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

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

Yeah, I’m fully aware of that. It’s  not really the point though.  Sorry if I’m messing up the thread.   

Oh no, you're not messing it up. It is highlighting the weirdness and illogical nature of the arguments for allowing males to compete in the female category. If all you've got to defend your point are insults, and accusations of bigotry/sexism/racism without being able to properly explain why, then it's not a very good argument. It's completely common for people who argue for ending female sports to argue this way. They claim it is sexist to know that female humans have a physical disadvantage compared to male humans (if you don't put human in, they will start talking about clownfish or some other creature). They try to muddy the waters by including rare congenital birth defects, or comparing sex categories to racial segregation. It's dishonest and weak, but too many fall for it. It's good to argue with people like this, because it can clarify your own understanding.

Agreed, I was just worried you were going to get in the habit of posting like him, chopping up posts into smaller and smaller bits, it’s awful to read.

I bet if asked to review a painting he’d cut it into one-inch strips and label each bit bullshit and then draw a knob on the remains and say it was what the artist meant.

Agreed, I was just worried you were going to get in the habit of posting like him, chopping up posts into smaller and smaller bits, it’s awful to read.

I bet if asked to review a painting he’d cut it into one-inch strips and label each bit bullshit and then draw a knob on the remains and say it was what the artist meant.

Ha!  You noticed that, then?  I was curious to see whether Jack would complain about it.  It’s certainly much easier.

But I did resist the urge to make several separate responses out of one paragraph of his, so at least I didn’t stretch it out any more.

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.

And not fundamentally self contradictory like what I proposed.

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.

Continuing to falsely accuse me of things wont help you.
You can't even remain coherent with the reasons. You need to continually switch back and forth.

Again, I didn't invent this reason. This is a real reason for why some people do watch female sports.

The idea of scrapping women's sports isn't even a debate normal people are having.

Because there are far more important things.
Most people aren't debating it, just like most people aren't debating if Earth is flat.

You just said "I am fine with you wanting to watch things for entirely sexist reasons" in your last post.

Which does not mean I am fine with the underlying thing.

LOL.  Quite literally your words, your projection:

In that case these are your own words:

I watched women’s sports to jerk off to

Your words.

An idea you invented for me in your tiny little mind, describing female athletes in your own degrading sexist language.

No, not invented by me.
A simple fact of life.

Again, are you going to try suggesting no one jerks off to women's sports?
Because if you think it is degrading, you should be focusing on them.

Quite a leap to take my arguments about the physiological differences between men and women and the nature of sporting competitions

Again, the same kind of differences affecting performance also applies between different men.
So that is not a reason.
If that was the reason, you would segregate based upon some measure of performance/ability.
Instead, you choose to segregate based upon sex, indicating it is something different.

You can even look the historical context of it.
Originally it was to stop women polluting male sports.

So your description of female athletes is only sexist if you say it to a female athlete?

Not my description of female athletes, my description of some viewers.

Or would you think it's perfectly fine use the same words speaking to a female athlete?

Again, go ask a female athlete if they think people see them like that.
Perhaps those opposed to wearing bikinis as their uniform.

I think if we both went up to female a female athlete and you asked if they think all spectators watch them purely for "moral" reasons, wanting to watch them for the sake of sport; and I ask them if they think at least some people watch them while they jerk off rather than for sport; they would likely agree with me.

Your bullshit invented "hypothetical" about me and the sexiest language you used, was a clear intention to vilify me.

It is calling out your sexist BS.

If you don't like people calling you a pathetic sack of shit, then stop acting like like one.

Good thing I never have.
If you don't want people to label you as a sexist pig that watches women's sport while jerking, then stop acting like a sexist pig that thinks having men in women's sport would destroy it.

As you point out his true thoughts about women are just visible below a covering of righteousness, like maggots under his skin.

You mean you can just invent thoughts to try to flee away from your own blatant sexism.

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.

You act like it is impossible for it to flip, for the discrimination to go the other way.
I'm sure that if a Jewish dictator arose and started rounding up "aryans" and throwing them in concentration camps and gassing them, you would call anyone who opposed that an anti-semite.

History doesn't mean it can't switch.
You appeal to history, to sexism of the past, to dismiss current sexism.

Oh no, you're not messing it up. It is highlighting the weirdness and illogical nature of the arguments for allowing males to compete in the female category. If all you've got to defend your point are insults, and accusations of bigotry/sexism/racism without being able to properly explain why, then it's not a very good argument. It's completely common for people who argue for ending female sports to argue this way. They claim it is sexist to know that female humans have a physical disadvantage compared to male humans (if you don't put human in, they will start talking about clownfish or some other creature). They try to muddy the waters by including rare congenital birth defects, or comparing sex categories to racial segregation. It's dishonest and weak, but too many fall for it. It's good to argue with people like this, because it can clarify your own understanding.

Like how those who try to defend women's sports try claiming those objecting to the idea of sex based segregation are sexist pigs?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

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.

And not fundamentally self contradictory like what I proposed.

I really can’t tell if you honestly can’t see the difference?  It seems incredibly unlikely.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

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.

Continuing to falsely accuse me of things wont help you.
You can't even remain coherent with the reasons. You need to continually switch back and forth.

