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

And how long did it take for people to step forwards and say homosexuals shouldn't be murdered?
How long did it take for people to step forwards and say that black people shouldn't be treated as property?

Here Jacky conflates women’s sports with murder and slavery, (again) oh, and makes himself out to be a hero ahead of his time and bemoans we don’t present arguments and dodge issues. The man who fisks down quotes to cut out the bits he doesn’t want to answer, who has singularly failed to display a system where women could have any part in sport that wasn’t flooded out with men if there was no separation, in the name of parity.

Where anyone of any intelligence or interest in sport knows that men are built bigger, stronger and with a testosterone fueled drive that few women have, and 10’s of millions of people enjoy watching and playing under the current system and see absolutely no problem, oh, apart from a few that see women getting money, prizes and kudos and just hate it, and pretend they want to ruin it because they are ahead of their time! Fuck off.

mat leave pat leave
yes
it started with women protecting their jobs while off dobabythinggood.

see that's the thing

so now we have a protected group 'parent', needing protection of their position to be away from the position to parent.
now that is exclusionairy to the nonparents who just need to take a break.
sabbaticales exist but are not protected.

you've boiled sports down to dosportthinggood and equated it dojobgood or doschoolgood.
maybe you're not a sports person, but given you understand a juniors aren't as developed as adult male, then you understand that female  is not male.

while a top performing 100%tile female can match an 85%tile male
THIS IS NOT PAPER PUSHING AT A 9-5JOB.
THIS IS SPORTS
COMPETING IN A FAIR LEVEL
PUSHING THE LIMITS OF THE BODY-MIND
DESERVING OUR RESPECT AT ACHIEVING SAID LEVEL THROUGH BLOOD SWEAT TEARS

when doing early round robins in tournaments - bottom seed faces bottom seed and top seed faces face top seed.
no this doesn't happen because top seeds would eliminate each other in the starting rounds.
people want to watch the big show, the final, the best of the best.
but in your generic scenario, this wouldn't happen.


ugh
stuck in another repetitive loop again by a robot.
crtl alt delete

Here Jacky conflates women’s sports with murder and slavery, (again)

No, I don't.
I just point out the stupidity of acting like because loads of people aren't opposed it must be good.
That is comparing, not conflating.

Where anyone of any intelligence or interest in sport knows that men are built bigger, stronger and with a testosterone fueled drive that few women have

You mean the elite. What about the not so elite males?
How do they compare to females?

Again, the argument only works if you want to pretend that all men are better than all women.

Fuck off.

You first.

mat leave pat leave
yes
it started with women protecting their jobs while off dobabythinggood.

see that's the thing

so now we have a protected group 'parent', needing protection of their position to be away from the position to parent.

So you switch from woman to parent.
Why?

maybe you're not a sports person, but given you understand a juniors aren't as developed as adult male, then you understand that female  is not male.

Yes, I understand a female is not a male, just like I understand 2 males are not the same people, and black people are not white people and so on.

Again, unless you want to say all men are better than all women, that is not grounds for exclusion. Because otherwise you are saying there are men that would perform comparatively to these women; so the question then becomes why should these women get that special division and not these men?

while a top performing 100%tile female can match an 85%tile male

Is it actual 85%? Or is it 99%?
Or some other random number?
Do you have any idea?

And what percentile would it need to be for you to oppose it?

COMPETING IN A FAIR LEVEL

Which doesn't require blatant sexism.
If you want it to be fair, judge the individual, not their sex.

when doing early round robins in tournaments - bottom seed faces bottom seed and top seed faces face top seed.
no this doesn't happen because top seeds would eliminate each other in the starting rounds.
people want to watch the big show, the final, the best of the best.
but in your generic scenario, this wouldn't happen.

Round robins don't have eliminations.
I assume you mean knockout tournaments?
But you are basically saying you don't want a fair competition. You want the best team to vs the worst team so the worst team is almost certainly assured a loss, right at the start. You only want any serious competition right near the end of the tournament, or for the team in the middle.
This also can heavily bias it towards the "best" player, as they only face the person next in line in the final.
e.g. for a 32 player tournament, the "best" will (ideally) play 32nd, 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd.
Conversely, "2nd" will play 31st, 15th, 7th, 3rd, 1st. In each case they player a higher ranked player, and have a greater chance to lose.

So much for you wanting things to be fair.

This could also result in players intentionally throwing games in the seeding portion to try to get a ranking which would make it easier for them to progress.

And if you really want that, why not just make it simpler, ditch the crap games and just go straight to the semi-finals?

