What is a woman?

I didnt say it required it and i clarified it.
But it does aid in the function of it when imposing yourself on someone.





Youre mix matching %.
You cant say the %of violence from women is higher so therefore women wont get raped as much.
Unitless.

Because now the %must be violent women/ (men + women)

Which makes the number much smaller.



And then the %of more violence doesnt correlate to the %of women who are able to be bigger than a man.

You cant just throe % around.

I can't be arsed reading through his quote heavy bullshit, but is wako jacko advocating for mixed sex prisons?   

Yep!
And that we are man haters because not thinking that putting women in mixed prisons is a good idea, we don’t care what happens to men, despite that prisons here are catagorised to keep the more violent away from the less, (although with our overcrowded system I’m not sure that works too well), it is all sexist and something about race.

Despite that most prisoners in jail for violence/sexual attacks are male, because when you break down the figures as percentages women are overrepresented (as a smaller group) and that the whole of the women’s population is a quarter of that of males jailed for sexual offences alone, they would still be in less danger apparently than left on their own. 

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 03, 2024, 04:35:43 AM

I can't be arsed reading through his quote heavy bullshit, but is wako jacko advocating for mixed sex prisons?   

Yep!

He's nuts.  I don't know why you guys even bother engaging with him.

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

He's nuts.  I don't know why you guys even bother engaging with him.

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

I didn’t join the flat earth society forum to talk to normal people.

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 05, 2024, 10:25:19 AM

He's nuts.  I don't know why you guys even bother engaging with him.

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

I didn’t join the flat earth society forum to talk to normal people.

Fair.

You proposed these performance based divisions

To appease people like you who want people who aren't the best to compete at such an event.

You certainly can’t claim it’s an improvement on the sports we have now.

Sure I can.
Removing the sex based division, even leaving it as just a single division for all, makes it better.
But even going for performance based divisions, I don't need all the specifics to demonstrate it is better.

Did the US need all the specifics of how a republic would work before deciding it was better than a monarchy? No.

You literally told me

Care to provide a direct quote?

I’ve explained how they are fundamentally different.

And I have explained how your arguments against such divisions already apply to the system we have now.

Any system is only as good as how well it works in reality.

And a system that actively discriminates on the basis of sex, especially one where you can have 2 athletes of equal ability and performance, where one is permitted to compete in a particular division on the basis of their sex while the other is excluded from that division on the basis of their sex is a horrible system.

You said that any athletes who were too good for a lower division could compete in the next level up.  Then apparently changed your mind.

No, I didn't.
They are excluded from that division, and compete in the next one up.
Kind of like how it works now with sex, but not arbitrarily using their sex to determine what division they belong in.

I acknowledge the things you say and don’t pretend you mean something else entirely.

You have repeatedly done that.

You are the one hiding behind “weight as a proxy for ability” to justify your ability divisions.

What am I hiding behind?
Boxers, and other sports with similar weight based divisions.
Weight, corresponds to muscle mass, which corresponds to performance.
It isn't a perfect correlation, but it does correlate.

Then athletes competing in these divisions are incentivised to artificially cap their weight rather than improve to be the best they can be.
Exceptions to this does negate this fact.

Boxers do change weight classes, and then compete at the same level in the new class.

After how long?

How long does it take to go from being the best in a featherweight division to being the best in a heavyweight division?

Because weight is only one factor.  By far the most important factor is BEING A GOOD BOXER.

If being a good boxer was the most important factor then there wouldn't be weight divisions as there would be no need for them.

Because boxing matches are settled in the ring, not on a set of scales.  The point is to win matches by being the better boxer.

You mean by being the better boxer in that class. Where you artificially cap how good you can be, to stay in that class.

Funny how you claim that accounting for physiological differences between men and women only works if every man is  better than every woman.  Yet you’re happy to claim than “weight is a proxy for ability” in boxing.

Funny how you object to a multitude of divisions being needed to allow females to compete in performance based divisions, but are happy with the multitude of divisions for weights.

Do you know a big difference between sex and weight?
If I want to, I can gain weight, growing muscles to compete at the heavyweight division.
If I want to, I can lose weight, cutting it down to a quite low limit (not sure I would make it down to featherweight territory).
But no matter how much someone wants to, they can't change their sex.
We also see this in various legislation, where sex is a protected characteristic which it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of; but weight is not.

I'm not saying using weight is perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than sex; and more importantly, your arguments against performance based divisions work equally against weight based divisions.

Wow.  So clarifying an argument equals “reframing” it now?

I wouldn't call it clarifying.
It is more akin to moving the goalposts.
It is not clarifying it, it is completely changing it, introducing a sexist double standard, so you can pretend your objects don't work equally well against the current system.

So you cherry pick a quote and decide that this is my entire argument

No, I say it is part of your argument; a part which applies equally to the current system.

That was my plan

Then stick to it.

But I’m not going to try to debate you trying to have all possible positions simultaneously.  This isn’t quantum physics.  Decide on one system to replace women's sports.

And I'm not having all possible positions simultaneously.
I am objecting to the idea of sex based divisions.
It isn't about replacing women's sport, it is about removing sex based divisions.
The simplest way to do this is to simply remove the division. But people like you want females to compete at the Olympics, so alternative ideas which would allow that are proposed.

You want to try claiming you can show my idea is bad without appealing to sex, while ignoring the fact the primary reason for such divisions is because of sex, because of people like you wanting people of a certain sex to compete; and because of the current system divided based upon sex.

Even now, you say to decide on a system to replace women's sport. That is again appealing to sex.
Remember, this isn't being done in a vacuum. There is NO WAY at all to defend the current system without appealing to sex, because it segregates based upon sex.

So if you want to pretend you can do it without appealing to sex, then do the simplest system first, and show how that would be so much worse than the current system.
And that simplest system is one where there are no divisions. You simply have people compete to find the best.
Can you show any fault with that without appealing to sex?