Again, I didn't invent this reason. This is a real reason for why some people do watch female sports.

You invented it FOR ME.  It’s not MY reason, and I said nothing to suggest it was.  I’ve told you my reasons many many times, you just can’t accept that they are my reasons.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

The idea of scrapping women's sports isn't even a debate normal people are having.

Because there are far more important things.
Most people aren't debating it, just like most people aren't debating if Earth is flat.

Are you suggesting that most people are flat earthers who just aren’t talking about it because they don’t think it’s important?  Rather than most people not debating it because they think it’s nonsense? 

Another piss poor analogy.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

You just said "I am fine with you wanting to watch things for entirely sexist reasons" in your last post.

Which does not mean I am fine with the underlying thing.

Evasive as ever.  Are you fine with sports being separated into male and female, for people to participate in and watch?  Or are you not fine with it?

Straight answer please.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

LOL.  Quite literally your words, your projection:

In that case these are your own words:

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

I watched women’s sports to jerk off to

Your words.

Oh dear God.  This is your idea of honest debate, is it?

Who wrote the “hypothetical” that I watch “a bunch of girls run around in skirts” to jerk off to?

Was it you, or was it me?  Can you answer that honestly?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

An idea you invented for me in your tiny little mind, describing female athletes in your own degrading sexist language.

No, not invented by me.
A simple fact of life.

Again, are you going to try suggesting no one jerks off to women's sports?
Because if you think it is degrading, you should be focusing on them.

I focus on you inventing this shit about me from your own fevered imagination.  I have no idea who jerks off to what and I don’t care.  I’d suspect not many bother with female sports for their thrills though. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

Quite a leap to take my arguments about the physiological differences between men and women and the nature of sporting competitions

Again, the same kind of differences affecting performance also applies between different men.
So that is not a reason.
If that was the reason, you would segregate based upon some measure of performance/ability.
Instead, you choose to segregate based upon sex, indicating it is something different.

You can even look the historical context of it.
Originally it was to stop women polluting male sports.

Your failure to understand my very simple arguments is no excuse for inventing bullshit about me.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

So your description of female athletes is only sexist if you say it to a female athlete?

Not my description of female athletes, my description of some viewers.

So “a bunch of girls run around in skirts” refers to the viewers?  Fascinating.

In your “hypothetical” am I supposed to be jerking off to the athletes or the viewers?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

Or would you think it's perfectly fine use the same words speaking to a female athlete?

Again, go ask a female athlete if they think people see them like that.
Perhaps those opposed to wearing bikinis as their uniform.

I think if we both went up to female a female athlete and you asked if they think all spectators watch them purely for "moral" reasons, wanting to watch them for the sake of sport; and I ask them if they think at least some people watch them while they jerk off rather than for sport; they would likely agree with me.

Laughable attempt, Jack.  No, using the words you wrote about me.

Ask the female athlete if she thinks some people “watch a bunch of girls run around in skirts” while they jerk off?  While you’re at it you can tell her how it makes no sense when people say they respect her as an athlete.

ie Do you think what you wrote here would be acceptable to say to them, as a woman, an athlete and as a human being?  Or would they be degrading?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

Your bullshit invented "hypothetical" about me and the sexiest language you used, was a clear intention to vilify me.

It is calling out your sexist BS.

Making shit up is not “calling out” anything.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 22, 2023, 08:07:22 PM

If you don't like people calling you a pathetic sack of shit, then stop acting like like one.

Good thing I never have.
If you don't want people to label you as a sexist pig that watches women's sport while jerking, then stop acting like a sexist pig that thinks having men in women's sport would destroy it.

You’re saying it’s fine to completely invent the part about me jerking off, because you won’t accept the reasons I give you?

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

We all know who the sexist pig is, Jack.

Since you are incapable of having a real discussion about any topic, you resort to trying to make people mad. I never really paid attention to the way you argue, because all the fisking is so boring. I didn't understand why people ended up angry with you, and kept asking me to ban you (no, I'm not even thinking of banning you for any of this dumb shit). Anyway, I understand now. You don't really know how to debate. You have perfected taking tiny snips out of a larger conversation and then strawmanning those little snips. You throw in insults so a conversation will be derailed, then you pretend you didn't even post the thing you posted! You bring up irrelevant points, so people then have to argue your irrelevant point, etc. At this point I am wondering if this is your troll persona, or if this is you. If it's your persona, then congrats on keeping it up for so many years. If this is you, I feel sad for you.

i don't imagine him being sexist or racist.

he's a robot responding with what words mean, not with context.
so i would imagine given his ability to nitpick lines and lines of thread responses, him being on the spectrum .

I really can’t tell if you honestly can’t see the difference?  It seems incredibly unlikely.

The issue is that you aren't directly representing what I suggested.
Yes, I suggested a separation based upon performance, but it would be breaking it into divisions, and those competing in those divisions, after qualifying, wouldn't be bound to some time.

If you like, it makes as much sense as a chess tournament for those under a certain ELO. Which does exist.

You invented it FOR ME.

No, I applied an existing reason. I did not invent it.

Are you suggesting that most people are flat earthers who just aren’t talking about it because they don’t think it’s important?

No, I'm suggesting most people don't give a damn at all.
That they haven't thought about it to even start to consider it.