But why wouldn't my system allow that?
The main distinction would be that for the lower division, there would be men and women competing, not just women.

stuck in another repetitive loop again by a robot.

Then stop being a robot, and start addressing the blatant sexism.

You mean the elite. What about the not so elite males?
How do they compare to females?

Again, the argument only works if you want to pretend that all men are better than all women.

Elite males would out compete elite women, even semi-elite males would too, the not so elite males would crowd out the not so elite women further down, all women would be down graded as to earning potential and recognition to such an extent that women in sport would be amateurs at best.
A win for the poor males who resent the “Elite imposters” in the women’s games and a huge step back for 50% of worlds population because the not so elite males would still not get their day in the spotlight, but some might be happier as they would never be presented with the sight of the Williams sisters lifting a trophy.

And you are not the sexist, right!

I switched because you clarified the postion of *aternity leave had grown to *artner leave.

No nefarious reason...

Irrelevant.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 05, 2023, 05:34:22 AM

Exclusivity doesn't mean discrimination.

By definition, it does.
As you are discriminating between the people/groups to determine who is eligible.
The question is if you can justify it.
For example, it is discriminatory to say paedophiles cannot be babysitters, but that is justified.

Exclusivity being discriminatory is the exception not the rule.

Are you assumed guilty and must to prove your innocence?

I switched because you clarified the postion of *aternity leave had grown to *artner leave.

But it hasn't.
In plenty of places, it is still just maternity leave, with no leave, except a very short period or leave without pay, offered to the other parent. And in cases where the other parent does have paid leave available, it is often through lots of hurdles.

Making it just for women (the birth parent) is sexist and just helps re-enforce fake sexist narratives.

Elite males would out compete elite women, even semi-elite males would too, the not so elite males would crowd out the not so elite women further down, all women would be down graded as to earning potential and recognition to such an extent that women in sport would be amateurs at best.

Now try it without all the appeal to sex.
PEOPLE would compete with other PEOPLE who are comparable.

Why should a man and woman of comparable ability be treated vastly different just based upon their sex?
Why should the man be dismissed as a nobody, not worth anything, just because there are men that are better?

It is blatant sexism, nothing more.

The women would still get their day in the spotlight, they just would be sharing it with other people of similar ability.

And you are not the sexist, right!

That's right. Because I'm not trying to exclude people based upon their sex.
I'm not trying to dismiss people as worthless nobodies based upon their sex when they are just as good or better than others of a different sex who are deemed great.

Exclusivity being discriminatory is the exception not the rule.

Pure BS.
Unless you are randomly excluding people it is necessarily discriminatory.

Again, discrimination is where you discriminate between 2 people or groups to treat them differently.

If you are saying because you are male you cannot enter, that is discrimination.
That is because you are recognising them as male, and treating them differently to a female based upon that.

Again, the question is if such discrimination is justified.
And other than for punishment for a crime, or entirely personal things like hanging out with friends; it being unjustified is the norm.

Black male are not white male and 100%tile vs 99 vs 85:

And should have no bearing on regular job function.


But in sports, an adult male is not a junior
And a woman is not a male
So there is a class difference
F1 and nascars

Try as hard as they want the ladies as a population will statsitcally only achieve ~85%tile

Meaning the toptop 1%population ladies operaring at peak 100%ladiness will be competing against the population of 85%manliness.

If the population distribution were ballpark equal - what %pop males at that level would be against the lady?

Quantify it!

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2023, 07:59:24 AM

I switched because you clarified the postion of *aternity leave had grown to *artner leave.

But it hasn't.
In plenty of places, it is still just maternity leave, with no leave, except a very short period or leave without pay, offered to the other parent. And in cases where the other parent does have paid leave available, it is often through lots of hurdles.

Making it just for women (the birth parent) is sexist and just helps re-enforce fake sexist narratives.

Irrelevant as no ones arguing this.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 06, 2023, 05:36:09 AM

Elite males would out compete elite women, even semi-elite males would too, the not so elite males would crowd out the not so elite women further down, all women would be down graded as to earning potential and recognition to such an extent that women in sport would be amateurs at best.

Now try it without all the appeal to sex.
PEOPLE would compete with other PEOPLE who are comparable.

Why should a man and woman of comparable ability be treated vastly different just based upon their sex?
Why should the man be dismissed as a nobody, not worth anything, just because there are men that are better?

It is blatant sexism, nothing more.

The women would still get their day in the spotlight, they just would be sharing it with other people of similar ability.

