What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

You already know why it is sex and not those weird things you compare it to.

Yes, because people are sexist and want to pretend these female athletes are the best, and society as a whole is still quite happy with blatant sexism; but it isn't so happy with blatant racism or dividing base upon other factors.

You already know that "intersex" is not a third sex.

But I do know it doesn't fit neatly into a male-female binary.

You are entitled to your beliefs. I hope people who think the same as you never get to decide (I am entitled to my hope!)

Just like I'm sure the slave owners hoped that people who opposed slavery would never get to decide.
Yes, you are entitled to your hope, regardless of how bigoted it is.

I can say with hand on heart that I do not consider myself sexist.

And you not considering yourself sexist doesn't mean you aren't.

You wanting to treat different sexes differently means you are.

Some KKK members insist they aren't white supremacists. Should we just accept that?
Or should we ignore their self labelling and instead just based upon actions and desires?

underpinned by equal parts envy and bitterness towards the female of the species.

And again, clinging to your pure fantasy to try to villify me so you can avoid critical self reflection of your own blatant sexism.

I wouldn’t worry about that.  It doesn’t seem to be an issue for even the most strident men’s rights activists.

Because there are far more important issues, like stopping infant genital mutilation, getting custody rights and equal entitlements to parental leave, opposing sexism in hiring practices and acceptance into universities, growing recognition of male victims of rape and female perpetrators, growing recognition that men can be victims of domestic violence, including violence at the hands of women, restoring the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and so on.
Fighting for a bunch of people to do sports is quite low on the list.

he's also lying about the "genetically female" athlete, the athlete he's discussing is actually "genetically male"

No, he's not.
The point is there are a variety of "intersex" conditions.
This includes those that are XY but do not have the required genes to differentiate as a male.
These people ARE NOT genetically male, because they lack the genes to be male.
If they were genetically male they would be male, not intersex.
And there are also cases of XX females, with elevated testosterone levels.

But sure, just act like he is a moron because he suggests the idea of dividing based upon sex is bad and can be solved by dividing based upon other factors.
And the point at the end is right.
Once society eventually moves past this blatant sexism, those defending that sexism will look ridiculous, and just as bad as those defending slavery or racial segregation.

You want me to explain Women’s sports without distinguishing between men and women?

I want you to defend it without blatant sexism.
So don't tell me these women are the best, when they are far below. Do it honestly.

Also, wrong!  Their claim to fame is being the BEST women in the country at their given event.

You are emphasising the wrong point.
Their claim to fame is being the best WOMAN.
They aren't the best, not even close.

Doing it without the sexism, they are the best in a restricted category for people that aren't the best.
Why should it matter if that category is restricted based upon sex or something else.

Either way, a separate category exists because these people aren't good enough

Just as the men are the best men in country.

Again, there is no need for the male qualifier.
In basically every event, the men are the BEST in the country.
Especially now with more of these events becoming open.
They are the best PEOPLE in the country or world.
While the other divisions are the "best" of those that are not the best.

Your hilarious idea is to create divisions specifically defined by NOT being the best of any category.

Again, this is an argument to remove divisions, rather than having divisions for people (like women or featherweights) that are not the best.

I refer you to my previous analogy.  The world’s tallest man is 2.51m.  It’s not something anyone really cares about, just a listing in a book, but it is a thing. He is also the tallest person in the world, which is a thing.  The tallest woman in the world is 2.15m, and that is also a thing, whether you like it or not.  The tallest person in the world under 2.16m is not thing.  It would just be nonsense.

The tallest person under 2.16 m is a thing as soon as someone labels it such.
You can also get the tallest person with blonde hair; the tallest colour blind person, and so on.

And again, there is no need for the "man" part.
The tallest PERSON is 2.51 m.
The tallest person out of an arbitrarily chosen group may be 2.15 m, but they aren't the tallest person.

Sounds like your issue is with the nature of sport in general.

No, my issue is the blatant sexism and contradiction in your claims.

You object to the idea of having a separate category for those who cannot compete in an open division; but that is exactly what the female division is, a separate category for those who cannot compete in an open division, with an additional restriction of sex.

The current system defies the nature of sport of being to find the best.

We don’t all get to compete at high level sports regardless of ability.  It’s fundamentally elitist.

So why make a category for women at all?
Why not simply have them accept that they do not have the ability to compete?

If it was a man with the same ability and same training you would say they aren't good enough. So why should an exception be made based upon sex?

To be consistent, either there should just be a single division to find THE best (not the best of some arbitrary category); or you have divisions such that those who cannot compete with the best are still able to.

I mean exactly what I say.  A system where men go to elite competitions like the Olympics for the specific reason that they aren’t too good at their event would be absolute horseshit.

Yet a system where of 2 people, of equal ability and training, one is excluded based upon their sex is fine?
That is only fine if you are sexist.
What you are saying is no better than saying women's sport is absolute horseshit, because they aren't too good at their event, and can only pretend to be good by comparing to other people that aren't too good.

Let’s say for example that we send the same number of people to the Olympics.  But now they are half the best men at their event and half men who are equivalent ability to the best women.  Congratulations, you’ve created opportunities for a tiny handful of men, but there are just as many men who could beat them than there were with the women (ie vastly more than the numbers you are sending).  But now, all those men are missing out for the most unsporting reason possible

No, they aren't.
The most unsporting reason is because they are the wrong sex.
All those men watching would know that it could have been them, if only they were female.

And again, you have basically the exact same issue with weight classes, where it could have been them, if only they didn't put that tiny bit of weight which pushed them over the arbitrary limit.

Those men you are complaining about miss out either way. Either because they are too good, or because they are too male and deemed too good.
The only difference would be those who would compete fairly in the female division, but are excluded based upon their sex.

Again, if you want to oppose letting lower ranking people go, the only rational approach is to not divide based upon sex, so you have the same number of people going, but the women who aren't good enough aren't taking the place of other people who are good enough.

And everyone would know that the men they are watching aren’t the best of anything.

No more so than the women they are watching aren't the best of anything.
They are both equally the best of their category.

What locations are we talking about exactly?

Locations used for female sporting events which restrict entry to only females.
There are countless ones all over the world.

The women who get plaudits ARE special.

They are only special, because they are female.
The men at the same level, with the same history, would likewise be the limit of what can be achieved with that body. It is just that that body isn't female so you don't care.

The women’s World Cup is in addition to the regular (men’s) World Cup.  By definition, addition isn’t taking away.  That would be subtraction.  And you claim to be a man of science.

Again, just where do you think this is coming from?
Do you think all the sponsorship and pay and so on just magically popped into existence from no where?
If no, then it is taking away from something, by definition.
It is a zero sum game.

If you can it and replace it with something no one gives a shit about, then it generates no money.

Which still raises the question of where is that money going?
Do they decide to just burn it instead?

Should I remind you that your whole deal has been taking away from male athletes, so the suggestion that the money could go to something not sport related is an extreme case of moving your own goal posts.

It is the only way to have female sport events not take away from male sport events, to have that money going to a non-sport event. But even then, it is still taking away from something.

Also no, my who deal has been the sexism, giving the women something equal men do not have.

As for the fields, that’s even more ridiculous. Most football stadiums stand empty for all but a few hours a week.

And when they are being used for things like the sexist world cup, are other people allowed to use it when the world cup isn't playing?

But I’ve never heard any football fans saying they want biennial or annual World Cups.  Most would say that have it too often would make it less of an event than it coming round every 4 years.

Yet 166 of the 210 member associations of FIFA support a biennial world cup.

And of those fans you appeal to, how many would think it is too much if you double the number of events, vs converting the existing events to open events?

Are they saying it is too much and they don't care to watch the females?

Good grief.  It’s not about whether “some” trans athletes have comparable performance.  As discussed numerous times, sport by its very nature sorts the best from the some.

Until you start throwing in extra categories, like female or under x kg.
At that point it is no longer sorting the best.

And again no one is pretending anything.  The top women are the top women.

They are the top of a lower ranking division.
They are not the world best.