Are you fine with sports being separated into male and female, for people to participate in and watch?  Or are you not fine with it?

Notice how you again change it from what I said.
No. I oppose the idea of sports being separated into male and female events.
But as they are, if you want to watch it like that, I am not going to stop you, but I will call you out on such blatant sexism, and would very much prefer it if you were honest enough to admit to that sexism.

Oh dear God.  This is your idea of honest debate, is it?

No, it is YOUR idea of it.
You dishonestly misrepresent what I said as if I was describing what I thought of female athletes instead of pointing out what plenty of sexists think of them.

Would you have preferred I used this quote of yours:

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Or plenty of other examples where you are happy to decide I think certain things.

Now tell me, who wrote those words above in your quote?
Does that means I should claim you think:

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Or would that be dishonest? Just like it would be dishonest to claim I think women's sport is just a bunch of girls around in skirts for people to jerk off to?

Can you answer that honestly and consistently?

I focus on you inventing this shit about me from your own fevered imagination.

You mean you INVENT that about me from your own imagination.
Again, you are happy to invent things about me, but get upset when I take things from reality, from what sexists pigs do, and suggest they apply to you.

Your failure to understand my very simple arguments is no excuse for inventing bullshit about me.

Your failure to rationally make arguments which are coherent is no excuse for inventing BS about me.

So “a bunch of girls run around in skirts” refers to the viewers?  Fascinating.

No, people thinking female athletes are that and jerking off to them refers to the viewers.

Laughable attempt, Jack.  No, using the words you wrote about me.

And I am sure they would still agree with me.
That they do think female sports are overly sexualised which people use to jerk off.
They would probably agree that some people do think of them as a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.

While you’re at it you can tell her how it makes no sense when people say they respect her as an athlete.

Again, that is only if they feel the need to keep men out of the competition.
If they aren't sexist, and would be fine with men of comparable ability competing alongside them, then it can make sense.

Do you think what you wrote here would be acceptable to say to them, as a woman, an athlete and as a human being?

Again, in what way?
In your incredibly dishonest way were you take the characterisation of the viewer and present what that viewer thinks of them to them as if it is what you think; or do you mean honestly portraying it as what some viewers think and asking them what they think about it?

You’re saying it’s fine to completely invent the part about me jerking off, because you won’t accept the reasons I give you?

I have pointed out how you feel the need to continually switch between reasons, how plenty of your arguments against my idea apply equally to the very thing you are defending, and how collectively it makes no sense.
So the question is why do you continue to defend such sexism? Why do you think having men present would so heavily destroy it?

We all know who the sexist pig is, Jack.

Yes, those who promote and defend sex based discrimination.

Since you are incapable of having a real discussion about any topic, you resort to trying to make people mad. I never really paid attention to the way you argue, because all the fisking is so boring. I didn't understand why people ended up angry with you, and kept asking me to ban you (no, I'm not even thinking of banning you for any of this dumb shit). Anyway, I understand now. You don't really know how to debate. You have perfected taking tiny snips out of a larger conversation and then strawmanning those little snips. You throw in insults so a conversation will be derailed, then you pretend you didn't even post the thing you posted! You bring up irrelevant points, so people then have to argue your irrelevant point, etc. At this point I am wondering if this is your troll persona, or if this is you. If it's your persona, then congrats on keeping it up for so many years. If this is you, I feel sad for you.

A real discussion requires participation by both sides. When one side only wants to villify because they cannot honestly and rationally defend their position it is hard to have a real discussion.
I'm not trying to make people mad. People just get mad when they get their BS called out repeatedly.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

I really can’t tell if you honestly can’t see the difference?  It seems incredibly unlikely.

The issue is that you aren't directly representing what I suggested.
Yes, I suggested a separation based upon performance, but it would be breaking it into divisions, and those competing in those divisions, after qualifying, wouldn't be bound to some time.

If you like, it makes as much sense as a chess tournament for those under a certain ELO. Which does exist.

Awesome.  The man who draws parallels between watching women’s sports and slave ownership complaining that my analogy isn’t exactly the same thing.  This of course is after dozens of posts directly addressing the problems with your idea which you continue to claim I never addressed.  Those two points included.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

You invented it FOR ME.

No, I applied an existing reason. I did not invent it.

Semantic quibbling.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Are you suggesting that most people are flat earthers who just aren’t talking about it because they don’t think it’s important?

No, I'm suggesting most people don't give a damn at all.
That they haven't thought about it to even start to consider it.

So what does this have to with people being sexist pigs for watching women’s sports?  If they don’t think about it they aren’t sexist pigs?  Where are you going with this dumb analogy anyway?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Are you fine with sports being separated into male and female, for people to participate in and watch?  Or are you not fine with it?

Notice how you again change it from what I said.
No. I oppose the idea of sports being separated into male and female events.
But as they are, if you want to watch it like that, I am not going to stop you, but I will call you out on such blatant sexism, and would very much prefer it if you were honest enough to admit to that sexism.

Yeah, I know you aren’t stopping anyone.

What have I changed?  That is the point of the whole stupid debate.

This little diversion was you complaining when I said you were telling people what they should watch, and you then saying you’re  fine with it.  But you also say that watching women’s sports is blatant sexism and therefore bad.