Because hes not best in class

Again for the umpteenth time - f1 and nascar!

Dothesportthinggood isnt the only factor that makes it entertaining!
dothesportthingbestafterhardworkandagainstotherbestinclass-thing!

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 06, 2023, 05:36:09 AM

And you are not the sexist, right!

That's right. Because I'm not trying to exclude people based upon their sex.
I'm not trying to dismiss people as worthless nobodies based upon their sex when they are just as good or better than others of a different sex who are deemed great.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 06, 2023, 02:50:17 PM

Exclusivity being discriminatory is the exception not the rule.

Pure BS.
Unless you are randomly excluding people it is necessarily discriminatory.

Again, discrimination is where you discriminate between 2 people or groups to treat them differently.

If you are saying because you are male you cannot enter, that is discrimination.
That is because you are recognising them as male, and treating them differently to a female based upon that.

Again, the question is if such discrimination is justified.
And other than for punishment for a crime, or entirely personal things like hanging out with friends; it being unjustified is the norm.

More repetTive nonsense
Say something new

Yes, I’m afraid he’s trundling around the same old circular track, somehow trying to gild his misogyny with a veneer of righteousness that smells suspiciously like horse-shit, I’ll leave you to it, get some fresh air.

You don't prove the negative.

Exclusivity must be proven as being discriminatory, you don't prove it isn't.

Black male are not white male

That's right, but we don't segregate sport based upon race.

And a woman is not a male

And 2 males aren't the same different.
Stop treating all males as if they are a homogenous class.

Quantify it!

Why don't you?

Irrelevant as no ones arguing this.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because hes not best in class

Again, why treat all males as just a single monolithic class?
If you are going to do that, why not a class of people?

Segregating into classes like that is just blatant discrimination.
There is nothing fair about it.

More repetTive nonsense
Say something new

You mean more repetitive things you cannot refute.

Why don't you try saying something new to justify your blatant sexism?

somehow trying to gild his misogyny

What misogyny?
You are the one defending blatant sexism, and needing to repeatedly resort to insults because you can't.
I'm the one opposing sexism.

Exclusivity must be proven as being discriminatory, you don't prove it isn't.

Again, by definition it must be.
How are you going to exclude someone without discriminating?

You may as well be saying that just because someone is wrong that doesn't mean they are incorrect.

Again, why treat all males as just a single monolithic class?

No one does, there are junior competitions.

Besides, due to biological advantages males have over females in terms of speed and strength, the moment any single male spends some time and effort to train, they will outcompete any female with similar training. That's why lumping men and women together doesn't work any more than 25 yo competing against 12 yo.

Having women compete with men means that they will necessarily compete with men who dedicate themselves a lot less than the women do, just by virtue of being men. Any men who dedicates more time to train, will (almost) necessarily win over any female.

And by the way, by this discussion I'm assuming you are absolutely against separating people by age, weight or anything else. Is that correct?

 

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 07, 2023, 09:05:16 AM

Exclusivity must be proven as being discriminatory, you don't prove it isn't.

Again, by definition it must be.
How are you going to exclude someone without discriminating?

You may as well be saying that just because someone is wrong that doesn't mean they are incorrect.

No it doesn't.

If exclusivity is by default discriminatory, then there can't be a naturally occurring exclusion that isn't discriminatory.  Exceptions would have to have extenuating circumstances, which are not naturally occurring.  That's not the case.

Discrimination in this case just means we recognize the difference between males and females.

Quote from: JackBlack

Again, why treat all males as just a single monolithic class?

No one does, there are junior competitions.

Ignoring the juniors.
You want to treat all males as a single monolithic class, regardless of if they are better or worse than women.

Besides, due to biological advantages males have over females

Again, this is treating them as a single class.
But the biology of individual males differ from each other.
Again, this BS requires all males to have an advantage over all females. That is simply not the case.

in terms of speed and strength, the moment any single male spends some time and effort to train, they will outcompete any female with similar training.

No, they wont.
Not all males have the biology of an elite athlete.

Having women compete with men means that they will necessarily compete with men who dedicate themselves a lot less than the women do, just by virtue of being men.

Not any more so than having men compete with other men that can dedicate themselves less.

Any men who dedicates more time to train, will (almost) necessarily win over any female.

Based upon what?

And by the way, by this discussion I'm assuming you are absolutely against separating people by age, weight or anything else. Is that correct?

No. I recognise that weight is something people have control over, and can affect performance. I think that would be a much better discriminator than sex.
Likewise, I recognise age in the sense of physical development, but due to different people going through puberty/development at different time, it is a very poor substitute and think that at the very least it should be combined with other factors.

