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

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

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.

Pfft. Always have.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

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.

As usual just asserting your claim  without adequate explanation and immediately demanding I answer your questions instead.  Classic Jack.

Maybe start with the fact that removing the “spotlight” of having women’s events, rewards and recognition is the ENTIRE POINT of your proposal.  And that you specifically want the best women to compete with the lower mens rankings where there is no “spotlight”

It appears you have a lot more explaining to do than me.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

So women get quite literally muscled out of competitive sports.

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

Where the best women are outnumbered by men who can get  similar performance by trying less hard, and there will almost always be plenty of men above them?  This would be the case even at your local sports center, let alone regional, national or international competitions.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

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.

You haven’t explained how women get their “day in the spotlight”, as you claimed, languishing mid table. It would be hopeless situation for women trying to achieve any real success in sports.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

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.

Wrong.  All it requires is for sporting ability vs no of people to follow two distinct normal distribution curves for men and women.  Which happens to be the case.

Nobody is “treating them as a single class”.  That’s you trying to change what people are actually saying.  ie a strawman.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 24, 2023, 06:27:42 AM

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.

Not what I think, Jack.  Pay attention to what someone is saying for a change.

Men with comparable ability to the elite women compete with other men at that level.  Which is fine, it’s just the level they are at.   Most importantly they gain NOTHING if you have them competing with the elite women.  It gets them no closer to the level of the elite men.

For women though, it’s a disaster.  They loose an entirely separate parallel stream of sporting divisions and events from top to bottom.  Even at local club level, the best women would be unlikely to reach the top of the tables.  Those who try to progress to regional, national and international level, would find it gets more and more insurmountable as more people are added to the pool of potential competitors.

Women have their own leagues, their own competitions, their own awards, etc that are completely separate from the men’s games and so don’t detract from it at all.  You would take all that away from god know how many millions of women, and all you can give is half arsed assertions that it would all be fine if they just competed with men.

What's an XY female?

They are intersex individuals that do not fit neatly into a binary divide of male/female, but typically have an external appearance of a female.
This also includes having different genes to an XY male, meaning they are not genetically male either, unless by "genetically male" you are using an arbitrary division of having a Y chromosome rather than focusing on what genes someone has. However only a minor difference in genes (literally a single point mutation) can be enough to result in this.

They are genetic males with Swyer syndrome.

They have a genetic defect which makes them genetically different to males.
If they did not have these defects, they would have developed as male.

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

There is a quite simple reason why it was brought up, XY females are almost genetically identically to XY males, only needing a single gene defect; yet their performance is far more comparable to XX females.
It shows a numerical difference in genes is an incredibly poor way to justify differences.
Instead, you need to focus on what those genes actually are and what they do.

The reason it was brought up is also quite clear in context.

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

That would depend on the individual woman and man.

Anyway, as there is only the one misogynist with an agenda

No, there isn't.
You just feel the need to continually insult a decent person because they object to your blatant sexism which you cannot defend.
Because you want to pretend you are a decent person, rather than a sexist pig, you need to resort to such insults to feel better about yourself.

Pfft. Always have.

No, you haven't. You have used whatever you can to avoid the issues.
Still wanting to appeal to sexism, rather than treating people as individuals.
Wanting a system to be perfect, rather than merely better than the current system.

As usual just asserting your claim  without adequate explanation and immediately demanding I answer your questions instead.  Classic Jack.

You mean classic Unconvinced.
You are the one asserting they will lose their day in the spotlight with zero justification.
How would competing against others of comparable performance mean they lose their day in the spotlight?

Maybe start with the fact that removing the “spotlight” of having women’s events, rewards and recognition is the ENTIRE POINT of your proposal.  And that you specifically want the best women to compete with the lower mens rankings where there is no “spotlight”

By plenty of people's own admissions in this thread, the female division is a lower ranking division. They don't want to openly admit that, but that is the case, as per their arguments. So how would having it as an open lower division remove the spotlight any more than having it as a sexist lower division?
Because it means people would have to be honest, and you wouldn't be able to have crap like Serina Williams boldly declaring she can beat anyone outside the top 200?