Funny you pick a bunch things where there is either no physiological difference in performance or very minor traits, and not the far more obvious ones

I would say race can be quite significant, and has the same biological basis, and by looking at past winners. But that would be opposed as racism.
And with colour blindness being far more common among men, it is quite likely that colour blind people would, on average, perform better than non-colour blind people.

Why don’t we allow fully developed adults to complete against teens?

The same reason we don't charge them full price for admission.

But with some events, it is quite clearly unfair with plenty of cases of a single child being vastly better than everyone else in their age bracket. So it clearly isn't based upon ability.

Why don’t we allow able bodied people to compete against the disabled?

We do. There is typically nothing preventing disabled people from competing in competitions.
Look at Oscar Pistorius, who competed at both the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.
However, later on it was banned to use any device so he can no longer compete with his prosthetic legs.

JackBlack, Tyson was talking about Caster Semenya, who is genetically male. The reason Semenya has naturally high testosterone levels is because Semenya has testicles. lol Tyson spent so much time blustering on and on... WAIT A MINUTE. Are you Neil deGrasse Tyson? It would explain so much.

When you find yourself starting a sentence with “Jesus! you are a total fucking imbecile.” You have to take stock and decide whether what you will put after that is going to make a difference or you’re just doing it for ego’s sake, when the answer is, no and probably the only reason to post must be for the fun of it.

Jacky is a lost cause who could be replaced by an algorithm that cuts peoples posts into little pieces and replies with a predictable word salad that contains at least one or a combination of “BS, pure, blatant, delusional, fantasy” and lives in a world where men are the victims at least in equal measure of rape and domestic abuse committed by women.
Where the moment you finish masturbating over a women’s football match you might as well don your white conical mask and set the crosses burning because women are different from men only by having a different set of genitals and (for an undisclosed reason but not one that deserves allocation of any special measures what so ever,) are crap at sports, but have presumably gulled the world into watching their badly timed lurching parodies of men by dressing like whores to steal the money and kudos from whatever car crash caricature of masculinity stares pitifully back at Jacky from his mirror.

There, that feels better. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

You want me to explain Women’s sports without distinguishing between men and women?

I want you to defend it without blatant sexism.
So don't tell me these women are the best, when they are far below. Do it honestly.

They are the BEST WOMEN.   Out of the WOMEN, they are the BEST.  The people who are better ARE NOT WOMEN.  Why do you find it dishonest to state the basic FACTS?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Also, wrong!  Their claim to fame is being the BEST women in the country at their given event.

You are emphasising the wrong point.
Their claim to fame is being the best WOMAN.
They aren't the best, not even close

I emphasised the part that you left out.  The vastly more significant part of the claim.   Because out of the billions of women in the world, only a handful can claim to be among the best at a given sport.  While every other person in the world can claim to be a woman (or indeed anyone can claim to be a woman in many places).

Doing it without the sexism, they are the best in a restricted category for people that aren't the best.
Why should it matter if that category is restricted based upon sex or something else.

Either way, a separate category exists because these people aren't good enough

Correction.  Not good enough FOR YOU.  Because YOU have no interest in women competing in sport.  For people who are fine with competitive sports existing or the other half of the world's population (up to and including finding the best of them), they are evidently "good enough".

And again, we DO have other categories for people in sports- age, weight, disability, etc.  None of which appear to make your blood boil as much.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Just as the men are the best men in country.

Again, there is no need for the male qualifier.
In basically every event, the men are the BEST in the country.
Especially now with more of these events becoming open.
They are the best PEOPLE in the country or world.
While the other divisions are the "best" of those that are not the best.

Strong evidence of the massive physiological advantages that men in general have in sports, isn't it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Your hilarious idea is to create divisions specifically defined by NOT being the best of any category.

Again, this is an argument to remove divisions, rather than having divisions for people (like women or featherweights) that are not the best.

No, that's not my argument.  Stop saying it is.  If YOU want to make the argument to remove all divisions, then stop fucking around and make it, like an an honest person would.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

I refer you to my previous analogy.  The world’s tallest man is 2.51m.  It’s not something anyone really cares about, just a listing in a book, but it is a thing. He is also the tallest person in the world, which is a thing.  The tallest woman in the world is 2.15m, and that is also a thing, whether you like it or not.  The tallest person in the world under 2.16m is not thing.  It would just be nonsense.

The tallest person under 2.16 m is a thing as soon as someone labels it such.
You can also get the tallest person with blonde hair; the tallest colour blind person, and so on.

And again, there is no need for the "man" part.
The tallest PERSON is 2.51 m.
The tallest person out of an arbitrarily chosen group may be 2.15 m, but they aren't the tallest person.

Hahaha! Maybe you should write to Guinness Book of Records and suggest it?  You can rant about them being sexist pigs while you're at it.

But like it or not, the world's tallest woman IS 2.15m.  An easily identifiable tallest person in the category of the half the world's population that are generally significantly shorter than the other (not the case with colour blindness).

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Sounds like your issue is with the nature of sport in general.

No, my issue is the blatant sexism and contradiction in your claims.

You object to the idea of having a separate category for those who cannot compete in an open division; but that is exactly what the female division is, a separate category for those who cannot compete in an open division, with an additional restriction of sex.

The current system defies the nature of sport of being to find the best.

There's no contradiction for people who believe that world of sport is better for women to be able to compete in it right up to international level.  Without being crowded out and then eliminated by men.  Just as it's better to have youths compete up to international level and for disabled people to compete up to international level.  Allowances are made for sport to be inclusive.

We still find the best men as well as the best women.  Women's events do not interfere with finding the best men.  Usually the overall best are the able bodied, fully developed men.  So wrong on that count.  What we don't find are the best of the men who aren't especially good.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

We don’t all get to compete at high level sports regardless of ability.  It’s fundamentally elitist.

So why make a category for women at all?
Why not simply have them accept that they do not have the ability to compete?

If it was a man with the same ability and same training you would say they aren't good enough. So why should an exception be made based upon sex?

To be consistent, either there should just be a single division to find THE best (not the best of some arbitrary category); or you have divisions such that those who cannot compete with the best are still able to.

In your opinion.  I disagree with both of your options of how it "should" be (as I've made clear).  Strange that you can't seem to decide on your own ultimatum and continuously switch your arguments between mutually exclusive cases. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

I mean exactly what I say.  A system where men go to elite competitions like the Olympics for the specific reason that they aren’t too good at their event would be absolute horseshit.

Yet a system where of 2 people, of equal ability and training, one is excluded based upon their sex is fine?
That is only fine if you are sexist.
What you are saying is no better than saying women's sport is absolute horseshit, because they aren't too good at their event, and can only pretend to be good by comparing to other people that aren't too good.

Pay attention.  Within each category, no matter how it's defined or how much you hate it, the people in it compete to be the best.  It becomes a problem if you define categories explicitly by them not being too good, because that's as meaningless and arbitrary as finding the world's tallest person under 2.16m.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Let’s say for example that we send the same number of people to the Olympics.  But now they are half the best men at their event and half men who are equivalent ability to the best women.  Congratulations, you’ve created opportunities for a tiny handful of men, but there are just as many men who could beat them than there were with the women (ie vastly more than the numbers you are sending).  But now, all those men are missing out for the most unsporting reason possible

No, they aren't.
The most unsporting reason is because they are the wrong sex.
All those men watching would know that it could have been them, if only they were female.

And again, you have basically the exact same issue with weight classes, where it could have been them, if only they didn't put that tiny bit of weight which pushed them over the arbitrary limit.

Those men you are complaining about miss out either way. Either because they are too good, or because they are too male and deemed too good.
The only difference would be those who would compete fairly in the female division, but are excluded based upon their sex.

Again, if you want to oppose letting lower ranking people go, the only rational approach is to not divide based upon sex, so you have the same number of people going, but the women who aren't good enough aren't taking the place of other people who are good enough.

You keep telling yourself that.  Those men are not women, they do not compete against women.  They know that women compete in a separate category.  Most people understand and respect why that is.  (Apart from the current debate on how to make sport inclusive for trans women without screw up women's sports).