Which is it?  Is it fine for me to watch women’s sports, or am I sexist pig for doing so?  I don’t see how it can be both.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Oh dear God.  This is your idea of honest debate, is it?

No, it is YOUR idea of it.
You dishonestly misrepresent what I said as if I was describing what I thought of female athletes instead of pointing out what plenty of sexists think of them.

Would you have preferred I used this quote of yours:

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 19, 2023, 06:38:41 AM

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Or plenty of other examples where you are happy to decide I think certain things.

Now tell me, who wrote those words above in your quote?
Does that means I should claim you think:

Quote

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Or would that be dishonest? Just like it would be dishonest to claim I think women's sport is just a bunch of girls around in skirts for people to jerk off to?

Can you answer that honestly and consistently?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

I focus on you inventing this shit about me from your own fevered imagination.

You mean you INVENT that about me from your own imagination.
Again, you are happy to invent things about me, but get upset when I take things from reality, from what sexists pigs do, and suggest they apply to you.

LOL

Yes, Jack I can honestly answer that- I wrote the bit you just quote mined out of context.   You on the other hand tried to deny that you wrote the part about a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.  Followed by another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

I might have paraphrased a little to use the word shit, but it’s basically what you’ve been saying this whole time- that womens sports is just a “lower league” than the mens, that it makes no sense for the top women to get recognition if men are excluded, that they are taking sponsorship money and audiences from more deserving men, that the whole system is sexist, that you have no interest in watching it, etc, etc.

Quite unlike your bullshit about me jerking off to a bunch of girls running around in skirts, which just came out of nowhere but your own imagination.   

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Your failure to understand my very simple arguments is no excuse for inventing bullshit about me.

Your failure to rationally make arguments which are coherent is no excuse for inventing BS about me.

Everything I’ve said about you is actually based on what you wrote.  Usually phrased as a question to allow you to clarify, I might add. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

So “a bunch of girls run around in skirts” refers to the viewers?  Fascinating.

No, people thinking female athletes are that and jerking off to them refers to the viewers.

Does it really though?  Watching women compete just isn’t that sexy and not at all suggestive compared to a great many films, music videos, adverts, etc.  Not to mention actual porn. Do you really think many people watch an hour and a half of football just to get their rocks off?  Teenage boys might have their boner on a hair trigger, but that’s hardly exclusive to women’s sports, and therefore no good reason to single female athletes out as potential wank material.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Laughable attempt, Jack.  No, using the words you wrote about me.

And I am sure they would still agree with me.
That they do think female sports are overly sexualised which people use to jerk off.
They would probably agree that some people do think of them as a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.

I’m tempted to say try it, but please don’t.  They almost certainly would not agree and would likely be massively offended.  The description itself is degrading, as is the suggestion that a significant proportion of the audience is only watching for sexual thrills.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

While you’re at it you can tell her how it makes no sense when people say they respect her as an athlete.

Again, that is only if they feel the need to keep men out of the competition.
If they aren't sexist, and would be fine with men of comparable ability competing alongside them, then it can make sense.

ie It makes no sense in the system we have now.  The system they are competing in.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

Do you think what you wrote here would be acceptable to say to them, as a woman, an athlete and as a human being?

Again, in what way?
In your incredibly dishonest way were you take the characterisation of the viewer and present what that viewer thinks of them to them as if it is what you think; or do you mean honestly portraying it as what some viewers think and asking them what they think about it?

What a load of guff.  The only way it could possibly mean- you saying the words you used here.  No more, no less, and completely independent of how honest you think I am being.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 27, 2023, 06:07:16 AM

You’re saying it’s fine to completely invent the part about me jerking off, because you won’t accept the reasons I give you?

I have pointed out how you feel the need to continually switch between reasons, how plenty of your arguments against my idea apply equally to the very thing you are defending, and how collectively it makes no sense.
So the question is why do you continue to defend such sexism? Why do you think having men present would so heavily destroy it?

What reasons have I switched between exactly?  I’ve explained in painstaking detail why I think your crappy idea is not the same thing as divisions we have now.

Guess what?  None of it had anything to do with jerking off, which remains the bullshit you invented about me.

It's only sexist if you don't also jerk off to men running around in skirts!

It's only sexist if you don't also jerk off to men running around in skirts!

What, the Highland games?

Bit racist. 

I have Scottish ancestors, and ginger relatives. It is allowed!

Awesome.  The man who draws parallels between watching women’s sports and slave ownership complaining that my analogy isn’t exactly the same thing.

The distinction is that you need it to be basically the exact same thing for your argument to work.

Where are you going with this dumb analogy anyway?

Demonstrating that people not talking about something doesn't mean they agree with you or the status quoe.

This little diversion was you complaining when I said you were telling people what they should watch

And me pointing out that wasn't what I was objecting to.
If you want to watch a sexist activity, go ahead, just don't pretend it isn't sexist.

I don’t see how it can be both.

Why?
I'm of the opinion that if a bad activity exists, you should target those making that activity and publicising it.
Especially when doing otherwise would limit opportunities for people to engage.
Currently if people want to engage in sport or watch sport, they typically need to do so in a sexist manner, with few opportunities available for non-sexist options.

Yes, Jack I can honestly answer that- I wrote the bit you just quote mined out of context. You on the other hand tried to deny that you wrote the part about a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.