Why do keep saying this? Stop telling me I can’t object to your shitty idea.  I can and do, for the reasons explained AGAIN in this post.

Because you are claiming to not be sexist, while being sexist.
Yes, technically can object to any idea. But you thinking my idea is shitty doesn't make it so.

But it does aid in the function of it when imposing yourself on someone.

That entirely depends on how you are imposing yourself on someone.
There are lots of ways to do it, and they don't all require you to have a penetrating device.

Youre mix matching %.

No, I'm not.
I am correctly combining them.

You cant say the %of violence from women is higher so therefore women wont get raped as much.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying the idea of male prisoners being more violent than female prisoners, so female prisoners need to be protected from them is not supported by the stats.

Because now the %must be violent women/ (men + women)

Why?
Can you justify why it should be like this, and just what this would show?

Why not also throw in the available victims? Where you have more males available to be victimised.

And that we are man haters because not thinking that putting women in mixed prisons is a good idea

No, that you want to protect women over men.

they would still be in less danger apparently than left on their own.

No, people would be in less danger if they are by themselves.
The real question is if they are in MORE danger in non sex segregated prisons.
With you claiming they are in less danger just because it is segregated based upon sex.
Even though the lack of female prisons means it is much less likely to have different prisons for females based upon how violent the offender is.

And again, an issue is that you want to protect these women from these "dangerous men", yet don't want to protect the men (and don't appear to want to protect them from dangerous women either).

He's nuts.

Typical dismissal by someone who can't find a rational objection to an argument.
Just like FEers claiming people are shills or brainwashed.

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

It was stated in response to someone asking a question.
Which apparently people thought was crazy so they need to start spouting crap and try and defend their sexism at all cost.

The real question you should be asking is what problem is solved by sex segregated prisons, and is that the best way to do it?
Look at what people are saying, where the problem is prisoners assaulting, raping or killing each other.
Segregating on the basis of sex doesn't solve that problem.
Prisoners are still assaulting, raping and killing each other.

So you have a system segregated on the basis of sex, claiming to solve a problem which it clearly doesn't solve.
So what you really have is a system segregated on the basis of sex, with no valid justification at all.

So perhaps instead of pretending sex based segregation will magically fix it, people should advocate for better measures which have more potential to help, and stop encouraging resources being diverted to sex based segregation which doesn't fix it?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 03, 2024, 07:14:09 AM

But it does aid in the function of it when imposing yourself on someone.

That entirely depends on how you are imposing yourself on someone.
There are lots of ways to do it, and they don't all require you to have a penetrating device.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 03, 2024, 07:14:09 AM

Youre mix matching %.

No, I'm not.
I am correctly combining them.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 03, 2024, 07:14:09 AM

You cant say the %of violence from women is higher so therefore women wont get raped as much.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying the idea of male prisoners being more violent than female prisoners, so female prisoners need to be protected from them is not supported by the stats.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 03, 2024, 07:14:09 AM

Because now the %must be violent women/ (men + women)

Why?
Can you justify why it should be like this, and just what this would show?

Why not also throw in the available victims? Where you have more males available to be victimised.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 03, 2024, 07:25:01 AM

And that we are man haters because not thinking that putting women in mixed prisons is a good idea

No, that you want to protect women over men.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 03, 2024, 07:25:01 AM

they would still be in less danger apparently than left on their own.

No, people would be in less danger if they are by themselves.
The real question is if they are in MORE danger in non sex segregated prisons.
With you claiming they are in less danger just because it is segregated based upon sex.
Even though the lack of female prisons means it is much less likely to have different prisons for females based upon how violent the offender is.

And again, an issue is that you want to protect these women from these "dangerous men", yet don't want to protect the men (and don't appear to want to protect them from dangerous women either).

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 05, 2024, 10:25:19 AM

He's nuts.

Typical dismissal by someone who can't find a rational objection to an argument.
Just like FEers claiming people are shills or brainwashed.

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 05, 2024, 10:25:19 AM

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

It was stated in response to someone asking a question.
Which apparently people thought was crazy so they need to start spouting crap and try and defend their sexism at all cost.

The real question you should be asking is what problem is solved by sex segregated prisons, and is that the best way to do it?
Look at what people are saying, where the problem is prisoners assaulting, raping or killing each other.
Segregating on the basis of sex doesn't solve that problem.
Prisoners are still assaulting, raping and killing each other.

So you have a system segregated on the basis of sex, claiming to solve a problem which it clearly doesn't solve.
So what you really have is a system segregated on the basis of sex, with no valid justification at all.

So perhaps instead of pretending sex based segregation will magically fix it, people should advocate for better measures which have more potential to help, and stop encouraging resources being diverted to sex based segregation which doesn't fix it?

When the penetrating device is the same appendage that you derive pleausre from, greatly drives the motivation to forcibly dominate.

Not saying all or nothing.
But mostly.




And yes
You are mixmatching if you dont consider the qty.
If there are 90males andn10females.
The population is now 100.
You cant solely rely on % because those % were in their smaller subsets.




Not protect women OVER men.
Its that if women and men were in the same bucket, the women would require DIFFERENT protections.
Your all or nothing is absird.





Its typical dissmmisal only because theres only so much time and energy one can put to arguing with peiple over the internet.
Not everyones a robot.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

You proposed these performance based divisions

To appease people like you who want people who aren't the best to compete at such an event.

I remember.  You wanted to claim that “removing the sexism” would still mean women get to play sports competitively. 

So that was just appeasement for “people like me”? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

You certainly can’t claim it’s an improvement on the sports we have now.

Sure I can.
Removing the sex based division, even leaving it as just a single division for all, makes it better.
But even going for performance based divisions, I don't need all the specifics to demonstrate it is better.

Did the US need all the specifics of how a republic would work before deciding it was better than a monarchy? No.

YES!  The specifics were defined in a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it?  If your country decides to ditch his majesty Charlie, I’d expect some thought to go into what comes next, even if you don’t.

Details matter.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

You literally told me

Care to provide a direct quote?