If exclusivity is by default discriminatory, then there can't be a naturally occurring exclusion that isn't discriminatory.  Exceptions would have to have extenuating circumstances, which are not naturally occurring.  That's not the case.

Just what do you mean "naturally occurring"?
What "naturally occurring" discrimination are you appealing to?
Because men being excluded from competing with women is not naturally occurring exclusion. It is exclusion put in place by people discriminating on the basis of sex.

Do you mean nature itself excluding people?
Such as having aliens excluded from competitions on Earth because they aren't here?
If so, that falls under the "random" exclusion I already covered.

But if it is being done by a sentient entity, how are they being excluded in a manner which is not discriminatory?
e.g. you have a male and a female come, trying to compete.
What mechanism results in the male being excluded but the female being allowed?
Are they discriminating between the 2 people, by recognising one is male and treating them differently because of that?

Or are they flipping a coin, and if it is heads they are allowed in and tails they aren't, and it just happened to be that it landed on heads for the woman and tails for the man?

Discrimination in this case just means we recognize the difference between males and females.

And then treat them differently because of that.

Yes, it's not a bad thing. The boys still have their toys.

Haha!  Good to see Jack still going over the exact same talking points as when I got sick of this shit and took a break.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 06, 2023, 05:36:09 AM

Elite males would out compete elite women, even semi-elite males would too, the not so elite males would crowd out the not so elite women further down, all women would be down graded as to earning potential and recognition to such an extent that women in sport would be amateurs at best.

Now try it without all the appeal to sex.
PEOPLE would compete with other PEOPLE who are comparable.

Why should a man and woman of comparable ability be treated vastly different just based upon their sex?
Why should the man be dismissed as a nobody, not worth anything, just because there are men that are better?

It is blatant sexism, nothing more.

The women would still get their day in the spotlight, they just would be sharing it with other people of similar ability.

How about instead of your usual shit of calling people sexist, you deal with the actual point made instead of unthinkingly dismissing it?

You claim that women will still “get their day in the spotlight”, with zero justification.  How exactly, when an exceptionally talented female athlete or sportswoman has equivalent performance to men who are just quite good?

It’s much easier to be quite good at something than exceptional, and there are always many more people who are quite good than exceptional.  As Jura points out (and I pointed out myself ages ago) it’s the case at every level, right down to your local sports center.  So women get quite literally muscled out of competitive sports.

So maybe you try again, explaining why you would be perfectly happy with completely wrecking sports for women, seeing as you aren’t sexist and all that?  Or convince us  why that wouldn’t be the case?

Again, this is treating them as a single class.
But the biology of individual males differ from each other.
Again, this BS requires all males to have an advantage over all females. That is simply not the case.

Hilarious that you’re still repeating the world’s most ridiculous strawman.

Obviously no one is saying that all men or all women have equivalent ability.  As explained numerous times before, the whole fucking point of sport is to compete on ability.

How about instead of your usual shit of calling people sexist, you deal with the actual point made instead of unthinkingly dismissing it?

Good advice. Try to follow it.

You claim that women will still “get their day in the spotlight”, with zero justification.  How exactly, when an exceptionally talented female athlete or sportswoman has equivalent performance to men who are just quite good?

Because they would be competing amongst those with comparable performance to themselves. This means they will still be able to win and get their day in the spotlight.

Perhaps you should try to explain why they would lose their day in the spotlight if they had to compete against males of similar ability; and if that is the case why anyone should care about people losing benefits of sexism.

So women get quite literally muscled out of competitive sports.

No, they don't. They compete with those of similar ability.

So maybe you try again, explaining why you would be perfectly happy with completely wrecking sports for women, seeing as you aren’t sexist and all that?  Or convince us  why that wouldn’t be the case?

I already have.
Women would still be able to compete in sports, among others of comparable performance.

Hilarious that you’re still repeating the world’s most ridiculous strawman.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out what is required for that argument to work.
That is not strawmanning.

Obviously no one is saying that all men or all women have equivalent ability.  As explained numerous times before, the whole fucking point of sport is to compete on ability.

Yet that is the point you are avoiding. You are opposing having men and women of comparability ability competing together.
You think these men, with ability comparable to elite female athletes, should have to compete against elite male athletes with vastly greater ability.

If the point is to compete on ability, then you shuoldn't be dividing based upon sex, and to divide based upon sex logically would require all men to have a greater ability than all women.
Without that, you would expect overlap of ability between men and women and so you should expect some men and women to compete together. Those with comparable ability.