Where the best women are outnumbered by men

Being outnumbered doesn't mean they are excluded.

You haven’t explained how women get their “day in the spotlight”, as you claimed, languishing mid table.

You haven't explained how they would lose it.
Again, the main change is that they would be competing with males.

Are you really that much in denial that you need to keep all men out of female competitions so you don't realise how they would compare to men?
And that if men are there as well, it will be hard to pretend they are the best in the world?

It would be hopeless situation for women trying to achieve any real success in sports.

No more hopeless than it is now for those comparable men. In fact it would be less hopeless than that.
Again you appear to be complaining that removing sexism would remove sexist advantages.
That isn't a bad thing.

Wrong.  All it requires is for sporting ability vs no of people to follow two distinct normal distribution curves for men and women.  Which happens to be the case.

No, it doesn't.
What it requires is for all men to be better than all women.
If there is significant natural overlap, then you should expect there to be overlap in competition.

Nobody is “treating them as a single class”.  That’s you trying to change what people are actually saying.  ie a strawman

Wrong again. Plenty of people are treating them as a single class, as MALE.
It doesn't matter how good they actually are, because they are male they are deemed to have a natural advantage over all females.
Even if they have a natural disadvantage compared to elite females, they are still treated as male and excluded from competing based upon them being male and thus presumed to have an advantage.

So no, it is NOT a strawman.

Not what I think, Jack.  Pay attention to what someone is saying for a change.

I do pay attention. Maybe you should try it some time?

Again, if you care about sports being competitive with people competing with others of similar ability, then you should be dividing based upon ability, not sex.
That means if particular men and particular women have comparable abilities, they should compete together, not separate.

So don't come claiming to care about ability when you want it divided based upon sex.

Men with comparable ability to the elite women compete with other men at that level.  Which is fine, it’s just the level they are at.   Most importantly they gain NOTHING if you have them competing with the elite women.  It gets them no closer to the level of the elite men.

No, it isn't fine. Because of the level they are at and how it is recognised vs how women at the same level are recognised.
A simple example is the olympics.
Say these 2 people want to go to the olympics.
Currently one has to compete against females, of comparable ability; while the other has to compete against males with vastly greater ability.
So the male is excluded for the most significant sporting events, while the female is included. And the sole basis of this is their sex.
That is sexism.

If you remove sex from being the determining factor and instead use ability or potential and so on, then both get a chance to compete based upon their ability.

For women though, it’s a disaster.

i.e. it is a disaster for those benefiting from blatant sexism, where they lose the benefits of that sexism.

They loose an entirely separate parallel stream of sporting divisions and events from top to bottom.

Only if you just remove the female divisions rather than replacing them with performance/ability based divisions.

Women have their own leagues, their own competitions, their own awards, etc that are completely separate from the men’s games and so don’t detract from it at all.

Yes, they do detract from it.
They take away locations to play, they take away sponsorship and time in the spotlight.

You would take all that away from god know how many millions of women

And you are happy to have it denied from god knows how many millions of men. So why should I care?
Why should their sex mean they get this, when comparable men are excluded?

 

You just feel the need to continually insult a decent person.

An actual quote from a man baby talking about himself, his argument of what about the poor men, is risible because loads of men quite happily go out to play sports of a weekend, against each other for the craic.

My local park has men’s football and cricket every weekend in the season, I doubt any of them do it feeling resentful of Lucy Bronze or Nat Sciver-Brunt or harbouring the wish to humiliate a woman to make themselves feel better about themselves.
The women’s world cup was shown on the big screen at our nearest pub to a clientele of predominately men.

His other contention that the overlap is a small one where women would be able to compete at a meaningful level is equally absurd and shows how limited his contact with women is. Which I would surmise is the root of his petty minded, niggardly, one-man campaign, that is destined to be as successful as his tinder profile .

They don't want to openly admit that.

And finally Jacky,  we do, over and over and over say that women because of the differences in genetic physiology, would be in the lower divisions, that’s the whole thrust of the argument, the sexes are different and therefor to split them gives equal opportunities for glory, safety and fairness, none of which you want them to have.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Pfft. Always have.