Oh, FFS.  Can you not even keep track of what you say in this sad exchange, or do you just think it’s fun to fuck about and waste my time?  Here!

So what you are really complaining about is that the Olympics for females, is treated as "the most prestigious event", when by your own admission it is for people that aren't good enough to compete with the best?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Any system is only as good as how well it works in reality.

And a system that actively discriminates on the basis of sex, especially one where you can have 2 athletes of equal ability and performance, where one is permitted to compete in a particular division on the basis of their sex while the other is excluded from that division on the basis of their sex is a horrible system.

Now you just need to demonstrate  a better alternative.  Which you have spectacularly failed to do. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

You said that any athletes who were too good for a lower division could compete in the next level up.  Then apparently changed your mind.

No, I didn't.
They are excluded from that division, and compete in the next one up.
Kind of like how it works now with sex, but not arbitrarily using their sex to determine what division they belong in.

So in the example we were discussing, does each country send hundreds of sprinters for the Olympic 100m so that no one get excluded for being too good , or not?  And why does your answer change every fucking time?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

You are the one hiding behind “weight as a proxy for ability” to justify your ability divisions.

What am I hiding behind?
Boxers, and other sports with similar weight based divisions.
Weight, corresponds to muscle mass, which corresponds to performance.
It isn't a perfect correlation, but it does correlate.

Then athletes competing in these divisions are incentivised to artificially cap their weight rather than improve to be the best they can be.
Exceptions to this does negate this fact.

Yes, they control their weight, but that’s not the same as performance.  A boxer’s performance is how well they compete in the ring.   The whole point of the sport is to get into the ring and fight an opponent.

Do you really not see the difference between stepping on a set of scales and winning a boxing match? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Boxers do change weight classes, and then compete at the same level in the new class.

After how long?

How long does it take to go from being the best in a featherweight division to being the best in a heavyweight division?

Quite a while.  Why is that relevant? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Because weight is only one factor.  By far the most important factor is BEING A GOOD BOXER.

If being a good boxer was the most important factor then there wouldn't be weight divisions as there would be no need for them.

No, a professional boxer could beat the shit out of a much heavier person who is shit at boxing.  But between boxers of comparable skill and level of training, the heavier boxer has a considerable  advantage. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Because boxing matches are settled in the ring, not on a set of scales.  The point is to win matches by being the better boxer.

You mean by being the better boxer in that class. Where you artificially cap how good you can be, to stay in that class.

Yes!  Note the difference between controlling their weight and artificially capping based on their performance, ie winning fights.  Your ridiculous argument is that weight divisions works the same way same as performance divisions would.  Just nonsense.

Being heavier does not win boxing matches.  Beating your opponent in the ring wins matches.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Funny how you claim that accounting for physiological differences between men and women only works if every man is  better than every woman.  Yet you’re happy to claim than “weight is a proxy for ability” in boxing.

Funny how you object to a multitude of divisions being needed to allow females to compete in performance based divisions, but are happy with the multitude of divisions for weights.

Do you know a big difference between sex and weight?
If I want to, I can gain weight, growing muscles to compete at the heavyweight division.
If I want to, I can lose weight, cutting it down to a quite low limit (not sure I would make it down to featherweight territory).
But no matter how much someone wants to, they can't change their sex.
We also see this in various legislation, where sex is a protected characteristic which it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of; but weight is not.

I'm not saying using weight is perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than sex; and more importantly, your arguments against performance based divisions work equally against weight based divisions.

That’s right.  No matter how hard a woman trains, in many sports even the most exceptional will never be able to compete with the top men.

But that’s not the point.  You have repeatedly claimed that your performance divisions would work just like boxing and that would be fine.  You claim that weight is a “proxy” for performance to justify this.    Yet you also claim that divisions based on sex would only be fair if every man was better than every woman.  So your argument falls apart unless every fat fuck is better at boxing than everyone lighter than them. 

You can’t have it both ways.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

Wow.  So clarifying an argument equals “reframing” it now?

I wouldn't call it clarifying.
It is more akin to moving the goalposts.
It is not clarifying it, it is completely changing it, introducing a sexist double standard, so you can pretend your objects don't work equally well against the current system.

Nope.  The basic point is the same, I just didn’t think I’d need to explain in so much tedious detail WHY it’s such a stupid idea and for you to still not get it.  I thought it should be fucking obvious.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

That was my plan

Then stick to it.

Like you are sticking to your performance based division idea?  Or maybe not…

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM

But I’m not going to try to debate you trying to have all possible positions simultaneously.  This isn’t quantum physics.  Decide on one system to replace women's sports.

And I'm not having all possible positions simultaneously.
I am objecting to the idea of sex based divisions.
It isn't about replacing women's sport, it is about removing sex based divisions.
The simplest way to do this is to simply remove the division. But people like you want females to compete at the Olympics, so alternative ideas which would allow that are proposed.

You want to try claiming you can show my idea is bad without appealing to sex, while ignoring the fact the primary reason for such divisions is because of sex, because of people like you wanting people of a certain sex to compete; and because of the current system divided based upon sex.

Even now, you say to decide on a system to replace women's sport. That is again appealing to sex.
Remember, this isn't being done in a vacuum. There is NO WAY at all to defend the current system without appealing to sex, because it segregates based upon sex.

So if you want to pretend you can do it without appealing to sex, then do the simplest system first, and show how that would be so much worse than the current system.
And that simplest system is one where there are no divisions. You simply have people compete to find the best.
Can you show any fault with that without appealing to sex?

Either way, it’s replacing one system with another.  Don’t give me the semantics bullshit.  If you want to claim that “removing the sexism” is better, you have to demonstrate it.

You’ve been claiming your ability divisions would be a better alternative for dozens of posts over months.  That’s what I can argue against without appealing to sex, only your inability to understand the most basic things about sport.

Obviously if you want to abandon that disaster and propose something different, my responses will be completely different.  One proposal at a time though.