Notice how you again twist the issue.
I didn't ask if you wrote it. I asked if I can pretend you think that, and if you want to extend it, that would be me claiming it came from your own fevered imagination, and it your own degrading sexist language.

Because THAT is what you are doing.
You are taking what I said as an example of a reason people watch women's sports, an actual reason they do, and pretending it is a representation of myself.
So would it be honeset for me to take those words of yours and pretend that is an honest representation of you?
That YOU think:

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

?

Now, can you honestly answer that?

Why you think it is perfectly fine to do that to me, but when I do it to you you call it

another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

Why is it fine for you to dishonestly misrepresent me, but when I do it it is magically dishonest, even when I was doing it in a manner to demonstrate your dishonesty.
(Note that I didn't actually say you think that, instead I asked if it would be honest for me to claim you did).

which just came out of nowhere but your own imagination.

Again, it comes from reality, where plenty of sexist pigs do that.
Sexist pigs that would be upset with the sport being ruined by men being there because they don't want to jerk off to them.
That is not my imagination.

Everything I’ve said about you is actually based on what you wrote.

And in the above example is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation.
Or as you would say:
another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

Does it really though?

Again, go ask female athletes if they think they are being sexualised while competing.
Why don't you start with these women who were fined for not wearing bikinis:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/norwegian-women-s-beach-handball-team-fined-not-playing-bikinis-n1274453

Or how about these women:
https://www.india.com/sports/bengaluru-female-athletes-asked-to-masturbate-before-practice-1705350/

The sexualisation of female sport is quite well established.
I'm sure most elite female atheletes recognise this sexualisation, this attempt to turn them into sex objects rather than people.

I’m tempted to say try it, but please don’t.  They almost certainly would not agree and would likely be massively offended.

Again, based upon what is already happening, they almost certainly would agree. Depending on how it is phrased, they could find solidarity and support, or be offended.
If you present it as you wanting to be one of those people jerking off to them, they would be offended, but if you do it in the broader context of the sexualisation of women's sport and the sexism inherent to it, they would likely agree and find solidarity.

ie It makes no sense in the system we have now.  The system they are competing in.

No, it makes no sense if they think that system is good.
If they think the system is bad, they can still recognise them as an athlete while opposing the system.

What a load of guff.  The only way it could possibly mean- you saying the words you used here.  No more, no less, and completely independent of how honest you think I am being.

By "no more" do you mean just me saying exactly that phrase as if I believe it? Or do you also mean including the fact that I was saying it about other people watching the sport and that it clearly isn't my opinion?

What reasons have I switched between exactly?  I’ve explained in painstaking detail why I think your crappy idea is not the same thing as divisions we have now.

Well as a simple one, your repeated switching back and forth between best athlete vs best in division/whatever to avoid the fact that your argument against what I am proposing works on the current system.
You have repeatedly failed to explain why the current system is fine but my proposal isn't. You thinking you have does not make it so.

If you want to find the best, you find the best. As soon as you start dividing you are no longer finding the best.

Guess what?  None of it had anything to do with jerking off, which remains the bullshit you invented about me.

Again, not invented. Taken from people actually doing that, and applying it to someone who's motivations are clearly sexist.

It's only sexist if you don't also jerk off to men running around in skirts!

What if they are sitting watching the Australian open and adjusting their legs?

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

Awesome.  The man who draws parallels between watching women’s sports and slave ownership complaining that my analogy isn’t exactly the same thing.

The distinction is that you need it to be basically the exact same thing for your argument to work.

The analogy between the tallest person who isn’t too tall and the fastest person who isn’t too fast illustrates my point just fine.

Your comparison to slavery completely ignores the basic reasons people would object to slavery.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

Where are you going with this dumb analogy anyway?

Demonstrating that people not talking about something doesn't mean they agree with you or the status quoe.

Remember we were talking about the people who participate and watch women’s sports?  I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that most of them probably don’t agree with you if they aren’t complaining about the lack of men.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

This little diversion was you complaining when I said you were telling people what they should watch

And me pointing out that wasn't what I was objecting to.
If you want to watch a sexist activity, go ahead, just don't pretend it isn't sexist.

The “sexism” that you say you oppose.  You seem to make it pretty clear that you don’t approve, yet you claimed to be “fine” with it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

I don’t see how it can be both.

Why?
I'm of the opinion that if a bad activity exists, you should target those making that activity and publicising it.
Especially when doing otherwise would limit opportunities for people to engage.
Currently if people want to engage in sport or watch sport, they typically need to do so in a sexist manner, with few opportunities available for non-sexist options.

Yet you’ve called me a sexist pig right from the beginning.  Would you like to guess how much I have to do with organising or promoting sporting events?

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

Yes, Jack I can honestly answer that- I wrote the bit you just quote mined out of context. You on the other hand tried to deny that you wrote the part about a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.

Notice how you again twist the issue.
I didn't ask if you wrote it. I asked if I can pretend you think that, and if you want to extend it, that would be me claiming it came from your own fevered imagination, and it your own degrading sexist language.

Because THAT is what you are doing.
You are taking what I said as an example of a reason people watch women's sports, an actual reason they do, and pretending it is a representation of myself.
So would it be honeset for me to take those words of yours and pretend that is an honest representation of you?
That YOU think:

Quote

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

?