No, you haven't. You have used whatever you can to avoid the issues.
Still wanting to appeal to sexism, rather than treating people as individuals.
Wanting a system to be perfect, rather than merely better than the current system.

Bullshit.  As I have repeatedly said, your ideas are WORSE than what we have.  Perfect does not come into it.  You are free to disagree with that opinion, and explain your reasoning (such as it is), but do not lie about what I saying. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

As usual just asserting your claim  without adequate explanation and immediately demanding I answer your questions instead.  Classic Jack.

You mean classic Unconvinced.
You are the one asserting they will lose their day in the spotlight with zero justification.
How would competing against others of comparable performance mean they lose their day in the spotlight?

I literally just said.  You want to take the spotlight of having women’s events away and throw them in with men’s lower rankings, where there is no spotlight.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Maybe start with the fact that removing the “spotlight” of having women’s events, rewards and recognition is the ENTIRE POINT of your proposal.  And that you specifically want the best women to compete with the lower mens rankings where there is no “spotlight”

By plenty of people's own admissions in this thread, the female division is a lower ranking division. They don't want to openly admit that, but that is the case, as per their arguments. So how would having it as an open lower division remove the spotlight any more than having it as a sexist lower division?
Because it means people would have to be honest, and you wouldn't be able to have crap like Serina Williams boldly declaring she can beat anyone outside the top 200?

ie no spotlight for Serina Williams. 

You want one of (if not the) greatest female tennis players of all time to be regarded as just quite good, but nothing exceptional that anyone should care about.

How exactly do you square that with your claim that women still “get their day in the spotlight”? Maybe it’s time to deal with your own honesty and stop trying to have it both ways.  Do you honestly believe your ideas aren’t detrimental to women or do you just not care if they are?

As for what you think people admit or not, it’s quite irrelevant.  The “spotlight” of top tier women’s events exist.  That’s the reason either of have even heard of Serina Williams. 

Do you want to destroy that spotlight or not?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Where the best women are outnumbered by men

Being outnumbered doesn't mean they are excluded.

Nice quote mine, cutting my sentence in half and throwing away the rest.  Does not deserve a response.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

You haven’t explained how women get their “day in the spotlight”, as you claimed, languishing mid table.

You haven't explained how they would lose it.
Again, the main change is that they would be competing with males.

Are you really that much in denial that you need to keep all men out of female competitions so you don't realise how they would compare to men?
And that if men are there as well, it will be hard to pretend they are the best in the world?

I know how women would compare to men.  For many a great many sports, the very best women would be beaten by men who aren’t close to being the best.  Which is exactly why the best women would not  “get their day in the spotlight”.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

It would be hopeless situation for women trying to achieve any real success in sports.

No more hopeless than it is now for those comparable men. In fact it would be less hopeless than that.
Again you appear to be complaining that removing sexism would remove sexist advantages.
That isn't a bad thing.

Removing the “sexism” doesn’t redistribute those advantages to the men.  Those men would be just as far from the top as they are now.  It just fucks up sports for women with no benefit to men.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Wrong.  All it requires is for sporting ability vs no of people to follow two distinct normal distribution curves for men and women.  Which happens to be the case.

No, it doesn't.
What it requires is for all men to be better than all women.
If there is significant natural overlap, then you should expect there to be overlap in competition.

Nonsense.  There is obviously overlap, but the differences are significant enough that the best men WILL beat the best women in major open competitions.  And the best women WILL NOT “get their day in the spotlight”.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Nobody is “treating them as a single class”.  That’s you trying to change what people are actually saying.  ie a strawman

Wrong again. Plenty of people are treating them as a single class, as MALE.
It doesn't matter how good they actually are, because they are male they are deemed to have a natural advantage over all females.
Even if they have a natural disadvantage compared to elite females, they are still treated as male and excluded from competing based upon them being male and thus presumed to have an advantage.

So no, it is NOT a strawman.