When the penetrating device is the same appendage that you derive pleausre from, greatly drives the motivation to forcibly dominate.

You may as well have just said sex feels good.
It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and doesn't provide a bias for males or females.

Not saying all or nothing.
But mostly.

You are mixmatching if you dont consider the qty.
If there are 90males andn10females.
The population is now 100.
You cant solely rely on % because those % were in their smaller subsets.

When I am discussing which is more violent, I can.
The time the population would come into play is when you consider who they are exposed to, but that also works for who the potential victims are.

Its that if women and men were in the same bucket, the women would require DIFFERENT protections.

Based on what?

Its typical dissmmisal only because theres only so much time and energy one can put to arguing with peiple over the internet.
Not everyones a robot.

If you don't have time, then don't post. It is pathetic dismissal, because you don't have a rational objection.

I remember.  You wanted to claim that “removing the sexism” would still mean women get to play sports competitively. 
So that was just appeasement for “people like me”?

And people who want to see the not the best athletes compete.

YES!  The specifics were defined in a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.

So the document that was created in 1787, more than a year after the declaration of independence was ratified, which itself was more than a year after the war of independence began.
So great job showing you are entirely wrong by appealing to a document made long after they had already decided they were going to break free.

Oh, FFS.  Can you not even keep track of what you say in this sad exchange

I can mostly keep track.
But that doesn't stop people like you misrepresenting what I said, and I don't remember every single statement including any typos I may have made.
If you want to say I literally said something it is much better to back that up with a quote, with appropriate context.

Based upon what was said around it, I think I mistyped something there. Reading it back the most likely thing I meant to say was "So what you are really complaining about is that the Olympics for females, isn't treated as "the most prestigious event", when by your own admission it is for people that aren't good enough to compete with the best?"
Where with the current system, people like you do treat it as the most prestigious event, while in a system of performance/ability based divisions it would not be because those females would be competing in a lower division than the top.

Now you just need to demonstrate  a better alternative.

I have.
The simplest is to just remove the sex based discrimination entirely.
That way no one is excluded or benefits based upon their sex.

If you wish to disagree, you need to explain why such sex based discrimination is better.
Try to do so without appealing to sex.

So in the example we were discussing, does each country send hundreds of sprinters for the Olympic 100m so that no one get excluded for being too good , or not?  And why does your answer change every fucking time?

My answer doesn't change every time.
I have never proposed anything like that.
YOU proposed that for me, where the UK sends 218 athletes just to get a single female to compete, because the female had a time equal to the 218th man.

Athletes are already being excluded in the current system with less capable athletes going instead.

Yes, they control their weight, but that’s not the same as performance.

It directly relates to their performance.
By artificially limiting your weight, you are limiting your performance.

Quite a while.  Why is that relevant?

Because it means if they increase in weight, they can go from being the best, to being nobody.
It then takes quite a while to get to be good enough to compete in the next division up.

No, a professional boxer could beat the shit out of a much heavier person who is shit at boxing.  But between boxers of comparable skill and level of training, the heavier boxer has a considerable  advantage.

I would say that depends upon what that weight is and how much weight difference it is. If it is just fat, then they would likely lose. But if it was muscle, they would have a decent chance.

Yes!  Note the difference between controlling their weight and artificially capping based on their performance

Again, weight relates to performance.

Your ridiculous argument is that weight divisions works the same way same as performance divisions would.

And if it was nonsense, then no boxer would ever try to cap their weight. Instead, they would simply train and compete in whatever weight division they were in.

Being heavier does not win boxing matches.  Beating your opponent in the ring wins matches.

The question is what enables them to beat their opponent in the ring, and weight is a big factor. Again, otherwise there wouldn't be weight based divisions.

But that’s not the point.  You have repeatedly claimed that your performance divisions would work just like boxing and that would be fine.  You claim that weight is a “proxy” for performance to justify this.    Yet you also claim that divisions based on sex would only be fair if every man was better than every woman.  So your argument falls apart unless every fat fuck is better at boxing than everyone lighter than them.

Again, a fundamental difference between weight and sex is that you can change your weight, you can't change your sex.
And yes, I said weight is a proxy, not that it perfectly aligns with. I recognise it is limited.

Nope.  The basic point is the same

If the basic point is the same, then the point is that with these divisions countries are not sending the best athletes and instead a sending a mix of good and bad athletes, with some athletes that are better than the bad athletes being excluded.
i.e. what is happening now.

Either way, it’s replacing one system with another.  Don’t give me the semantics bullshit.  If you want to claim that “removing the sexism” is better, you have to demonstrate it.

And again, the simple way to do that is to just remove it, no divisions at all. That is better because it is not discriminating on the basis of sex, just like removing raced based segregation was better because it meant you don't discriminate on the basis of race. You then need to try to justify why having sexism is better.

You’ve been claiming your ability divisions would be a better alternative for dozens of posts over months.  That’s what I can argue against without appealing to sex, only your inability to understand the most basic things about sport.

But you can't. Because you need to compare it to the current system, which you can only possibly defend by appealing to sex.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 08, 2024, 03:25:56 PM

When the penetrating device is the same appendage that you derive pleausre from, greatly drives the motivation to forcibly dominate.

You may as well have just said sex feels good.
It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and doesn't provide a bias for males or females.

Not saying all or nothing.
But mostly.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 08, 2024, 03:25:56 PM

You are mixmatching if you dont consider the qty.
If there are 90males andn10females.
The population is now 100.
You cant solely rely on % because those % were in their smaller subsets.

When I am discussing which is more violent, I can.
The time the population would come into play is when you consider who they are exposed to, but that also works for who the potential victims are.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 08, 2024, 03:25:56 PM

Its that if women and men were in the same bucket, the women would require DIFFERENT protections.

Based on what?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 08, 2024, 03:25:56 PM

Its typical dissmmisal only because theres only so much time and energy one can put to arguing with peiple over the internet.
Not everyones a robot.

If you don't have time, then don't post. It is pathetic dismissal, because you don't have a rational objection.

