sport is competition, that is who is strongest, fastest, who has the best reflexes and endurance and so on.

Now, pose a hypothetical situation where there is a race of super beings, maybe they are aliens, maybe they are robots, it doesn't matter.

So they win every sporting event with ridiculous ease, and nobody else has a chance. 

Is that fair?  More to the point is that sporting?

The real basis of sport is that there is a presumption of equal chance, and that's the whole point.  It's a competition.

We can't level the playing field completely,  but gender is a reasonably workable criteria.

I have no presumption of equal chance. Those with certain genetics and certain upbringing beyond their control will be better at it.
Race is one factor, sex is another.
Why is it fine to segregate based upon sex but not race?
Because people think segregation on the basis of race is abhorrent and should be stopped, but they are happy segregating on the basis of sex.
And this extends outside sports as well, where people are still fine segregating on the basis of sex, but not race.

If they happily divided in on the basis of race would you be fine with that?


It is no less bigoted than divisions based upon race.


I have no presumption of equal chance. Those with certain genetics and certain upbringing beyond their control will be better at it.
Race is one factor, sex is another.
Why is it fine to segregate based upon sex but not race?
Because people think segregation on the basis of race is abhorrent and should be stopped, but they are happy segregating on the basis of sex.
And this extends outside sports as well, where people are still fine segregating on the basis of sex, but not race.

What is this obsession with race in sport? It’s a nonstarter if you are going the D1 route, and 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.

You sound like my dear departed Dad, when the West Indies dominated cricket in the 70’s/80’s, 11 consecutive Test wins and two 5-0 “whitewashes” of England in the test’s (Sorry US peeps this will sound like gobbledygook), his (my dad’s) take on this was that slavery/plantation work had forced an evolutionary advantage on the “blacks” that now, not only gave them a sporting advantage but would one day see us, the white race, swept away.
He was a scared racist trope of a person and demonstrably wrong. And either way, watching those teams if you weren’t scared of the coming Armageddon, was a joy, even if a bit bruising to the national ego.

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.

Why is it fine to segregate based upon sex but not race?

Because by race, the difference in physical aptitude is negligible, but by sex it's quite large. We're advocating for segregation in sports. Not in every possible way, not in every possible environment, that's not the debate we're having. The argument is that in sports, because women are generally physically weaker than men, they should be allowed to play in their own leagues. Mixed leagues are a thing.