Of course it matters how good they are, sport is fundamentally about how good competitors are.  Sex and ability are TWO DIFFERENT FACTORS. 

You pretend that people are saying that all men have more ability than all women.  No one is.  Strawman.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Not what I think, Jack.  Pay attention to what someone is saying for a change.

I do pay attention. Maybe you should try it some time?

Again, if you care about sports being competitive with people competing with others of similar ability, then you should be dividing based upon ability, not sex.
That means if particular men and particular women have comparable abilities, they should compete together, not separate.

So don't come claiming to care about ability when you want it divided based upon sex.

Divide by sex, compete on ability.  It’s quite simple and easy to understand. 

Likewise, divide by age group and compete on ability.  That’s why we don’t have out of shape middleaged people competing in youth games, regardless of their level of ability.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Men with comparable ability to the elite women compete with other men at that level.  Which is fine, it’s just the level they are at.   Most importantly they gain NOTHING if you have them competing with the elite women.  It gets them no closer to the level of the elite men.

No, it isn't fine. Because of the level they are at and how it is recognised vs how women at the same level are recognised.
A simple example is the olympics.
Say these 2 people want to go to the olympics.
Currently one has to compete against females, of comparable ability; while the other has to compete against males with vastly greater ability.
So the male is excluded for the most significant sporting events, while the female is included. And the sole basis of this is their sex.
That is sexism.

If you remove sex from being the determining factor and instead use ability or potential and so on, then both get a chance to compete based upon their ability.

Ah, still clinging to this are we?

You’re still ignoring how desperately unfair this idea is for everyone who doesn’t qualify for the Olympics just for being BETTER than the man you want send in the woman’s place. 

You’d completely upend how competitive sports works with a system where being too successful in an event gets people disqualified from top competitions, based on some arbitrary limit you set.  And then you expect people to care about watching mediocre men at the Olympic games, while those who beat them are sitting on the arses back home.  Just a disaster.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

For women though, it’s a disaster.

i.e. it is a disaster for those benefiting from blatant sexism, where they lose the benefits of that sexism.

So you agree it’s a disaster for women then?  Is it time to stop pretending you give a shit about their “day in the spotlight” yet?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

They loose an entirely separate parallel stream of sporting divisions and events from top to bottom.

Only if you just remove the female divisions rather than replacing them with performance/ability based divisions.

And fuck up sports for men as well. Great.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

Women have their own leagues, their own competitions, their own awards, etc that are completely separate from the men’s games and so don’t detract from it at all.

Yes, they do detract from it.
They take away locations to play, they take away sponsorship and time in the spotlight.

God forbid women should be allowed locations to play sports.  There should be facilities and competitions for everyone who wants to play sports at all levels.

As for sponsorship and time in the spotlight, take the recent FIFA women’s World Cup.  Do you imagine that the existence of this event takes anything away from the men’s World Cup?  Or maybe that you could replace it with some kind of low ability World Cup that anyone would give a crap about?

(Shame the final was marred by a shocking display of real sexism).

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 01:24:53 AM

You would take all that away from god know how many millions of women

And you are happy to have it denied from god knows how many millions of men. So why should I care?
Why should their sex mean they get this, when comparable men are excluded?

No, because I’m not proposing we get rid of mens sporting events.  Men can compete at any level, with the best men at each level progressing to next stage.

The positions are not equal and opposite.   Men’s sports are doing just fine.

JB throwing the XY female in there, as if it makes a difference.

The individual average male would have to be performing at the averageness 85%tile in his rankings and the woman competing against him would have to be the top class and be 100%dedicated full time to training since teen years.

Thats the difference.

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.

Genetic males are not female, not matter how feminine they appear.

But could they give you a boner?

Does that make you gay?

But could they give you a boner?

Does that make you gay?

Only for you.

hahaha

no, you sucked my dick


https://youtube.com/shorts/IvIMHGC7dQM?si=b51w0NTLUkVqXDbd

That went south quickly! Oh! Hi NSS.

https://americananthro.org/news/no-place-for-transphobia-in-anthropology-session-pulled-from-annual-meeting-program/

The cancelled panel called "Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology" was not about trans people, but even discussing the fact that there are only two human sexes gives these people the vapors. They are made to feel unsafe! lol

Skipto 6:00

Lady does 2,500 pushups ovet 30days and her max rep in a set went from 12 to 13.