Based on that males arr 15%larger than females.
And there are more of them in prison.
Qty matters.













Dismissal is to communicate that there is like voting
Theres aye
Nay
and abstain from vote.

The dismmissla is indeed crucial when dealing with deadend convesations.
It is an acknwoledgement that we agree to disagree since there can be no further exchange of new information.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

I remember.  You wanted to claim that “removing the sexism” would still mean women get to play sports competitively. 
So that was just appeasement for “people like me”?

And people who want to see the not the best athletes compete.

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.  It doesn’t explain why you’ve been trying to defend such bollocks for all this time.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

YES!  The specifics were defined in a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.

So the document that was created in 1787, more than a year after the declaration of independence was ratified, which itself was more than a year after the war of independence began.
So great job showing you are entirely wrong by appealing to a document made long after they had already decided they were going to break free.

And I suppose none of the American Patriots put any thought into having an elected head of state beforehand?  But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Oh, FFS.  Can you not even keep track of what you say in this sad exchange

I can mostly keep track.
But that doesn't stop people like you misrepresenting what I said, and I don't remember every single statement including any typos I may have made.
If you want to say I literally said something it is much better to back that up with a quote, with appropriate context.

Based upon what was said around it, I think I mistyped something there. Reading it back the most likely thing I meant to say was "So what you are really complaining about is that the Olympics for females, isn't treated as "the most prestigious event", when by your own admission it is for people that aren't good enough to compete with the best?"
Where with the current system, people like you do treat it as the most prestigious event, while in a system of performance/ability based divisions it would not be because those females would be competing in a lower division than the top.

Either way, you are still trying to tell me that I’m “really complaining” about something that’s miles off anything I’ve said.

And still you claim that I’m the one misrepresenting you, despite now having provided the relevant quote for you.  Hilarious.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Now you just need to demonstrate  a better alternative.

I have.
The simplest is to just remove the sex based discrimination entirely.
That way no one is excluded or benefits based upon their sex.

If you wish to disagree, you need to explain why such sex based discrimination is better.
Try to do so without appealing to sex.

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

For that you need to decide how you want it to work.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

So in the example we were discussing, does each country send hundreds of sprinters for the Olympic 100m so that no one get excluded for being too good , or not?  And why does your answer change every fucking time?

My answer doesn't change every time.
I have never proposed anything like that.
YOU proposed that for me, where the UK sends 218 athletes just to get a single female to compete, because the female had a time equal to the 218th man.

Athletes are already being excluded in the current system with less capable athletes going instead.

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer after I pointed out how many athletes that would mean for just one country in one event.  I already gave you several chances to clarify this comment, instead you just denied saying it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Yes, they control their weight, but that’s not the same as performance.

It directly relates to their performance.
By artificially limiting your weight, you are limiting your performance.

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

Apparently you still don’t see any difference between weight and winning matches?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Quite a while.  Why is that relevant?

Because it means if they increase in weight, they can go from being the best, to being nobody.
It then takes quite a while to get to be good enough to compete in the next division up.

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

No, a professional boxer could beat the shit out of a much heavier person who is shit at boxing.  But between boxers of comparable skill and level of training, the heavier boxer has a considerable  advantage.

I would say that depends upon what that weight is and how much weight difference it is. If it is just fat, then they would likely lose. But if it was muscle, they would have a decent chance.

Could be fat, could be muscle in the wrong places, could just be lack of boxing training and skill.  None of which is accounted for in your “weight is a proxy for ability” nonsense.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Your ridiculous argument is that weight divisions works the same way same as performance divisions would.

And if it was nonsense, then no boxer would ever try to cap their weight. Instead, they would simply train and compete in whatever weight division they were in.

That’s what happens at amateur level.  It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.  Note the difference between level and weight class.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Being heavier does not win boxing matches.  Beating your opponent in the ring wins matches.

The question is what enables them to beat their opponent in the ring, and weight is a big factor. Again, otherwise there wouldn't be weight based divisions.

I’ll remind you again that you’ve dismissed any arguments based on males vs female physiology, because according to you that only works if EVERY man is better than EVERY woman.  So unless every burger munching, beer swilling fatso can beat every professional boxer who weighs less than them, you have an enormous and hilarious double standard.

Weight is a factor in boxing, just as sex is for most sports.  Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

But that’s not the point.  You have repeatedly claimed that your performance divisions would work just like boxing and that would be fine.  You claim that weight is a “proxy” for performance to justify this.    Yet you also claim that divisions based on sex would only be fair if every man was better than every woman.  So your argument falls apart unless every fat fuck is better at boxing than everyone lighter than them.

Again, a fundamental difference between weight and sex is that you can change your weight, you can't change your sex.
And yes, I said weight is a proxy, not that it perfectly aligns with. I recognise it is limited.

Then all the crap about your ability divisions working exactly the same way as weight in boxing is bullshit, as I’ve said.  An athlete’s ability is how well they compete against other athletes. 

You said to make divisions based on their performance, so base your arguments on what you actually fucking proposed, not deflections to something that works very differently.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Nope.  The basic point is the same

If the basic point is the same, then the point is that with these divisions countries are not sending the best athletes and instead a sending a mix of good and bad athletes, with some athletes that are better than the bad athletes being excluded.
i.e. what is happening now.

Not what’s happening now.  No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification, and all the problems that come with it.

THAT is my point.  The thing that ONLY happens when you specifically use their performance as an upper limit for the divisions.  The point you have no answer for, hence all your bullshit and all your telling me I’m “really” saying something else.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

Either way, it’s replacing one system with another.  Don’t give me the semantics bullshit.  If you want to claim that “removing the sexism” is better, you have to demonstrate it.

And again, the simple way to do that is to just remove it, no divisions at all. That is better because it is not discriminating on the basis of sex, just like removing raced based segregation was better because it meant you don't discriminate on the basis of race. You then need to try to justify why having sexism is better.