Now, can you honestly answer that?

Why you think it is perfectly fine to do that to me, but when I do it to you you call it

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

Why is it fine for you to dishonestly misrepresent me, but when I do it it is magically dishonest, even when I was doing it in a manner to demonstrate your dishonesty.
(Note that I didn't actually say you think that, instead I asked if it would be honest for me to claim you did).

Well, let’s have a look at the part in question shall we?

Quote

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:

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

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 starters, there’s your laughable denial that the words you wrote were your words (in bold if it’s not blindingly obvious).

Then there’s the degrading and sexist description of female athletes, which is offensive in of itself.  Nothing in what you wrote indicates that’s what me or anyone else might think about female athletes, they are just the words you used to describe them. 

It doesn’t matter whether it’s what you think, I’m talking about what you actually wrote.  You do get that it’s possible to write or say offensive things without believing them, right?  Do you also get that not really believing offensive things you write or say is no fucking excuse?

And now onto the part you quote mined (from back in May, 26 pages ago, LOL).  Now with the part (in bold) that you deliberately cut out:

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

You know as well as I do that quoting the full sentence would have make it perfectly clear that it’s not what I think, making your question and the comparison complete nonsense.  That’s why you cherry picked half a sentence to try to make a bullshit point.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

which just came out of nowhere but your own imagination.

Again, it comes from reality, where plenty of sexist pigs do that.
Sexist pigs that would be upset with the sport being ruined by men being there because they don't want to jerk off to them.
That is not my imagination.

“Sexist pigs” like me who have told you exactly why they think women’s sports would be ruined by having men compete, that has absolutely nothing do to with jerking off?

It’s completely plucked from imagination.  Certainly when applied to any of my arguments.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

Everything I’ve said about you is actually based on what you wrote.

And in the above example is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation.
Or as you would say:
another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

No Jack.  I quoted the relevant paragraph in full.  I usually also include what you are replying to for context.  You quote mine half sentences when you know the rest of it would make whatever bullshit point you are trying to make obviously meaningless.  Funny how often you accuse others of doing things you do.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

Does it really though?

Again, go ask female athletes if they think they are being sexualised while competing.
Why don't you start with these women who were fined for not wearing bikinis:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/norwegian-women-s-beach-handball-team-fined-not-playing-bikinis-n1274453

Or how about these women:
https://www.india.com/sports/bengaluru-female-athletes-asked-to-masturbate-before-practice-1705350/

The sexualisation of female sport is quite well established.
I'm sure most elite female atheletes recognise this sexualisation, this attempt to turn them into sex objects rather than people.

Great.  Two articles on how women should not be treated.  Neither say anything about how many people jerk off to women’s sports or why people don’t think men should compete with them.  ie things that might actually support your argument.

If your argument was that beach volleyball and handball competitors should be allowed to wear appropriate clothing for the sport, then I would agree with you.  But it’s not, is it?  It’s about why people like me don’t think men should compete In women’s events.  Quite different things.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

I’m tempted to say try it, but please don’t.  They almost certainly would not agree and would likely be massively offended.

Again, based upon what is already happening, they almost certainly would agree. Depending on how it is phrased, they could find solidarity and support, or be offended.
If you present it as you wanting to be one of those people jerking off to them, they would be offended, but if you do it in the broader context of the sexualisation of women's sport and the sexism inherent to it, they would likely agree and find solidarity.

I think they would almost certainly  be offended by the degrading and sexist description of female athletes that you used.  I also suspect they would be offended by the suggestion that a significant proportion of the audience is only watching for sexual thrills, and the implication that the popularity of their sport and recognition they get for their achievements is significantly due to this.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

ie It makes no sense in the system we have now.  The system they are competing in.

No, it makes no sense if they think that system is good.
If they think the system is bad, they can still recognise them as an athlete while opposing the system.

So you would happily tell said athlete that the only people who really recognise their achievements are the ones who think they are unjustly taking it from men?  I’m sure that would go down well.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

What a load of guff.  The only way it could possibly mean- you saying the words you used here.  No more, no less, and completely independent of how honest you think I am being.

By "no more" do you mean just me saying exactly that phrase as if I believe it? Or do you also mean including the fact that I was saying it about other people watching the sport and that it clearly isn't my opinion?

What part of “no more, no less” are you struggling with?  The words you wrote here, phrased as you phrased it.  Read what you wrote again if you are having difficulty.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 05, 2023, 12:57:23 PM

What reasons have I switched between exactly?  I’ve explained in painstaking detail why I think your crappy idea is not the same thing as divisions we have now.

Well as a simple one, your repeated switching back and forth between best athlete vs best in division/whatever to avoid the fact that your argument against what I am proposing works on the current system.
You have repeatedly failed to explain why the current system is fine but my proposal isn't. You thinking you have does not make it so.

If you want to find the best, you find the best. As soon as you start dividing you are no longer finding the best.

OMG

I have NEVER switched my argument between these.  I keep having to point out that when I say best in relation to women’s sports, under 14s, featherweights, etc  I am talking about the best in that category.  Because you always reply with “but they aren’t the best, blah, blah, fucking blah”.  Pay attention.