An athlete seeing a direct competitor who they beat every time they play go to the Olympics while they have to stay at home is another thing entirely.  Who gets to decide what just the right level of not too good is that means the lesser athlete goes and they don't?   

Also not the same for weight, because everyone competes to be the best in their weight category.  Boxers don't fail to qualify for the Olympic games for winning too many fights.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

And everyone would know that the men they are watching aren’t the best of anything.

No more so than the women they are watching aren't the best of anything.
They are both equally the best of their category.

The women are the BEST WOMEN.  Being a woman is something.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

What locations are we talking about exactly?

Locations used for female sporting events which restrict entry to only females.
There are countless ones all over the world.

So, like the locations for men's events then?  Why aren't you complaining about men taking away from women as well?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

The women who get plaudits ARE special.

They are only special, because they are female.
The men at the same level, with the same history, would likewise be the limit of what can be achieved with that body. It is just that that body isn't female so you don't care.

Or more likely they don't need to train as hard, or have less actual talent and are at equivalent level because of natural advantages.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

The women’s World Cup is in addition to the regular (men’s) World Cup.  By definition, addition isn’t taking away.  That would be subtraction.  And you claim to be a man of science.

Again, just where do you think this is coming from?
Do you think all the sponsorship and pay and so on just magically popped into existence from no where?
If no, then it is taking away from something, by definition.
It is a zero sum game.

As I said, it comes from people being interested in it.  And no amount of howling from you will stop them being interested in it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

If you can it and replace it with something no one gives a shit about, then it generates no money.

Which still raises the question of where is that money going?
Do they decide to just burn it instead?

It would probably go on something else targeting women.  Why do companies sponsor athletes in the first place?  It's product placement to increase their market share.  Nike want to sell their women's shoes to women, just as they want to sell their men's shoes to men.  Feel free to contact Nike and tell them to ignore half the world's population and concentrate their entire marketing budget on men because you don't think women are deserving of their sponsorship money.  See how far that arguments gets.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Should I remind you that your whole deal has been taking away from male athletes, so the suggestion that the money could go to something not sport related is an extreme case of moving your own goal posts.

It is the only way to have female sport events not take away from male sport events, to have that money going to a non-sport event. But even then, it is still taking away from something.

Also no, my who deal has been the sexism, giving the women something equal men do not have.

So it IS just wanting to take things away from women?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

As for the fields, that’s even more ridiculous. Most football stadiums stand empty for all but a few hours a week.

And when they are being used for things like the sexist world cup, are other people allowed to use it when the world cup isn't playing?

EH?  I've read this sentence 20 times, and can't make sense of it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

But I’ve never heard any football fans saying they want biennial or annual World Cups.  Most would say that have it too often would make it less of an event than it coming round every 4 years.

Yet 166 of the 210 member associations of FIFA support a biennial world cup.

And of those fans you appeal to, how many would think it is too much if you double the number of events, vs converting the existing events to open events?

Are they saying it is too much and they don't care to watch the females?

A great many football fans don't care about the women's game, and that's fine.  Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.  For those who are interested, it's quite different to watch and interesting it's own right.  It's less aggressive, with less dirty play and less bullshit.  But they don't run as fast, tackle or shoot as hard, and it has much lower viewing figures. 

A biennial world cup would mean more money for FIFA, which is most likely the main reason that many countries' associations support it.  Whether it would good for the game is a completely different question.  Thanks for confirming my point that there is more than enough stadium capacity though.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Good grief.  It’s not about whether “some” trans athletes have comparable performance.  As discussed numerous times, sport by its very nature sorts the best from the some.

Until you start throwing in extra categories, like female or under x kg.
At that point it is no longer sorting the best.

THE BEST IN THEIR CATEGORY.

You DELIBERATELY do this every fucking time, when you know exactly what I mean.  Because you are incapable of debating like a reasonable honest person.

Just as you KNOW that the problem isn't a trans woman with equivalent ability.  The issue is that if for example a world class male athlete decides to become female and is allowed to compete in the women's events, it's basically game over for everyone else.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

And again no one is pretending anything.  The top women are the top women.

They are the top of a lower ranking division.
They are not the world best.

So what?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Funny you pick a bunch things where there is either no physiological difference in performance or very minor traits, and not the far more obvious ones

I would say race can be quite significant, and has the same biological basis, and by looking at past winners. But that would be opposed as racism.

If it was anywhere near as significant, we'd see all sports absolutely dominated by one particular race.  But we don't.  We see some countries and some races tending to do better at different sports.  China always does well at gymnastics, but so does Russia and the USA (including black and white gymnasts). We see lots of black people in track and field, particularly running events, but plenty of white people competing and often winning.  Basketball may be largely dominated by black athletes, particularly in the US, but this is probably mainly a cultural thing, where black people just play more basketball.  Similarly Scandinavians do well at winter sports, because then have a lot of snow and lots of them do a lot winter sports. 

And with colour blindness being far more common among men, it is quite likely that colour blind people would, on average, perform better than non-colour blind people.

So you're saying that the determining factor in a general trend between colour blind and non colour blind people (if there is such a trend) would be SEX.  I think you've just answered you own question, LOL.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 22, 1976, 06:41:04 AM

Why don’t we allow fully developed adults to complete against teens?

The same reason we don't charge them full price for admission.

What?  NO.  Because if we allowed adults to compete in youth games, they would no longer be youth games.  We would take away the opportunities for young people to compete and succeed in sports.   

But with some events, it is quite clearly unfair with plenty of cases of a single child being vastly better than everyone else in their age bracket. So it clearly isn't based upon ability.

Why is that so terrible?  Sometimes you get truly exceptional people in adult sports too, like when Usain Bolt absolutely thrashed everyone at sprinting, or Michael Phelps at swimming.   

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 03, 2023, 10:21:04 AM

Why don’t we allow able bodied people to compete against the disabled?

We do. There is typically nothing preventing disabled people from competing in competitions.
Look at Oscar Pistorius, who competed at both the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.
However, later on it was banned to use any device so he can no longer compete with his prosthetic legs.

We don't allow able bodied people compete in the Paralympics.    You know exactly what I mean and you know exactly why it's not allowed, but you have to argue with it anyway.  Why is that?

I'm still waiting on Jack to answer why we exclude other mammals from competing in sports against humans.   It's discrimination.

Look at Oscar Pistorius, who competed at both the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.
However, later on it was banned to use any device so he can no longer compete with his prosthetic legs.

Yeah, I was wondering why we don't see much of Pistorius at the Olympics these days....

Who will win the sexist world cup? lol

p.s. kids are charged less for admissions to various events so it will make it more affordable for families to attend. It is also a marketing gimmick. It lets people know it is a family friendly affair. They know if you bring your family, you will spend money on other things.

Who will win the sexist world cup? lol

More to the point: who will win the sexiest world cup?

p.s. kids are charged less for admissions to various events so it will make it more affordable for families to attend. It is also a marketing gimmick. It lets people know it is a family friendly affair. They know if you bring your family, you will spend money on other things.

??

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 05, 2023, 07:17:52 AM

Who will win the sexist world cup? lol

More to the point: who will win the sexiest world cup?

Quote

p.s. kids are charged less for admissions to various events so it will make it more affordable for families to attend. It is also a marketing gimmick. It lets people know it is a family friendly affair. They know if you bring your family, you will spend money on other things.

??

Unconvinced asked him - Why don’t we allow fully developed adults to complete against teens?

JB answered - The same reason we don't charge them full price for admission.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 04, 2023, 03:15:12 PM

Look at Oscar Pistorius, who competed at both the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.
However, later on it was banned to use any device so he can no longer compete with his prosthetic legs.

Yeah, I was wondering why we don't see much of Pistorius at the Olympics these days....

I don’t think I shouldn’t have laughed quite as hard at that.  Does that make me a bad man?

JackBlack, Tyson was talking about Caster Semenya, who is genetically male.

Was he?
Or was he speaking of other women with elevated testosterone?
And no, she is not genetically male.
She lacks the required genes to be genetically male.
Having XY chromosomes does not make one genetically male.

The reason Semenya has naturally high testosterone levels is because Semenya has testicles.