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Then explain why that is better.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM

You’ve been claiming your ability divisions would be a better alternative for dozens of posts over months.  That’s what I can argue against without appealing to sex, only your inability to understand the most basic things about sport.

But you can't. Because you need to compare it to the current system, which you can only possibly defend by appealing to sex.

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

Based on that males arr 15%larger than females.

For the general population or the prison population?

And there are more of them in prison.

Which means there are fewer of them to be targets, and many more men to be targets.

Dismissal is to communicate that there is like voting

Dismissal by just calling someone nuts is to say you have no way to refute them and you have decided you want to attack them instead.

If you think there can be no further exchange of new information, you can just back out of the conversation.
If you want to "agree to disagree" you don't call the other person nuts.

Weight class at the top levels theres natural physical advatangage AND honed skills.

Skill training can only get you so far whih is why women cant hit the peaks male divisions can.
Becaus ethey 15% smaller!!!!!!!



You
Are
Nuts

Clearly a nutter.

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.

When people like you appear to attack it just on principle, what is the point?

And I suppose none of the American Patriots put any thought into having an elected head of state beforehand?

Notice how you are trying to change the standard?
Put some thought into it, vs having all the specifics.

But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

It isn't off topic or dumb. You not liking it because it shows the stupidity of your objection doesn't make it dumb.
It is a simple comparison to highlight just how stupid your requirement of having all the details is.

I don't need to have all the details to know the current system, discriminating on the basis of sex, is broken.

The correct response would be to admit you were wrong, rather than trying to deflect and dismiss.

Either way, you are still trying to tell me that I’m “really complaining” about something that’s miles off anything I’ve said.

How so?

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

And I have.
It removes the sexism, treating males and females equally, so people will not be unfairly discriminated against based upon their sex.
Are you suggesting sexism makes it better?

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Quote from: JackBlack on February 29, 2024, 01:17:22 PM

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer

No, I didn't.
Where is the change in answer?
Being eligible for the next division up does not mean they will automatically go to the Olympics for it. They still need to qualify.

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

And for your objection against that based upon athletes artificially capping their performance so they don't get excluded from that division so it isn't about being the bets, relates directly to boxers capping their weight so they don't get excluded from their division so it is no longer about being the best.

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

My bad, but also partly your bad. I asked how long in direct response to your question, and then asked how long it takes to go from featherweight to heavyweight. You just responded with "quite a while".
But do you have an example of a boxer who won a weight division, then went up to the next and won or came close to winning?

None of which is accounted for in your “weight is a proxy for ability” nonsense.

At no point have I ever said it is perfect.

It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.

So it is only the level where it would get you to things like the Olympics where you are really meant to be trying to find "the best" where the athletes decide to artificially restrict themselves to not be the best?
As opposed to amateurs that don't really care because they know they aren't the best?

I’ll remind you again

And I'll remind you again that weight is not a perfect drop in. I have never said it is.
I'm not saying we should switch entirely to weight based divisions. Instead, I am using it to show how your arguments apply equally to an existing system.
And I'll also point out again that you can control your weight, you can't control your sex.

So no, this is not a double standard.

Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

Then you should have no concern with males competing against females, because those males would need to be good at the sport to have a chance of wining.

Not what’s happening now.

Yes what is happening now.
Countries are sending in a mixture of the best and the mediocre.
Some athletes that are better than the mediocre athletes are excluded.

No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification

Which is not what that statement was.
But they can be told they are too heavy.

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Again, I propose removing sex based discrimination.
Other than that, I don't have a strong preference either way for just an open competition or multiple divisions.

Then explain why that is better.

Because it removes the sexism. It treats people based upon who they are, not what sex they are.
Do you think that is a bad thing? That we should be treating people based upon what sex they are rather than who they are?

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

i.e. systems of divisions which most of your arguments apply to as well.
But again, if you want to compare it to the current system I am opposing, you need to appeal to sex, because that sexist division is what I am objecting to.

Weight class at the top levels theres natural physical advatangage AND honed skills.

Skill training can only get you so far whih is why women cant hit the peaks male divisions can.
Becaus ethey 15% smaller!!!!!!!

So you were going back to sports.
Again, this is not a simple male vs female.
It is a broad spectrum with lots of overlap.
There are plenty of males which also are smaller which cannot reach the peak of the best.

Why should they be excluded based upon their sex?

You
Are
Nuts

Why? Because I object to sexist BS?

Clearly a nutter.

Clearly

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

My bad, but also partly your bad. I asked how long in direct response to your question, and then asked how long it takes to go from featherweight to heavyweight. You just responded with "quite a while".
But do you have an example of a boxer who won a weight division, then went up to the next and won or came close to winning?

FYI, Thomas (hit-man) Hearns , 5 weights, 5 world titles.

Well more importantly i think unco said it months ago - there is no practical logistics to have nba divisions by height.

Its not solely about players.
Its also about the viewers.

Just like fuckface bulma idea to have wood burning/ steam/ diesel / petrol (but oddly NO electric) but lacking the awareness the logistics of supply chain and cost associated with too maby options.

Viewers simopy dont have time or money invest to watch everything and teams cant afford to partial fill stadiums or network tv slots.

Dilution of customers works against marketability.

And back to the boxing:nba, pure dominance by heavy weights is checked by weight classes and nba nfl teams is balamced by salary caps

So femalss must be protected from injury and females viewership must be protected from dilution and females protected to compete somehow fairly in obtaining fair stadium and network time (ie not priced unfairly).

Reasonably fair and safe.


Rwasonable.


Not nutter.

FYI, Thomas (hit-man) Hearns , 5 weights, 5 world titles.

In a sport with 19 different divisions.
If you instead use the current Olympic weight classifications, that would cut it down to 3 different classes (assuming they actually manage to win the top one, over a period of 8 years (including a large gap of 5 years), and 10 kg. And instead of just going up, they also went down.
And with very few of these people in existence.

Well more importantly i think unco said it months ago - there is no practical logistics to have nba divisions by height.