I have explained in enormous detail why I find your idea crap.  Fine, I’ll explain one more time, but I want you to fucking acknowledge it.  What’s more, to understand my argument, you have to read and digest the WHOLE THING.  If you refute line by line before getting to the end then you are not addressing the entire argument.

Your idea is to replace women’s sports with lower divisions based on performance, allowing men with similar performance to compete with them.  But this fundamentally changes how competitive sports work. (Don’t complain before I explain).

With your idea we would never see another Serena Williams for example.  She got her reputation as one of the all time great female tennis players because she consistently won many tournaments.  There was no upper limit on how much she could win. Had she won more, she would have been recognised as being even better.  Under your system, winning too much disqualifies an athlete from competing at that level. (Don’t complain yet, I’m not done).

Obviously there are lower divisions in sports (such as football leagues or your chess example), but whenever an athlete or a team is too good for a division they are promoted to the next division up.  Being promoted is ALWAYS better and it has to be seamless.  There should never be a situation where they are penalised for improving.  (I’m still not finished).

Now if we consider the  performance stats of men and women in international events like the Olympics, we see huge differences in a great many sports.  So if we want a division where women can compete, there would either be an enormous gap between being too good at one level and qualifying for the next, or we’d need dozens (maybe hundreds) of levels for each event.  If there’s a gap, then we have the ridiculous situation where doing too well gets you disqualified from representing your country.  Alternatively having so many levels per event would be an unworkable mess.

It would basically be the same thing at national events, regional events, local events, etc.  for every single sport. 

This is NOT what happens in the current system ever.  So the problems do not apply equally.  That’s why I say your idea would change how competitive sports works.  It’s not the only problem I’ve explained, but it’s probably the biggest one.

Finally just because I think your idea for sports divisions is bad does not mean that I must find any form of division bad.  I can judge each division on its own merits or lack thereof.

Now you are free to disagree, to explain something you think I missed, to add further details to your own idea, etc.  but DO NOT claim I haven’t fucking explained my argument again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html

https://archive.ph/EF0so

The NYT actually published a very good opinion piece on transitioning kids, the politics around it, and why so many therapists are afraid to push for exploratory therapy prior to handing a kid hormones.

Canada beginning to come to its senses.

Some of the points for those who don't have time for the video.

Top and bottom surgeries will be banned for anyone under 18.

Puberty blockers and hormones will be banned for anyone under 16.

Minors aged 16 and 17 will only be allowed to take puberty blockers and hormones with parental, physician, and psychologist approval.

Minors under 16 will require parental notification and approval for pronoun and name changes at school. Minors aged 16 and 17 do not need parental consent but parents will be notified.

Classroom instruction on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality will require parental notification and opt-in. Third-party resource material related to these subjects will require Ministry of Education approval.

The government will work with sporting organizations in the province to ensure that women and girls can compete in protected, female-only divisions.

Incorrect


Alberta is wannabe texas florida.
Its culture war nonsense over there.
The perfomative politcians spout mild magahat talking points.

They recently had tucker over there.
They have a small part of the illegal gun trafickjg.
Many truckers came from there.

What is a wannabe texas florida?

OMG not truckers! lol

Seriously, though. It is not culture war nonsense to want to stop the loons from sterilizing children.

The radical left want everyone to be trans.
But canasa has policy against that.


The radical right want to be desantis antiwoke florida.
Alberta wants to be florida.
And texas.

The analogy between the tallest person who isn’t too tall and the fastest person who isn’t too fast illustrates my point just fine.

Not really.
Why not try the best Chess player below 2000 elo?

Your comparison to slavery completely ignores the basic reasons people would object to slavery.

Because of blatant discrimination?

Remember we were talking about the people who participate and watch women’s sports?

Yes, including the women that object to just how sexualised women's sport it.
Including the people that want anyone who identifies as a woman to be allowed to compete in the sexist league; and others that show more sexism by setting up arbitrary criteria for what a real woman is and saying they must meet that to play, and exclude anyone else.

Yet you’ve called me a sexist pig right from the beginning.  Would you like to guess how much I have to do with organising or promoting sporting events?

You are here defending it.

Well, let’s have a look at the part in question shall we?

Go ahead.
And see how it matches what I said.
What I provided was your own words.
Words you stated.
Words plenty of people would call sexist.

So as I said, does that mean I can say that is your attitude?
That YOU think:

women’s sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

If not, why should you be able to do that to my statement which is an example of something I was opposed to?
Entirely ignoring this point, your OWN WORDS, what YOU SAID is not going to help you.

You are happy to dishonestly quote me to pretend I think that, but recognise it as dishonest when done to you.

“Sexist pigs” like me who have told you exactly why they think women’s sports would be ruined by having men compete

You mean which have continually jumped back and forth with their arguments, because there is no rational, non-sexist way to defend it?

I quoted the relevant paragraph in full.

And then proceeded to ignore the context and pretend I thought those things.

Great.  Two articles on how women should not be treated.

And again you ignore context.
Two articles on how women's sport is overly sexualised with female athletes treated as sex objects.
Demonstrating a simple justification for why some people want women's sport to continue to only allow women.
Why they wouldn't want it "polluted" by men.

So you would happily tell said athlete that the only people who really recognise their achievements are the ones who think they are unjustly taking it from men?