Does she? Do you have a reliable source for that?
And I don't just mean hearsay reporting that she does.

When you find yourself starting a sentence with “Jesus! you are a total fucking imbecile.” You have to take stock and decide whether what you will put after that is going to make a difference or you’re just doing it for ego’s sake, when the answer is, no and probably the only reason to post must be for the fun of it.

So you are just doing this to stoke your own ego and troll? Got it.
If you aren't going to offer anything constructive, why not just crawl back under your bridge?

I'm still waiting on Jack to answer why we exclude other mammals from competing in sports against humans.   It's discrimination.

Do you mean why we don't force them to?
Has anyone ever offered an animal a chance to compete and they respond with a clear verbal "yes"?
Or even a written "Yes"?

They are the BEST WOMEN.

So if you are a blatant sexist, wanting to divide mankind into a category of women vs non-women, you can pretend they are the best.
But they are NOT the best people, typically not even close.
Doing it like this is no better than dividing it based upon race and saying they are the best of their race.

Why do you find it dishonest to state the basic FACTS?

You aren't stating a basic fact.
You are manipulating facts, using blatant sexism to try to elevate these people, while approaching other people with similar ability and history vastly different just because of their sex.

You are using sex to try to cover up that these women aren't that good.

I emphasised the part that you left out.

I emphasised the important part.
They aren't the best.
It is only when you use blatant sexism that you can pretend they are.

Correction.  Not good enough FOR YOU.

Correction, not good enough FOR YOU!
As you have already made it clear that you only care about them if they are in their own sexist division.
If they were competing among men of similar ability you would treat them as no one.
They would still be the "best women", but competing in a division which makes it clear they are not the best people.

Strong evidence of the massive physiological advantages that men in general have in sports, isn't it?

Evidence that there is a broad spectrum of ability and that the very elite are more likely to be male. That is NOT evidence that males have an advantage.

To see the massive problem with your idea all you need to do is look at things like IQ or academic performance.
In that case you will also find males as the elites; but you will also find them as the worst, and in fact the average for males is below the average for females.
So which sex has the advantage there?
Is it males because they are the top, or is it females because their average is higher?
Does it show a biological advantage for males or females?
Or does it merely show there is a wide range and males are at the top of the range?

No, that's not my argument.  Stop saying it is.

That is the logical conclusion of your argument.
YOU are objecting to divisions I propose because sport is meant to be about finding the best.
That means women should not have a separate category where men are excluded because "they are too good".
It means you have no divisions and you find the best.

You not liking that that is the logical conclusion of your argument is irrelevant.

If YOU want to oppose the idea of divisions because people are excluded for being too good, then you make it, and be honest about it, including honestly admitting that would mean you exclude weight based and sex based divisions.

But like it or not, the world's tallest woman IS 2.15m.

And the same can be said (with an equivalent number) for any arbitrary division you want.

There's no contradiction

There is a massive contradiction, and you hiding from it with blatant sexism wont make it go away.
You are objecting to my idea because sport is meant to be about finding the best; that we shouldn't have a division for people that aren't good enough.
Yet your attempt to justify a female division boils down to "they aren't good enough"

So yes, it is a contradiction.

Again, you have 2 people, both with the same training history and ability; one is male, one is female. Why should they be treated differently?

Allowances are made for sport to be inclusive

i.e. you use blatant discrimination to ensure certain groups of people get to pretend to be the best.
If you truly wanted it to be inclusive, then you would allow each person to compete based upon their own ability/performance. You would NOT need to just invoke blatant sexism so you can have a token female athlete winning.

We still find the best men as well as the best women.

You mean we find the best person, and the best person who isn't good enough to compete with the best, along with excluding a large portion of the population because of blatant sexism.

In your opinion.

No, not my opinion.
Based upon what you have said.
You have said it should be about ability, about finding the best. That it is fundamentally elitist and that we shouldn't all get to compete.
This goes directly against your idea of inclusivity.
If it is about elitism rather than inclusivity, then women, who are not elite, shouldn't get to compete and no one should be surprised.

Strange that you can't seem to decide on your own ultimatum and continuously switch your arguments between mutually exclusive cases.

Again, if you were honest you would recognise the point I am making.
I am not switching my argument. I am showing what your argument logically leads to.
I am showing how your arguments go against what you are defending.

Pay attention.  Within each category, no matter how it's defined or how much you hate it, the people in it compete to be the best.

Yet apparently, it does matter to you.
Where a category based upon ability having people compete to be the best in that category is magically no longer good enough for you.

Either accept that they would be different categories, so they would be the best in that category; or reject that idea and recognising that being the best of a lower category means you are not the best, including if that category is female.

because that's as meaningless and arbitrary

Nor more meaningless and arbitrary as finding the best boxer under x kg, or the best athlete deemed to be "female".

Would you prefer it if it was the tallest person under 100 kg?

Those men are not women, they do not compete against women.

Yes, due to blatant sexism you are promoting.
If it was really about inclusion and being far, these hypothetical men should be competing with these hypothetical women.
This demonstrates it has nothing to do with being fair or inclusive, and instead is just blatant sexism.

Most people understand and respect why that is.

Most people are quite happy with blatant sexism, because society as a whole accepts it.

An athlete seeing a direct competitor who they beat every time they play go to the Olympics while they have to stay at home is another thing entirely.

No, it isn't.
An athlete seeing a competitor, who they know they can beat, get to go to the Olympics, while they have to stay home because they "too good to compete with them", is the same; regardless of if that "too good" is based just upon being too good, or based upon being male.

Again, this is an argument to remove divisions. Not to keep a sexist division or a division based upon weight.

Also not the same for weight

Yes the same for weight.
Because if the person was just a little bit lighter, they would fit within the arbitrary limit and be able to compete.

The women are the BEST WOMEN.

But not the best people.
They are the best of a limited group of people, where you have excluded roughly half the population because you deem that half to be too good (regardless of if they actually are).

So, like the locations for men's events then?  Why aren't you complaining about men taking away from women as well?

Given the growing emergence of open events, are they?

As I said, it comes from people being interested in it.

And if that event was removed, and another event took its place, would they not be interested, at all? Not a single individual?

It would probably go on something else targeting women.

Or something else targeting sports.

So it IS just wanting to take things away from women?

No, it is wanting to remove sexism.

If you are saying the only reason women have it is due to blatant sexism, then why should they have it?

Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.

No, that isn't unlike me at all.
I just want people to honestly look at themselves and start recognising blatant sexism and opposing it.

If you want to watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts while you jerk off, go ahead. I wont stop you.
Just don't pretend it isn't blatant sexism.

For those who are interested, it's quite different to watch and interesting it's own right.  It's less aggressive, with less dirty play and less bullshit.

And a similar competition with men wouldn't be because?

THE BEST IN THEIR CATEGORY.

Again, you are happy with that when you are happy with how the category is set up. But then when you impose what that category is, suddenly they are not the best.
Just more dishonesty from you.

Again, pick an option. Either sport should be about finding the best, with categorisation to separate out athletes that aren't as good as other athletes being unsporting and defeating the point of sport, and the athletes "winning" these categories are not the best;
or categorisation is find, and a winner from a category of people who aren't the best, is still the best in that category.

Because you are incapable of debating like a reasonable honest person.

Projecting much?
You are the one making arguments against the position you are trying to support.

Just as you KNOW that the problem isn't a trans woman with equivalent ability.  The issue is that if for example a world class male athlete decides to become female and is allowed to compete in the women's events, it's basically game over for everyone else.

This comes back down to why you think there needs to be a female category in the first place.
You have made it clear it is not simply about having a category for those who aren't as good, as that wouldn't be excluding based upon sex, it would be excluding based upon performance.
Instead, you want it so you can have a female winner.
So if that trans person is deemed to be female, and they win the female division, then why shouldn't that be fine? You have met your goal of "inclusion". If anything that does it even more so, because not only do you have a female winner, you have a trans winner as well.

So what?

So that is the very thing you complained about for a division based upon performance/ability.

If it was anywhere near as significant, we'd see all sports absolutely dominated by one particular race.