Buddy does pushups everyday and his max goes from 44 to 49.

%wise its similar increase.
Do-the-sport-thing-good and its a 5x in comparative sport-thing measure increase.

So to compete in the challenege, buddy would have to not do anything.
And she would have to train evey day.

An actual quote from a man baby

And more pathetic insults.
Just what do you hope to achieve with them?
All you do is make yourself feel better and look pathetic.

His other contention that the overlap is a small one

No, it isn't.

And finally Jacky,  we do, over and over and over say that women because of the differences in genetic physiology, would be in the lower divisions

Notice how that isn't what I said?
You are saying the women would be in the lower divisions and lose their spotlight. But really, the only reason they would lose that spotlight is the honest recognition that they are no where near as good as the elite men.
You want to pretend they can be world champions, when they are far below world champion status.

Bullshit.

Not BS.
You have repeatedly made arguments against my proposal, when those arguments apply equally to the current system.
You are happy ignoring all the problems with the current system but want any alternative to be perfect.

As I have repeatedly said

You saying something doesn't make it true.

but do not lie about what I saying.

Follow your own advice and don't try to hide from what you have said.

I literally just said.  You want to take the spotlight of having women’s events away and throw them in with men’s lower rankings, where there is no spotlight.

Why would there be no spotlight?
I want to remove the sexist divisions and instead have other divisions based upon ability/potential where they could all be in the spotlight.
So why does having women placed in a non-sexist division mean they lose their spotlight?

And if it does, why should that be a bad thing?
Why should removing a privilege from sexism be a bad thing?

ie no spotlight for Serina Williams.

They could still be in the spotlight, they just wouldn't be able to so openly lie about things and have people think it might be true.

You want one of (if not the) greatest female tennis players of all time to be regarded as just quite good, but nothing exceptional that anyone should care about.

Remove the sexist BS.
How does she compare to tennis players in general? I would say not that good.

How exactly do you square that with your claim that women still “get their day in the spotlight”?

The same way that featherweights can, and that women can now.
You are basically saying that you know that female divisions are vastly inferior to male divisions, yet you happily think they have a spotlight. If being so much lower was such a problem, why do they have a spotlight now?
Why would anyone give a damn about women's sports if being so low would mean no spotlight?

Do you honestly believe your ideas aren’t detrimental to women or do you just not care if they are?

I think it will remove sexist privilege, which may be seen as damaging by sexist pigs that want to keep sexist privilege.
But it will only really be that damaging if everyone shows that they were just caring about it due to blatant sexism, and once that sexism is removed they don't care.

I know how women would compare to men.  For many a great many sports, the very best women would be beaten by men who aren’t close to being the best.

As they currently are.
So what is different?
Again, this means they shouldn't be in the spotlight now, yet they are. So clearly that is not a reason for them to not be in the spotlight.

Removing the “sexism” doesn’t redistribute those advantages to the men.

Then where is it going?

Nonsense.  There is obviously overlap, but the differences are significant enough that the best men WILL beat the best women in major open competitions.

Not nonsense at all.
Again, with such significant overlap, if you care about people competing with other people of their ability you would expect that overlap to result in combined competitions.
I don't care that the best man would beat a person that is not as good.
The sex of that person they beat shouldn't matter.

Of course it matters how good they are

Not according to those who defend such blatant sexism.
To them, sex is what matters.
If a man is less good than the best females, they are still excluded from the sexist division because they are male, with the false justification given that they would be too good.

If you actually cared about how good they are you would want it to be divided based upon that, not upon their sex.
If how good they are is what mattered, then there sex shouldn't.

You pretend that people are saying that all men have more ability than all women.  No one is.  Strawman.