Nothing like what I said.

I have NEVER switched my argument between these.

Yes, you have. Repeatedly.
You reject the idea of having divisions which are based upon ability/performance, because then you are not finding the best.
Yet you are happy to have divisions, which result in you not finding the best.

It really is quite simple, either you are finding the best, or you are not.
If you are finding the best, you don't have divisions AT ALL!
That means no featherweights and heavyweights being separate. You just find the best.
No men and women being separate, you just find the best.

As soon as you have any kind of division, you are not finding the best. Instead, you are finding the best of an arbitrarily chosen subset.

And once you have that, that subset could be anything. There would be some rules to define the category, and then find the best in that category.

And when you have categories, depending on how they are defined, you can easily have people artificially restrict themselves.
For example, you can have a featherweight, that is right near the top of the weight range.
They could put on a bit more weight to improve their performance, but that would push them over the weight limit; so they don't. They artificially restrict their ability, rather than trying to be the best they can be, to remain within the arbitrary rules for that division.

Likewise, people like Caster Semenya are required to take drugs to ensure their testosterone levels remain low enough, as otherwise they would be deemed too good to compete. They are incentivised to take drugs which are meant to lower their ability to remain in the division to compete.

And when you have categories, people are naturally excluded even though they are better than those competing, just because they don't fit in the category.
e.g. a hypothetical featherweight that puts on a bit too much weight and gets excluded from competing, even though they are better than the featherweights that are competing.

With your idea we would never see another Serena Williams for example.

You mean someone who failed to beat a 203rd ranked player?
How about Karsten Braasch?
The main reason most people would know about them, even though they are better than Serena Williams, is because they beat her.
Why should I care if we don't have more of those arrogant, entitled people thinking they are better than so many when they clearly aren't?

She got her reputation as one of the all time great female tennis players

i.e. one of the multitude of tennis players that have a quite low rank and aren't able to compete with the best.

but whenever an athlete or a team is too good for a division they are promoted to the next division up.

Except there are plenty of cases where you are too good for the current division but aren't good enough for the next one up.

Now if we consider the  performance stats of men and women

Which is really just saying you want women to win.
You don't give a damn if it is fair, or there are countless people that can beat them. You just want women up there getting trophies.

So if we want a division where women can compete

Or, how about you remove the blatant sexism, and allow them to compete based upon their own merit.
So if you want very few divisions, with only the top few divisions playing at a massive event like the Olympics, either they get their on their own merit, or they don't.
You could do the same with any arbitrary grouping.

How about this idea, you have the main Olympics, where the best compete. And then you can have a separate diversity Olympics, where any arbitrary group gets to make sure they get to have a gold medallist.

The radical left want everyone to be trans.
But canasa has policy against that.


The radical right want to be desantis antiwoke florida.
Alberta wants to be florida.
And texas.

You think Danielle Smith is "radical right"?

So Jacky's toxic masculinity finally boils over, he only wants to see men, not small men but one huge man standing on a mound of defeated, any women foolish enough to try at the bottom where they belong, because he can't allow divisions of any kind because a sane person would suggest a women only one as they are naturally different in stamina and strength, and anyone who gainsays this is of course a sexist.
What a moron.

So Jacky's toxic masculinity

I know you are really desperate to pretend anyone that disagrees with your blatant sexism must be toxic, but that is not the case.
People can object to your sexism, without being sexist themselves.

Grow up.

women foolish enough to try at the bottom where they belong

You might think that is where women belong, but you have no basis to suggest that about me.
I think women should be treated as equals. Not special snowflakes put on pedestals.
You, and people like you, are the ones truly saying women deserve to be at the bottom, that they are hopeless and stand no chance competing against men, but because you are desperate for them to get some token prizes you want to create a separate division so your special little snowflakes can get their participation award, a completely meaningless award because they cannot compete on their own merit.

a sane person would suggest a women only one as they are naturally different in stamina and strength

A sane person would recognise that there is a wide variety of stamina and strength in both males and females, and that there is a massive overlap.
i.e. if this was going to be the criteria for division, then you wouldn't expect divisions based upon sex, but based upon strength and stamina.

What a moron.

You sure are.

Whe i agree there should be no need for a womens ranking in chess, the same mental challenges cant be extrpolated to physival strength.


Unless someone had a chart showing womens brains and mens brains are also different enough to warant individual sub category?
Does any body have one of thsoe?? Mmmm maybe jackb?
Maybe one showing bell curves for men are skewed to have a larger dumber % but higher top level vs women to be more evened out, but still lower?
But im.sure that has nothing to do with women being physically and matriachally destined to have babies or patriarchally excluded in somenparts of the world.


In a sense arguing for and against yourself using the famously but also infamously (depending on which way you lean) stupid jordanpeterson equal roghfs for brick layers vs goverment jobs.

Unless someone had a chart showing womens brains and mens brains are also different enough to warant individual sub category?

Studies have shown that in fields like that women on average do better than men, but the distribution for men is wider so men are the best and the worst.

Ahaaa

So women should have a womesm chess league.






Becuae i remeber you mentioned that stat a few times....

So women should have a womesm chess league.

Or should it be a male only chess league, so the low ranking men, the men with worse on average performance, don't get beaten by the better on average women?
With women relegated to open competitions?