Its not solely about players.
Its also about the viewers.

Just like fuckface bulma idea to have wood burning/ steam/ diesel / petrol (but oddly NO electric) but lacking the awareness the logistics of supply chain and cost associated with too maby options.

Viewers simopy dont have time or money invest to watch everything and teams cant afford to partial fill stadiums or network tv slots.

Dilution of customers works against marketability.

Tell that to boxing.
Excluding special cases like people wanting to see Musk get the shit beat out of him, the most popular rounds are typically those where you have a champion or overall winner determined.

With multiple divisions, you can do that multiple times in the same short period.

So femalss must be protected from injury and females viewership must be protected from dilution and females protected to compete somehow fairly in obtaining fair stadium and network time (ie not priced unfairly).

WHY?
Why the need to invoke "female"?
Why isn't it athletes must be protected from injury?
Why should female viewership in particular be protected, rather than just viewership in general?
Why is it that female athletes in particular need to be protected to compete fairly? What about the males of comparable ability who are excluded? Why aren't they protected?

Rwasonable.

So show it is reasonable, specifically to discriminate on the basis of sex even thought  rather than just dismissing opposition as nutter.

fighitng/ boxing bout runs for 15-45min.
example boxing may 18 there's going to be 8 bouts with a main event and a variety of rounds.
example ufc june 22 there's 5 main fights with +1 many prelims.

point? - there's more to watch in a given sit.

vs nba runs 2hrs average even though 4quartersx12min/quarter = 48min
vs nfl 3hrs average evne though it's clock is 60min
vs soccer 90min+halftime break but because it's a stupidass sport and no one scores it typically goes OT, then shootout - who watches football anyways? (HAAR)






"why" is because as already stated and is widely agreed upon for reasons as mentioned.
you not accepting it is your own issues, but it is the "why".
so we are once again at the impasse.
we must agree to disagree or devolve into insults.

















https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_boxing#:~:text=in%20the%202010s-,Length%20of%20bouts,men%2C%202%20minutes%20for%20women.
For decades, boxing matches went on for 15 rounds, but that was all changed on November 13, 1982, following the death of Korean boxer Kim Duk-koo in a fight against Ray Mancini. Studies following the fight have concluded that his brain had become more susceptible to damage after the 12th round.[9] Exactly three months after the fatal fight, the WBC reduced the number of their championship fights to 12 three-minute rounds with 1 minute in between, making the total bout 47 minutes long.[10]


https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/12508267/boxing-schedule
May 18: San Diego, California (ESPN/ESPN+)
Title fight: Emanuel Navarrete vs. Denys Berinchyk, 12 rounds, for the vacant WBO lightweight title

Giovani Santillan vs. Brian Norman Jr., 12 rounds, welterweights

Richard Torrez Jr. vs. Brandon Moore, 8 rounds, heavyweights

Jonathan Mansour vs. Anel Dudo, 4 rounds, lightweights

Emiliano Vargas vs. Angel Varela Urena, 6 rounds, junior welterweights

Charlie Sheehy vs. Manuel Jaimes, 8 rounds, lightweights

Alan Garcia vs. Wilfredo Flores, 8 rounds, lightweights

Jonathan Lopez vs. Edgar Ortega, 8 rounds, featherweights






https://www.espn.com/mma/schedule/_/league/ufc

Main Card
Middleweight - Main Event


Robert Whittaker
26-7-0
ABC/ESPN+
+170 / -200


Khamzat Chimaev
13-0-0
Full Profile
6' 0"
HEIGHT
6' 2"
185 lbs
WEIGHT
185 lbs
33
AGE
30
73.5"
REACH
75"
Orthodox
STANCE
Orthodox
4.57
SIG STR LPM
5.72
45.83%
SIG STR ACC
70.43%
0.81
TD AVG
3.99
38.10%
TD ACC
46.15%
0.00
SUB AVG
2.66
Full Profile


Kelvin Gastelum
18-9-0
ABC/ESPN+


Daniel Rodriguez
17-4-0


Shara Magomedov
12-0-0
ABC/ESPN+


Ihor Potieria
20-6-0


John Walker
21-8-0
ABC/ESPN+


Volkan Oezdemir
19-7-0


Sergei Pavlovich
18-2-0
ABC/ESPN+


Alexander Volkov
37-10-0
Prelims
headshot fallback image

TBA
ESPN/ESPN+
headshot fallback image

Opponent TBA

I think it all boils down to the fact that Jacky thinks either men and women are basically the same, with some men a bit taller and stronger than a few women, despite all the evidence otherwise and he himself pointing out the gulf between the Williams sisters and male professionals, or there is a difference but they should just suck it up and get back to the kitchen.

So, it’s either one or the other.
If women and men are built differently, (my view), then competitive competition between them is one sided and to give women who want to compete a division of their own makes sense.

If we are basically the same then he has to explain the Williams conundrum.

Or he does recognize the difference and because he hates women, he uses sexism as a shield to try and exclude them from ever succeeding.

Either way I'll leave him with it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.

When people like you appear to attack it just on principle, what is the point?

Demonstrably false.  I’ve been attacking specifics, which you are now complaining about.  You are the one arguing on “principles”.  Or some might say extremism.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

It isn't off topic or dumb. You not liking it because it shows the stupidity of your objection doesn't make it dumb.
It is a simple comparison to highlight just how stupid your requirement of having all the details is.

I don't need to have all the details to know the current system, discriminating on the basis of sex, is broken.

The correct response would be to admit you were wrong, rather than trying to deflect and dismiss.

It’s clearly massively off topic.

The topic is women’s sports.  Millions of women play competitive sports, from local club level to international level.  Do you want a system where they still get to compete, or are you happy to just let sport be a men’s thing?  If it’s the former, how does it work?

The details you apparently don’t care about could determine whether all those millions and careers and hobbies are sacrificed on the alter of “not being sexist”.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

And I have.
It removes the sexism, treating males and females equally, so people will not be unfairly discriminated against based upon their sex.
Are you suggesting sexism makes it better?