No, I am pointing out how people are saying men can't be allowed to compete with women because they are better than them.
Again, for that argument to hold, you need no overlap.
So no, it is NOT a strawman.
Continually misrepresenting what I am saying to falsely claim it is a strawman is just strawmanning yourself.

Divide by sex, compete on ability.

i.e. be sexist.
Simple to understand.

Ah, still clinging to this are we?

You mean something that shows your argument is BS, which you can't refute?

You’re still ignoring how desperately unfair this idea is for everyone who doesn’t qualify for the Olympics just for being BETTER than the man you want send in the woman’s place.

Which should really just mean the Olympics should only allow the best, with NO separate divisions.
This would allow either more events, or more of the higher ranking competitors to get in, rather than being excluded for the sex.
The only difference it makes is what person you are excluding based upon their sex.
Is it the person with similar performance to the woman, or one vastly better?

You’d completely upend how competitive sports works with a system where being too successful in an event gets people disqualified from top competitions, based on some arbitrary limit you set.

As opposed to the current system, were being too heavy can, or being too male can.
Again, this is an argument to just have no divisions at all.
It is NOT an argument to make a sexist division.

And then you expect people to care about watching mediocre men at the Olympic games, while those who beat them are sitting on the arses back home.  Just a disaster.

As opposed to the current situation where you are watching mediocre people because those who could beat them were excluded based upon their sex?

So you agree it’s a disaster for women then?

No. Only if you think women need blatant sexism to prop themselves up and people are using that blatant sexism to lie to themselves and everyone else.

And fuck up sports for men as well. Great.

How?

God forbid women should be allowed locations to play sports.

I never said there shouldn't be.

There should be facilities and competitions for everyone who wants to play sports at all levels.

Except the men with performance comparable to women? You don't want them to play at all levels.

As for sponsorship and time in the spotlight, take the recent FIFA women’s World Cup.  Do you imagine that the existence of this event takes anything away from the men’s World Cup?  Or maybe that you could replace it with some kind of low ability World Cup that anyone would give a crap about?

Yes. By definition, it is taking away.
Also, it isn't the Men's World Cup. It is just the World Cup. There is no need for the "men's" prefix.
The only reason to do so is to pretend the Women's World Cup is equivalent and at an equal level, i.e. the big reason why you want to keep sexism in sports, so you can pretend the women's league isn't far below that of the men.

No, because I’m not proposing we get rid of mens sporting events.  Men can compete at any level, with the best men at each level progressing to next stage.

You mean what is becoming more and more to be open events? Where men and women can compete at any level, with the best at each level progressing to the next stage?

Again, the issue are the men that are comparable to the women. You are happy for that to be selected based upon sex. With the women allowed to play at that level based upon their sex while the men are excluded.

Genetic males are not female, not matter how feminine they appear.

And XY females are not genetic males.
They have a genetic defect, genes different to males, which results in them not developing as males.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Bullshit.

Not BS.
You have repeatedly made arguments against my proposal, when those arguments apply equally to the current system.
You are happy ignoring all the problems with the current system but want any alternative to be perfect.

I’ve explained why they do not, and hence why I consider your idea to be much worse. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

As I have repeatedly said

You saying something doesn't make it true.

When it comes to my thoughts and opinions, it absolutely does.  You do not get a say in the matter. 

Disagree with my opinions as much as you like, but don’t try to tell me what my opinions are, because you lose by default.  Why do we always have to do this stupid little dance?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

I literally just said.  You want to take the spotlight of having women’s events away and throw them in with men’s lower rankings, where there is no spotlight.

Why would there be no spotlight?
I want to remove the sexist divisions and instead have other divisions based upon ability/potential where they could all be in the spotlight.
So why does having women placed in a non-sexist division mean they lose their spotlight?

And if it does, why should that be a bad thing?
Why should removing a privilege from sexism be a bad thing?

They would lose the “spotlight” of being considered top tier and instead be placed way down the rankings.  Why are even asking this when you specifically say that’s what you want?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

ie no spotlight for Serina Williams.

They could still be in the spotlight, they just wouldn't be able to so openly lie about things and have people think it might be true.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

You want one of (if not the) greatest female tennis players of all time to be regarded as just quite good, but nothing exceptional that anyone should care about.