No, if it was a factor which affected all sports equally we would see all sports dominated by one particular race.
It is also an entirely useless comparison without sports which are combined based upon sex.
How good are female gymnasts? If you had a mixed competition of males and females, would males win or would females?

For things like that you would need to remove the blatant sexism to see what would happen.

Division based upon race doesn't mean that one race will win at every sport.
It means particular races have advantages at particular sports.

but plenty of white people competing and often winning.

No. Not often winning. Rarely winning.

So you're saying that the determining factor in a general trend between colour blind and non colour blind people (if there is such a trend) would be SEX.  I think you've just answered you own question, LOL.

No, I didn't answer my own question, I just explained why your objection would be BS.

What?  NO.  Because if we allowed adults to compete in youth games, they would no longer be youth games.

No. If we didn't divide them, there wouldn't have been a youth games.
We wouldn't be taking away opportunities.

Instead, because people like giving kids things, they gave them a youth games.

Why is that so terrible?

It isn't terrible.
It demonstrates it has nothing to do with it being "fair".

We don't allow able bodied people compete in the Paralympics.    You know exactly what I mean and you know exactly why it's not allowed, but you have to argue with it anyway.  Why is that?

Yes, I know what you mean, you want a special category where only a certain group of people can play so you can pretend to care; while the vast majority of people don't.

Winning the youth olympics, or winning the paralympics is nothing like winning the olympics.

5-alpha reductase deficiency - 5-alpha reductase deficiency is a condition that affects male sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads.

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on October 05, 2023, 06:54:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 04, 2023, 03:15:12 PM

Look at Oscar Pistorius, who competed at both the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.
However, later on it was banned to use any device so he can no longer compete with his prosthetic legs.

Yeah, I was wondering why we don't see much of Pistorius at the Olympics these days....

I don’t think I shouldn’t have laughed quite as hard at that.  Does that make me a bad man?

Nah, I think it makes Pistorius a bad man. 

Same bullshit as always.  You cherry pick single sentences (sometime half sentences) to quote me out of context to pretend that I'm saying something completely different to what I actually said, while also apparently forgetting what you said that I was responding to.  There's about two or three points in all that where you even bothered to respond to my actual point.  You can bang on about your "logical conclusions' of my argument all you like, it doesn't mean shit when you deliberately misrepresent my argument in the first place.  All while accusing me of being dishonest.

Maybe I'll go through every single bullshit misrepresentation of my position one by one again, and maybe I won't.  Doesn't seem much point, seeing as you appear incapable of being able to process an opinion that differs from yours.

I will however respond to this little gem:

If you want to watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts while you jerk off, go ahead. I wont stop you.
Just don't pretend it isn't blatant sexism

Fuck you, you pathetic sack of shit.   So much for your usual Trumpian whinge "oh, they're all trying to vilify me!".  Look in the fucking mirror wanker, and try to have just a little self awareness.  Not just for your insult towards me either, but your description of female athletes as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.  Which tells everyone far more about you than it does about me, as if they didn't know already.

And before you say it, don't fucking claim that adding the word "if" changes anything.

5-alpha reductase deficiency - 5-alpha reductase deficiency is a condition that affects male sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads.

There are a wide variety of intersex conditions. With a wide variety of genes present.
Sex determination is a complex process, involving many genes.

A Y chromosome does not mean you have all the necessary genes to be a male. So it does not mean you are genetically male.

Saying that is like claiming someone with a recessive trait for red hair is genetically red-haired; even though their genetic make-up means they wont have red hair.

Same bullshit as always.

Then stop with the same BS.
Try something new.
Try to accept how your arguments go against the very thing you are trying to defend.

You can bang on about your "logical conclusions' of my argument all you like, it doesn't mean shit when you deliberately misrepresent my argument in the first place.

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting your argument.
I am pointing out the logical consequences of it and how you are effectively arguing against yourself.
Conversely, you take that to be me flipping back and forth on my position.

Me pointing out how the logical consequences of your argument supporting the idea that there should be no separate divisions and instead just a single open division which everyone competes in to find the best; is not me saying that.

Maybe I'll go through every single bullshit misrepresentation of my position one by one again, and maybe I won't.  Doesn't seem much point, seeing as you appear incapable of being able to process an opinion that differs from yours.

I can process opinions that differ from mine. That doesn't mean I will accept them, or not point out the hypocrisy in them.

Fuck you, you pathetic sack of shit.

I seem to have touched a nerve.
Did I find the real reason you like female sports?

Not just for your insult towards me either, but your description of female athletes as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.  Which tells everyone far more about you than it does about me, as if they didn't know already.

I would say your response is far more telling.
Which part upset you?
Was it that I said girls instead of women?
Was it that I said they were running around?
Or was it that I said they were in skirts?
Or was it that I presented a hypothetical that you just wanted to watch that while jerking off?

You are the one wanting female athletes kept separate from male athletes, so you an watch female only competitions without them being spoiled by men.
The question is why?
Just how does having males of comparable ability destroy it for you?
If you genuinely cared about watching competition at that level, having men at that level in there shouldn't matter.
The only reason is if you don't want them their to hide from reality, or for a more sexual reason.
And that sexual reason would be that you aren't watching it for the sport, but for a different reason.
So that was just a hypothetical for what you wanted, emphasising that you aren't watching it for the sport.

Sex is binary. There are no in between sexes. People with DSDs are either male or female. Sex determination only became a complicated process about 5 minutes ago.

Sex is binary. There are no in between sexes. People with DSDs are either male or female. Sex determination only became a complicated process about 5 minutes ago.

Sex is binary (in humans).
But that does not mean sex determination is.
There are a multitude of genes which need to interact in the appropriate way to make someone male or female.
Due to this, there are cases where people are neither male nor female, or both male and female.
The question is how are people classified when they have some of the genes but not all? Should they just be called neither? Or should it depend on the exact specifics of their condition?

Actual biologists will be thrilled to learn of your theories.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2023, 12:42:15 PM

Same bullshit as always.

Then stop with the same BS.
Try something new.
Try to accept how your arguments go against the very thing you are trying to defend.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2023, 12:42:15 PM

You can bang on about your "logical conclusions' of my argument all you like, it doesn't mean shit when you deliberately misrepresent my argument in the first place.

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting your argument.
I am pointing out the logical consequences of it and how you are effectively arguing against yourself.
Conversely, you take that to be me flipping back and forth on my position.

Me pointing out how the logical consequences of your argument supporting the idea that there should be no separate divisions and instead just a single open division which everyone competes in to find the best; is not me saying that.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2023, 12:42:15 PM

Maybe I'll go through every single bullshit misrepresentation of my position one by one again, and maybe I won't.  Doesn't seem much point, seeing as you appear incapable of being able to process an opinion that differs from yours.

I can process opinions that differ from mine. That doesn't mean I will accept them, or not point out the hypocrisy in them.

Try reading and understanding the arguments presented to you then.  You can start with learning what it means to put an adjective in front of a noun, such as in the words "best women", instead of your pathetic bullshit that I'm "pretending" anything other than the words I write.  Then move on to more challenging concepts, like dealing with more than one sentence at a time.  Sometimes you need to read a whole paragraph or more (gasp) to get the point. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2023, 12:42:15 PM

Fuck you, you pathetic sack of shit.

I seem to have touched a nerve.
Did I find the real reason you like female sports?

Ah, playing the moronic "touched a nerve" card now, are we?  No, it doesn't mean you've found anything, it means you're an offensive dickhead.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2023, 12:42:15 PM

Not just for your insult towards me either, but your description of female athletes as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.  Which tells everyone far more about you than it does about me, as if they didn't know already.

I would say your response is far more telling.
Which part upset you?
Was it that I said girls instead of women?
Was it that I said they were running around?
Or was it that I said they were in skirts?
Or was it that I presented a hypothetical that you just wanted to watch that while jerking off?