I wouldn’t call women’s sports sexist.  At least not in any way that matters.

When most people talk about sexism, they mean the discrimination that has a negative impact on peoples lives.  You call women’s sports sexism because it discriminates between men and women.  That might technically fit the strict definition of the word, but so what?

The important thing is whether it’s better or worse for the millions of people it affects?  So are the men you say are unfairly discriminated against any better off by scrapping it?  Is that enough to justify everything you would happily take away from people?

If you just make all events open, the all the men currently being “discriminated against” who could beat the best women are precisely zero places higher in the open rankings than they were in the mens.  All the men further down are even further from the top.  You’ve ended the “discrimination against men” and no men are better off, while the women loose a great deal.  Awesome.

That’s why you proposed your ability divisions in the first place.  But the problem with that is how fundamentally broken it is.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Quote from: JackBlack on February 29, 2024, 01:17:22 PM

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer

No, I didn't.
Where is the change in answer?
Being eligible for the next division up does not mean they will automatically go to the Olympics for it. They still need to qualify.

And I was specifically talking about qualifying.  So they would have no chance of qualifying.  Thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

And for your objection against that based upon athletes artificially capping their performance so they don't get excluded from that division so it isn't about being the bets, relates directly to boxers capping their weight so they don't get excluded from their division so it is no longer about being the best.

Performance meaning winning matches, races, scoring the most points in gymnastics, etc, etc.  The  point of the sports they are competing in, and how they are ranked. To avoid being excluded from your ridiculous performance based divisions, they would need to avoid winning too often to stay at just the right place in the rankings. 

Not the same at all as trying to be the best of featherweights, or the best of the women.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

My bad, but also partly your bad. I asked how long in direct response to your question, and then asked how long it takes to go from featherweight to heavyweight. You just responded with "quite a while".
But do you have an example of a boxer who won a weight division, then went up to the next and won or came close to winning?

Many of these won a world championship in one class and the next one up the following year:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boxing_quadruple_champions

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.

So it is only the level where it would get you to things like the Olympics where you are really meant to be trying to find "the best" where the athletes decide to artificially restrict themselves to not be the best?
As opposed to amateurs that don't really care because they know they aren't the best?

People who play anything in their spare time at their local sports center don’t tend to take it as seriously as the people competing internationally.  Who’d have thought?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

I’ll remind you again

And I'll remind you again that weight is not a perfect drop in. I have never said it is.
I'm not saying we should switch entirely to weight based divisions. Instead, I am using it to show how your arguments apply equally to an existing system.
And I'll also point out again that you can control your weight, you can't control your sex.

So no, this is not a double standard.

You explicitly claim that any argument based on physiological differences between men and women can only work if EVERY man is faster, stronger or whatever than every woman.  You’ve repeatedly said that several posters are pretending this, when they were very clearly not.  You insist that sex would have to be a “perfect drop in” for performance for their arguments to make logical sense.

See your double standard now?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

Then you should have no concern with males competing against females, because those males would need to be good at the sport to have a chance of wining.

Of course they would.  I couldn’t beat professional female athletes in any sport.  Not even close.  Neither I strongly suspect could you.  But the top women would stand no chance against the top men in most sports, no matter how good they are and how hard they train, because of the significant natural advantages that men have.  Not every single man, but men in general.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Not what’s happening now.

Yes what is happening now.
Countries are sending in a mixture of the best and the mediocre.
Some athletes that are better than the mediocre athletes are excluded.

They aren’t excluded because they win too much.  It’s a very simple concept, almost like you are deliberately avoiding the whole point I’ve been making for god knows how many posts.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification

Which is not what that statement was.
But they can be told they are too heavy.

Which is obviously not the same thing, is it? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Again, I propose removing sex based discrimination.
Other than that, I don't have a strong preference either way for just an open competition or multiple divisions.

So you don’t care about what would happen to all the millions of people who play sport under the current system or the people who watch it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

Then explain why that is better.

Because it removes the sexism. It treats people based upon who they are, not what sex they are.
Do you think that is a bad thing? That we should be treating people based upon what sex they are rather than who they are?

I think outcomes matter.  I think destroying sport for women would be a bad thing.  Womens sports exists to allow women to compete in sports, which is a good. It doesn’t detract from mens sports at all. 

You don’t seem to be able to explain why it’s bad for anyone involved or how an alternative would be better. 

It’s bad because it’s sexism and sexism is bad.  You appear to care more about the word sexism than the actual people affected.  I don’t give a crap if you want to call it sexism, I do care about what would happen to the people who play.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

i.e. systems of divisions which most of your arguments apply to as well.
But again, if you want to compare it to the current system I am opposing, you need to appeal to sex, because that sexist division is what I am objecting to.

No, you moron.  Systems that obviously don’t work the same way. Because weighing too much isn’t the same as winning too much, and being too old isn’t the same as winning too much.

vs soccer 90min+halftime break but because it's a stupidass sport and no one scores it typically goes OT, then shootout - who watches football anyways? (HAAR)

Now that there’s fightin’ talk.  I’ll take you to the fucking cleaners, mate.

Wait.  How much do you weigh?

hahaha

i've been promoted to coach for my kid's soccer this year.
no more assistant coach.
HEAD coach.

i'm excited to kabool it up



side note
if i mysteriously absent over the summer it's because i was arrested for something soccer-kid-related and defintely any NAMBLA rumoured activity was purely unintentional



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M6bdhgn8Nc8

Congrats.

You can start with the name- football, or possibly “the beautiful game”.

Maybe teach some traditional chants like “you’re shit and you know you are” and “the referee’s a wanker”.

Maybe teach some traditional chants like “you’re shit and you know you are” and “the referee’s a wanker”.

"Everyone hate's us, we don't care"

"He's fat! He's scouse! He's gonna rob your house! Wayne Rooneyyyy! Wayne Rooneyyyy!"