Remove the sexist BS.
How does she compare to tennis players in general? I would say not that good.

Where would the spotlight be for Serina Williams if she’s regarded as not that good?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

How exactly do you square that with your claim that women still “get their day in the spotlight”?

The same way that featherweights can, and that women can now.
You are basically saying that you know that female divisions are vastly inferior to male divisions, yet you happily think they have a spotlight. If being so much lower was such a problem, why do they have a spotlight now?
Why would anyone give a damn about women's sports if being so low would mean no spotlight?

Top tier women do have a spotlight, regardless of what I think about it.  That’s why I could watch the womens World Cup on TV, as well as the women’s singles of Wimbledon, female events at the Olympics, etc, etc.  ie the spotlight you keep complaining about.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Do you honestly believe your ideas aren’t detrimental to women or do you just not care if they are?

I think it will remove sexist privilege, which may be seen as damaging by sexist pigs that want to keep sexist privilege.
But it will only really be that damaging if everyone shows that they were just caring about it due to blatant sexism, and once that sexism is removed they don't care.

Fascinating. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

I know how women would compare to men.  For many a great many sports, the very best women would be beaten by men who aren’t close to being the best.

As they currently are.
So what is different?
Again, this means they shouldn't be in the spotlight now, yet they are. So clearly that is not a reason for them to not be in the spotlight.

Men and women currently don’t compete against each other.  Women have separate competitions.  Why are you asking what’s different between how it works now and your own ideas?

And you’re now saying you DO want to take the spotlight away?  Why is your answer to this different every time?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Removing the “sexism” doesn’t redistribute those advantages to the men.

Then where is it going?

You mean where is it coming from?  It’s coming from interest people have in women’s sports, competing and watching.  Fans of the free markets call this supply and demand.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Nonsense.  There is obviously overlap, but the differences are significant enough that the best men WILL beat the best women in major open competitions.

Not nonsense at all.
Again, with such significant overlap, if you care about people competing with other people of their ability you would expect that overlap to result in combined competitions.
I don't care that the best man would beat a person that is not as good.
The sex of that person they beat shouldn't matter.

This is simplistic.  No one disputed that there would still be competition at low levels.  But as sport works by promoting those with the best results, even the most dedicated women would not get very far in a huge number of sports and they would be in competition with men who need to try much less hard.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Of course it matters how good they are

Not according to those who defend such blatant sexism.
To them, sex is what matters.
If a man is less good than the best females, they are still excluded from the sexist division because they are male, with the false justification given that they would be too good.

If you actually cared about how good they are you would want it to be divided based upon that, not upon their sex.
If how good they are is what mattered, then there sex shouldn't.

I do not want it divided on ability because the fundamental contradiction introduced would make a total mess of how sport basically works.  It’s nonsense to compete on being the best in a category with an arbitrary cap on how good someone can be.

The same reason the Guinness Book of Records doesn’t have an entry for the world’s tallest person under 6 foot.  It would just be meaningless.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

You pretend that people are saying that all men have more ability than all women.  No one is.  Strawman.

No, I am pointing out how people are saying men can't be allowed to compete with women because they are better than them.
Again, for that argument to hold, you need no overlap.
So no, it is NOT a strawman.
Continually misrepresenting what I am saying to falsely claim it is a strawman is just strawmanning yourself.

No one is saying all men are better than all women.  The argument holds with an overlap in abilities.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Divide by sex, compete on ability.

i.e. be sexist.
Simple to understand.

Alternatively, divide by age and compete on ability.  Your not liking it doesn’t change how it works.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

Ah, still clinging to this are we?

You mean something that shows your argument is BS, which you can't refute?

Correction, have refuted.  See above for another example.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

You’re still ignoring how desperately unfair this idea is for everyone who doesn’t qualify for the Olympics just for being BETTER than the man you want send in the woman’s place.