You are the one wanting female athletes kept separate from male athletes, so you an watch female only competitions without them being spoiled by men.
The question is why?
Just how does having males of comparable ability destroy it for you?
If you genuinely cared about watching competition at that level, having men at that level in there shouldn't matter.
The only reason is if you don't want them their to hide from reality, or for a more sexual reason.
And that sexual reason would be that you aren't watching it for the sport, but for a different reason.
So that was just a hypothetical for what you wanted, emphasising that you aren't watching it for the sport.

I see you've progressed from trying to debate individual sentences to individual words.   It's the whole thing, obviously.  No amount of logic chopping gets you out of your demeaning chauvinistic description of female athletes, including the ones at the top of their of game, as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.   And the suggestion that people would only watch women's sports for wank material is pure misogynistic filth.

Of course you try to hide behind calling it a hypothetical because you're so depressingly predicable, sexist pig.

Actual biologists will be thrilled to learn of your theories.

They already know.
And for example, the recognise those with Swyer syndrome as female.

Try reading and understanding the arguments presented to you then.

Try following your own advice. Try reading and understanding what I am saying, rather than continually misrepresenting it, ignoring it or dismissing it.

Ah, playing the moronic "touched a nerve" card now, are we?  No, it doesn't mean you've found anything, it means you're an offensive dickhead.

Even if you think I was being offensive, that response is entirely disproportionate.
Your response is far more in line with someone being upset that what they are really doing is being called out and they are ashamed and feel the need to lash out.

Me not agreeing with you, or pointing out why some people would want female sports to be only female, is not me being an offensive dickhead.

I see you've progressed from trying to debate individual sentences to individual words.   It's the whole thing, obviously.  No amount of logic chopping gets you out of your demeaning chauvinistic description of female athletes, including the ones at the top of their of game, as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.   And the suggestion that people would only watch women's sports for wank material is pure misogynistic filth.

Of course you try to hide behind calling it a hypothetical because you're so depressingly predicable, sexist pig.

Quite the opposite.
You are the one being predictable sexist pig.
And when called out on it, you now resort to lashing out.

Again, if you truly value the sport, at that level, what is the problem with keeping men of comparable ability out of it?
It simply makes no sense.

And notice how even after you tell me not pretend you are saying things you aren't, you now respond with this crap?
Where have I said the only reason people would watch women's sport is for wank material?
I provided it as a hypothetical example of why you might want to keep sport segregated. And it is a fact that some people do use females competing as wank material.

Again, if you truly valued them as athletes, you would have no issue with men of comparable ability competing with them.
If you didn't value them as athletes, and instead only valued them as wank material or token gestures, then it makes sense for why you want to keep the men out.
Given your reaction, it seems I may have figured out why you want to keep men out.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 14, 2023, 06:15:29 PM

Actual biologists will be thrilled to learn of your theories.

They already know.
And for example, the recognise those with Swyer syndrome as female.

Activists know everything.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 15, 2023, 01:23:54 AM

Try reading and understanding the arguments presented to you then.

Try following your own advice. Try reading and understanding what I am saying, rather than continually misrepresenting it, ignoring it or dismissing it.

You are the one, who repeatedly literally tells me I mean something other than what I’m saying.  You are the one who cut the important parts of my argument out to ignore for pages and pages of this discussion.

I answered your points honestly and as fully as I had the time for, while you just ignored all the bits you had no answer for. 

Well, I’m done with all that now.  Trying to reason with you was a massive waste of my time and sanity.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 15, 2023, 01:23:54 AM

Ah, playing the moronic "touched a nerve" card now, are we?  No, it doesn't mean you've found anything, it means you're an offensive dickhead.

Even if you think I was being offensive, that response is entirely disproportionate.
Your response is far more in line with someone being upset that what they are really doing is being called out and they are ashamed and feel the need to lash out.

Me not agreeing with you, or pointing out why some people would want female sports to be only female, is not me being an offensive dickhead.

LOL.  You’re so full of shit.  You know it wasn’t about “not agreeing” with me, and you know you weren’t talking vaguely about  “some people”.

It was an insult aimed directly at  me.  You just wanted to say I watched women’s sports to jerk off to, thinking that adding the word “if” allows you to play all innocent.  But your degrading description of female athletes stands regardless of the conditional.  Didn’t think about that, did you genius?

You chose to drag the conversation into the gutter.  You chose your own chauvinistic words to describe female athletes.  Own it, motherfucker.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 15, 2023, 01:23:54 AM

I see you've progressed from trying to debate individual sentences to individual words.   It's the whole thing, obviously.  No amount of logic chopping gets you out of your demeaning chauvinistic description of female athletes, including the ones at the top of their of game, as a bunch of girls running around in skirts.   And the suggestion that people would only watch women's sports for wank material is pure misogynistic filth.

Of course you try to hide behind calling it a hypothetical because you're so depressingly predicable, sexist pig.

Quite the opposite.
You are the one being predictable sexist pig.
And when called out on it, you now resort to lashing out.

Again, if you truly value the sport, at that level, what is the problem with keeping men of comparable ability out of it?
It simply makes no sense.

And notice how even after you tell me not pretend you are saying things you aren't, you now respond with this crap?
Where have I said the only reason people would watch women's sport is for wank material?
I provided it as a hypothetical example of why you might want to keep sport segregated. And it is a fact that some people do use females competing as wank material.

Again, if you truly valued them as athletes, you would have no issue with men of comparable ability competing with them.
If you didn't value them as athletes, and instead only valued them as wank material or token gestures, then it makes sense for why you want to keep the men out.
Given your reaction, it seems I may have figured out why you want to keep men out.

You’re not “calling out” shit.  Your filthy insult came out of nowhere, based on absolutely nothing I said.  It’s entirely a product of your warped little mind. Now you use the logic of morons to say that me reacting to your horrible shit only makes you right.

I am calling you out though, on the things you actually said.  Your own chauvinistic words describing female athletes.

And you did suggest that people only watch “a bunch of girls running around in skirts” to jerk off to.  You said it about me, a person.  Just a regular person who respects female athletes for their achievements, sometimes watches women’s sports and doesn’t want to see it ruined.  So if you’re suggesting your “hypothetical” about me, I can only assume you’re suggesting it about countless millions of others who watch women compete.

All because you can’t understand how someone could possibly watch women’s sports just to watch women compete.  Without any kind of nefarious agenda to keep men down, without getting their rocks off.  Just watching the best women compete in games.

PS Read the dozens of times I’ve explained it to you in as many different ways as I could think of and stop demanding I repeat myself over and over again. 

You are the one, who repeatedly literally tells me I mean something other than what I’m saying.  You are the one who cut the important parts of my argument out to ignore for pages and pages of this discussion.

I am the one who points out the logical conclusion of your arguments and describes what you are doing.

I answered your points honestly and as fully as I had the time for, while you just ignored all the bits you had no answer for.

No, you didn't.
You continually dodged points you didn't like, like how your arguments apply to the current system.

But your degrading description of female athletes stands regardless of the conditional.  Didn’t think about that, did you genius?

No, it doesn't stand.
The point is that would be how other people see them. Not me.
Again, if you truly valued them as athletes you would have no issue with them competing against other athletes of comparable ability, including male ones.
But you do have issues. So the question is why.

You’re not “calling out” shit.  Your filthy insult came out of nowhere, based on absolutely nothing I said.

Wrong again.
Here it is with more context:

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 05, 2023, 02:13:53 AM

Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.

No, that isn't unlike me at all.
I just want people to honestly look at themselves and start recognising blatant sexism and opposing it.

If you want to watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts while you jerk off, go ahead. I wont stop you.
Just don't pretend it isn't blatant sexism.

You falsely claimed I am telling people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.
I am not.
I pointed out I am fine with you wanting to watch things for entirely sexist reasons; just with the caveat to not pretend it isn't sexism.

Instead of honestly presenting it as that, you instead latch onto the characterisation hypothetically applied to you and pretend that is what I think.

I am calling you out though, on the things you actually said.  Your own chauvinistic words describing female athletes.

Again, my words describing what some people would think of female athletes. The kind of people that wouldn't want it ruined by having men there.
The kind of people who would watch jelly wrestling on porn hub.