One very last attempt.

Women are not comparable to men in almost all sports, they do not have the strength, stamina, bone mass or muscle to compete, there are a lot of men that could compete with the top females, but few sports fans would want to watch them and therefore sponsorship would be minimal and would not uphold a professional level.

I was not an elite athlete, at primary and secondary school I was a contender in sprint, long jump, breaststroke and football, at higher schools I made the relay in sprint but the girls that went on to county level and beyond I could comfortably beat, they, under your “non-sexist” regime would never made it at a young age so would have been like me, just not there.
There would be no women’s sport. Given the nature of the differences between men and women, having split sports from a young age makes perfect sense and only a pedantic misogynist would argue otherwise.

Women are not comparable to men in almost all sports, they do not have the strength, stamina, bone mass or muscle to compete, there are a lot of men that could compete with the top females, but few sports fans would want to watch them and therefore sponsorship would be minimal and would not uphold a professional level.

So on one hand you say that women are not comparable to men, but you then immediately contradict that by saying there are a lot of men that could compete with the top females. Are those men comparable? If so, why exclude them?

Just because few sports fans would want to watch them?
So if few sports fans would want to watch (insert protected class here) would you be fine with them being excluded from sport?
If only a few sports fans would want to watch females compete, would you be fine with no women's sport?

I was not an elite athlete, at primary and secondary school I was a contender in sprint, long jump, breaststroke and football, at higher schools I made the relay in sprint but the girls that went on to county level and beyond I could comfortably beat, they, under your “non-sexist” regime would never made it at a young age so would have been like me, just not there.
There would be no women’s sport. Given the nature of the differences between men and women, having split sports from a young age makes perfect sense and only a pedantic misogynist would argue otherwise.

There would be no sport restricted to just women. With ability based divisions, you would be excluded if you could comfortably beat them, and instead be in a different division.
Women would still be able to compete, just likely not in the top division.

No
Thats a really bad strawman.
Hes saying bell curves.
Hes saying top level.

Do it.
Overlap identical curves and offshift the pink one by 15points.

Yes, a lot of distinctly average men can beat women, that is what has been said over and over, so women having the disadvantage nature has given them either must languish in lower leagues because people like you resent them being called elite in their own sphere, or they compete against themselves and have that right.

We don’t force children to race against adults because it’s ageist, why this if not because you hate women getting plaudits?

skipto 5:49 and watch for ~2min


men are not women.
99.9% men vs men
99.9% women vs women
98.5% men vs women

bill clinton has the same genetic difference between a chimp and his wife.





Our results show that chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times. This is primarily due to the chimpanzee's higher fast-twitch fiber content, rather than exceptional maximum isometric force or maximum shortening velocities.Jun 26, 2017
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619071114#:~:text=Our%20results%20show%20that%20chimpanzee,force%20or%20maximum%20shortening%20velocities.

Yes, a lot of distinctly average men can beat women

A lot of distinctly average men can lose to women.

so women having the disadvantage nature has given them either must languish in lower leagues because people like you resent them being called elite in their own sphere, or they compete against themselves and have that right.

As compared to plenty of men having a disadvantage nature has given them doing exactly the same.
A man and a woman with a comparable natural disadvantage are treated vastly differently purely based upon their sex.
That is sexism.

men are not women.

And likewise 2 men are not the same.

99.9% men vs men
99.9% women vs women
98.5% men vs women

Which is just a calculation based upon the presence or absence of a y chromosome.
Which does not directly correlate to performance.
Especially as seen by intersex athletes, such as XY females which have performance comparable to elite female athletes yet well below that of elite male athletes.

What's an XY female?

They are genetic males with Swyer syndrome. They appear female, and some even have ovaries. Their ovaries are usually non-functioning, and they are given hormones so that they can have all the benefits of puberty (bone development, brain development, etc).

JB has convinced himself that being male brings no sports advantage, and trots out rare disorders all the time, for some reason.

What's an XY female?

Its rhe question that should be asked whenever a mattwalsh fanboy wants to zinger.

"What is NOT a woman?"

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 25, 2023, 06:26:44 AM

Yes, a lot of distinctly average men can beat women

A lot of distinctly average men can lose to women.

And what would a woman have to do to beat the man?

Anyway, as there is only the one misogynist with an agenda, who finds itself pathologically incapable of answering without simplifying the opposing points by only responding to carefully snipped sections, I will leave him to his delusion that he’s the knight in white rather than a proto-Norman Bates.