What you are doing is really no better than if I did this:

people only watch “a bunch of girls running around in skirts” to jerk off to.

Wow, you must really hate women with that description.

See how dishonest that is? Yet that is basically what you are doing now.

And you did suggest that people only watch “a bunch of girls running around in skirts” to jerk off to.

No, I didn't.
Understand the meaning of words and sentences.

There are plenty of reasons why people watch female athletes. That is just one of them.
So the best you get is that I said some people watch it for that reason.
Not that people only watch it for that reason.

Just a regular person who respects female athletes for their achievements, sometimes watches women’s sports and doesn’t want to see it ruined.

Again, if you actually respected them for their achievements, how does having a few men there (of comparable ability) ruin it?

All because you can’t understand how someone could possibly watch women’s sports just to watch women compete.

The question is why?
Why do you need ONLY women there to be able to watch women compete?
With mixed competitions, you are still able to see that.

PS Read the dozens of times I’ve explained it to you in as many different ways as I could think of and stop demanding I repeat myself over and over again.

And read the response to that where I explain how your argument applies to the current system, and is more an argument to remove all divisions than to oppose the idea of removing sex based divisions.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

You are the one, who repeatedly literally tells me I mean something other than what I’m saying.  You are the one who cut the important parts of my argument out to ignore for pages and pages of this discussion.

I am the one who points out the logical conclusion of your arguments and describes what you are doing.

You conclusions are shit, because you ignore the actual arguments I make and insert what you want my arguments to be.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

I answered your points honestly and as fully as I had the time for, while you just ignored all the bits you had no answer for.

No, you didn't.
You continually dodged points you didn't like, like how your arguments apply to the current system.

Fucking liar!

I’ve explained why I don’t think they do literally dozens of times.  My latest attempt was with the analogy of the world’s tallest woman (akin to the top woman in a given sport) vs a nonsense listing for the world’s tallest person under 2.16m (your dumbfuckery).  Remember that?  But that was following sooo many tries to explain it directly.

You don’t like my responses so you lie and claim I keep dodging the question.  Then ask the same thing  over and over.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

But your degrading description of female athletes stands regardless of the conditional.  Didn’t think about that, did you genius?

No, it doesn't stand.
The point is that would be how other people see them. Not me.
Again, if you truly valued them as athletes you would have no issue with them competing against other athletes of comparable ability, including male ones.
But you do have issues. So the question is why.

The question I’ve answered over and over again, which had nothing to do with jerking off?

The jerking off and demeaning description of female athletes came from nowhere else than your own sordid little mind. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

You’re not “calling out” shit.  Your filthy insult came out of nowhere, based on absolutely nothing I said.

Wrong again.
Here it is with more context:

Quote from: JackBlack on October 08, 2023, 02:48:49 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 05, 2023, 02:13:53 AM

Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.

No, that isn't unlike me at all.
I just want people to honestly look at themselves and start recognising blatant sexism and opposing it.

If you want to watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts while you jerk off, go ahead. I wont stop you.
Just don't pretend it isn't blatant sexism.

You falsely claimed I am telling people what they should or shouldn't be interested in watching.
I am not.
I pointed out I am fine with you wanting to watch things for entirely sexist reasons; just with the caveat to not pretend it isn't sexism.

Instead of honestly presenting it as that, you instead latch onto the characterisation hypothetically applied to you and pretend that is what I think.

I don’t give a flying fuck what you think.  What you say matters.

When you call me and everyone who watches or participates in women’s sports sexist pigs, when you compare people who don’t want it wrecked with slave owners, when you invent bullshit about me jerking off to a bunch of girls running around in skirts, etc. 

Not sure how you square your previous insane rants about slavery with your current claim that you’re actually fine with it all?  What happened to your one man crusade of “opposing sexism”?  Have you now decided you’re cool with it after all?

And of course I “latched onto” your filth directed at me. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

I am calling you out though, on the things you actually said.  Your own chauvinistic words describing female athletes.

Again, my words describing what some people would think of female athletes. The kind of people that wouldn't want it ruined by having men there.
The kind of people who would watch jelly wrestling on porn hub.

What you are doing is really no better than if I did this:

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

people only watch “a bunch of girls running around in skirts” to jerk off to.

Wow, you must really hate women with that description.

See how dishonest that is? Yet that is basically what you are doing now.

You aimed it at me personally.  Using own your sexist words to describe female athletes.

Yes, it’s dishonest for you to put your own sexist words into my mouth by quote mining.  Its also dishonest to suggest your sexist words are how I view women’s sports, based on nothing I’ve said. 

If you’re struggling to understand how degrading your words are, imagine you’re not talking to me, but a member of a woman’s national football team or an Olympic finalist.  Not as a cowardly keyboard warrior, but to her face.  Imagine telling her that it “makes no sense” for people to value her as an athlete under the current system, and that guys are wanking off to her as a girl running around in a skirt.

If you can’t see that, there’s really no hope for you.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

And you did suggest that people only watch “a bunch of girls running around in skirts” to jerk off to.

No, I didn't.
Understand the meaning of words and sentences.

There are plenty of reasons why people watch female athletes. That is just one of them.
So the best you get is that I said some people watch it for that reason.
Not that people only watch it for that reason.

I don’t need language lessons from the man who doesn’t seem to understand what placing an adjective in front of a noun means, thanks.

The some is quite superfluous in this context.  People does not have to mean all people.  You’re just nitpicking, because it’s all you’ve got.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

Just a regular person who respects female athletes for their achievements, sometimes watches women’s sports and doesn’t want to see it ruined.

Again, if you actually respected them for their achievements, how does having a few men there (of comparable ability) ruin it?

Again, LOL

No, I’m not fucking answering again.  Why bother when you’ll ignore it again and then ask the same thing in the next post again?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

All because you can’t understand how someone could possibly watch women’s sports just to watch women compete.

The question is why?
Why do you need ONLY women there to be able to watch women compete?
With mixed competitions, you are still able to see that.

Oh, is that the question?  No shit.  I hadn’t noticed that was your fucking question.

Read my previous answers, dickhead.  There’s pages and pages of my answer to chose from.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 16, 2023, 01:30:05 AM

PS Read the dozens of times I’ve explained it to you in as many different ways as I could think of and stop demanding I repeat myself over and over again.

And read the response to that where I explain how your argument applies to the current system, and is more an argument to remove all divisions than to oppose the idea of removing sex based divisions.

And read my responses about how they don’t. 

You don’t have to agree with my answers, but stop saying I haven’t answered your fucking question, because I have, time and time again. 

THIS is the difference.  I disagree with your answers and explain why I think you are wrong, but I accept that they are your answers.  I don’t keep asking you the exact same thing over and over, pretending that you haven’t already answered.  Because that would be dishonest and incredibly tedious.

You conclusions are shit, because you ignore the actual arguments I make and insert what you want my arguments to be.

No, I explain the logical consequences of your argument. That is not ignoring your arguments. It is showing how your arguments go against yours.

Fucking liar!

Projecting again I see?

I’ve explained why I don’t think they do literally dozens of times.  My latest attempt was with the analogy of the world’s tallest woman (akin to the top woman in a given sport) vs a nonsense listing for the world’s tallest person under 2.16m (your dumbfuckery).  Remember that?

And you not thinking they do doesn't mean that they don't.
Yes, you appeal to sexist records. But that doesn't actually address the argument.
If you care about finding the best, then you don't divide. If you divide, it is no longer about finding the best. Instead you are finding the best of some arbitrarily restricted division.

As for your ridiculous comparison, how about the tallest person under 60 kg?

The question I’ve answered over and over again, which had nothing to do with jerking off?
The jerking off and demeaning description of female athletes came from nowhere else than your own sordid little mind.

The demeaning of female athletes comes from those who think that men cannot compete with them.
It did not come purely from my own mind.
It came from people treating female athletes like sex objects.
It came from people demanding that "female" sport is not polluted by males.

I don’t give a flying fuck what you think.  What you say matters.

And dishonestly misrepresenting what I say also matters.
Lying about what I think matters.

When you call me and everyone who watches or participates in women’s sports sexist pigs, when you compare people who don’t want it wrecked with slave owners, when you invent bullshit about me jerking off to a bunch of girls running around in skirts, etc.

As opposed to you just entirely inventing BS, like claiming I think everyone who watches or participates sexist pigs.
It is only those who are desperate to keep men of comparable ability out that are sexist pigs.
I make comparisons to show the problem with your arguments.

Not sure how you square your previous insane rants about slavery with your current claim that you’re actually fine with it all?  What happened to your one man crusade of “opposing sexism”?  Have you now decided you’re cool with it after all?

No, I'm not "fine with it all". I oppose sexism, but if you want to watch sexist crap, I wont tell you that you can't; but I will object if you claim it isn't sexist.

You aimed it at me personally.  Using own your sexist words to describe female athletes.

No, not my own sexist words.
Stop projecting.

Yes, it’s dishonest for you to put your own sexist words into my mouth by quote mining.

You mean the thing you are doing?
Taking my objection to an idea to be my idea?
Taking me calling a hypothetical sexist BS to be me fully agreeing with that hypothetical and thinking it is correct?

Its also dishonest to suggest your sexist words are how I view women’s sports, based on nothing I’ve said.

It is based upon your idea that having men there would wreck it.
Just how is it wrecking it?
You still have female athletes there competing against people of similar ability.
The only reason it could wreck it is if you are desperate for men to not be there, for reasons entirely unrelated to sport.

If you’re struggling to understand how degrading your words are, imagine you’re not talking to me, but a member of a woman’s national football team or an Olympic finalist.

The hypothetical was directed towards someone who watches sport, not a participant.
But if they were a participant, they would likely recognise that the characterisation applying to some watches is quite true.
With some female athletes wanting to oppose the sexualisation of female athletes.
e.g.:
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019343453/women-sports-sexualization-uniforms-problem

Do you think they would agree that plenty of people do watch for sexual purposes rather than valuing them as an athlete?

I don’t need language lessons from the man who doesn’t seem to understand what placing an adjective in front of a noun means, thanks.

So you need integrity lessons instead?

People does not have to mean all people.

When you say "people would only do X for Y" that implies the SOLE reason they do it is Y.
When you say "people would do X for Y" that does not have the same implication.

The way you phrased it implied that I was claiming that the sole reason people do it is for that. With the clear intention of trying to vilify me.
The argument makes no sense otherwise.
It is a fact of life that people do watch female athletes to jerk off.
And the same applies to male athletes.
Or are you going to suggest that no one does that?

Recognising that fact is NOT misogynistic filth.
If anything, trying to deny that fact, to have these people continuing doing that without being called out on it, would be misogynistic filth.

So your position is either a dishonest misrepresentation of my claim, or a dishonest rejection of reality.

No, I’m not fucking answering again.  Why bother when you’ll ignore it again and then ask the same thing in the next post again?

Try actually answering, with a coherent answer that makes sense, rather than the same deflection.

And read my responses about how they don’t.

And read my responses about how they do.

THIS is the difference.  I disagree with your answers and explain why I think you are wrong, but I accept that they are your answers.

So the distinction is that I treat a non-answer response, i.e. a response that does not deal with the issue, as not an answer?

I don’t keep asking you the exact same thing over and over, pretending that you haven’t already answered.  Because that would be dishonest and incredibly tedious.

No, instead you repeat the same dishonest allegations over and over, pretending that it hasn't already been refuted and shown to be dishonest.
You present the same arguments, over and over, pretending that it hasn't be shown to argue against the current system.

And you not thinking they do doesn't mean that they don't.
Yes, you appeal to sexist records. But that doesn't actually address the argument.
If you care about finding the best, then you don't divide. If you divide, it is no longer about finding the best. Instead you are finding the best of some arbitrarily restricted division.

As for your ridiculous comparison, how about the tallest person under 60 kg?

You could find the tallest person under 60kg.  Whether anyone would really want to is another question, but it's not fundamentally self contradictory like the tallest person under 2.16m.

The example IS ridiculous isn't it?  That's the point, to show how ridiculous is it to find the tallest person who isn't too tall, the heaviest person who isn't too heavy, or... wait for it... the fastest sprinter who isn't too fast. 

It absolutely addresses the argument that you repeatedly and falsely claim I don't address.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

The question I’ve answered over and over again, which had nothing to do with jerking off?
The jerking off and demeaning description of female athletes came from nowhere else than your own sordid little mind.

The demeaning of female athletes comes from those who think that men cannot compete with them.
It did not come purely from my own mind.
It came from people treating female athletes like sex objects.
It came from people demanding that "female" sport is not polluted by males.

Oh, is this another one of your awesome "logical conclusions"?

No, dipshit.  You can't accept the reasons people like myself tell you they don't want men competing in female events, so you invented a demeaning reason with a demeaning description of female athletes for me, out of your own sordid little mind.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

When you call me and everyone who watches or participates in women’s sports sexist pigs, when you compare people who don’t want it wrecked with slave owners, when you invent bullshit about me jerking off to a bunch of girls running around in skirts, etc.

As opposed to you just entirely inventing BS, like claiming I think everyone who watches or participates sexist pigs.
It is only those who are desperate to keep men of comparable ability out that are sexist pigs.
I make comparisons to show the problem with your arguments.

Everyone, most people, whatever.  That's just splitting hairs.  The idea of scrapping women's sports isn't even a debate normal people are having.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

Not sure how you square your previous insane rants about slavery with your current claim that you’re actually fine with it all?  What happened to your one man crusade of “opposing sexism”?  Have you now decided you’re cool with it after all?

No, I'm not "fine with it all". I oppose sexism, but if you want to watch sexist crap, I wont tell you that you can't; but I will object if you claim it isn't sexist.

You just said "I am fine with you wanting to watch things for entirely sexist reasons" in your last post.   I guess we can just keep on segregating the men from the women then, as long as we're honest that we're doing it based on sex, which was never in dispute.  Problem solved.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

You aimed it at me personally.  Using own your sexist words to describe female athletes.

No, not my own sexist words.
Stop projecting.

LOL.  Quite literally your words, your projection:

If you want to watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts while you jerk off, go ahead. I wont stop you.
Just don't pretend it isn't blatant sexism.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

Yes, it’s dishonest for you to put your own sexist words into my mouth by quote mining.

You mean the thing you are doing?
Taking my objection to an idea to be my idea?
Taking me calling a hypothetical sexist BS to be me fully agreeing with that hypothetical and thinking it is correct?

An idea you invented for me in your tiny little mind, describing female athletes in your own degrading sexist language.  The words are yours, not mine.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 21, 2023, 02:17:10 AM

Its also dishonest to suggest your sexist words are how I view women’s sports, based on nothing I’ve said.

It is based upon your idea that having men there would wreck it.

Quite a leap to take my arguments about the physiological differences between men and women and the nature of sporting competitions, and arrive at me jerking off to a bunch of girls running around in skirts. 

The hypothetical was directed towards someone who watches sport, not a participant.

So your description of female athletes is only sexist if you say it to a female athlete?  Or would you think it's perfectly fine use the same words speaking to a female athlete?

The way you phrased it implied that I was claiming that the sole reason people do it is for that. With the clear intention of trying to vilify me.

Boo fucking hoo, crybaby.

Your bullshit invented "hypothetical" about me and the sexiest language you used, was a clear intention to vilify me. You phrased it to imply it was the sole reason I watched women's sports.  If you don't like people calling you a pathetic sack of shit, then stop acting like like one. 

While I applaud your tenacity and your arguments are sound, this is not an argument that is winnable.

As you point out his true thoughts about women are just visible below a covering of righteousness, like maggots under his skin.
For all his talk about anti-sexism, none of his concern is for that half of society that must contend with, and historically was the victim of sexism. Instead, he feels things have gone too far in that direction and it’s all about the poor men who aren’t allowed to put them back in their place.

I’m not even sure he’s capable of seeing this as re-discrimination, not while some man-boy is crying into his Cheeto’s that he could have been a contender if it hadn’t had been for that girl, you know, the one that wouldn’t date him either.