Which should really just mean the Olympics should only allow the best, with NO separate divisions.
This would allow either more events, or more of the higher ranking competitors to get in, rather than being excluded for the sex.
The only difference it makes is what person you are excluding based upon their sex.
Is it the person with similar performance to the woman, or one vastly better?

OMG, IT WAS YOUR IDEA!

If you want to change your proposal to just having one event for both men and women, where we don’t see women compete at events like the Olympics, then just say so. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

You’d completely upend how competitive sports works with a system where being too successful in an event gets people disqualified from top competitions, based on some arbitrary limit you set.

As opposed to the current system, were being too heavy can, or being too male can.
Again, this is an argument to just have no divisions at all.
It is NOT an argument to make a sexist division.

We have one or more parameters to create categories (sex, weight, age, disabilities, etc) and they compete to be best in that category.  It works just fine.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

And then you expect people to care about watching mediocre men at the Olympic games, while those who beat them are sitting on the arses back home.  Just a disaster.

As opposed to the current situation where you are watching mediocre people because those who could beat them were excluded based upon their sex?

And the women are competing because they beat all the other women in their country.  They have the most talent and train the hardest out of everyone in their category.  Watching men placed somewhere down in the hundreds begs the question “what’s special about those men compared to all the men above them?”

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

So you agree it’s a disaster for women then?

No. Only if you think women need blatant sexism to prop themselves up and people are using that blatant sexism to lie to themselves and everyone else.

Women need separate events to be able to compete at any serious level.  There’s nothing wrong with people being being interested in watching the worlds best women compete.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

And fuck up sports for men as well. Great.

How?

By introducing a system where doing too well gets you eliminated.  Don’t pretend we haven’t gone over this multiple times already.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

God forbid women should be allowed locations to play sports.

I never said there shouldn't be.

Only that they take away locations from men.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

There should be facilities and competitions for everyone who wants to play sports at all levels.

Except the men with performance comparable to women? You don't want them to play at all levels.

Everyone gets to play at their level.  I just don’t expect plaudits for men who aren’t particularly special.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

As for sponsorship and time in the spotlight, take the recent FIFA women’s World Cup.  Do you imagine that the existence of this event takes anything away from the men’s World Cup?  Or maybe that you could replace it with some kind of low ability World Cup that anyone would give a crap about?

Yes. By definition, it is taking away.
Also, it isn't the Men's World Cup. It is just the World Cup. There is no need for the "men's" prefix.
The only reason to do so is to pretend the Women's World Cup is equivalent and at an equal level, i.e. the big reason why you want to keep sexism in sports, so you can pretend the women's league isn't far below that of the men.

Dodged the questions entirely, I see. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 26, 2023, 04:52:40 AM

No, because I’m not proposing we get rid of mens sporting events.  Men can compete at any level, with the best men at each level progressing to next stage.

You mean what is becoming more and more to be open events? Where men and women can compete at any level, with the best at each level progressing to the next stage?

Again, the issue are the men that are comparable to the women. You are happy for that to be selected based upon sex. With the women allowed to play at that level based upon their sex while the men are excluded.

As you are well aware, the point of making more previously mens events open is to allow trans athletes to compete without screwing up women’s sports.

I’ve explained why they do not, and hence why I consider your idea to be much worse.

No, you haven't. Instead you repeatedly deflected away from the issue, and continually told me to focus on my idea.

When it comes to my thoughts and opinions, it absolutely does.

So it is just your worthless thoughts and opinions that my idea is worse, and it is not objectively worse?

They would lose the “spotlight” of being considered top tier

And there you have it.
You want to use sexism to pretend they are top tier, when they are not.
They are NOT the top tier. Remember, the reason for why they can't be competing without such blatant sexism is because they aren't the top tier.
They are a lower tier.

The only reason they have the spotlight of being a fake top tier is due to blatant sexism and cognitive dissonance.
It isn't about being the best in an ability bracket, it is about pretending they are the best, after blatant sexism.

Why should they have that spotlight?
Your argument is now complaining that people would lose a spotlight they don't deserve and only get because of their sex.
Why should anyone (who isn't sexist) care?

Where would the spotlight be for Serina Williams if she’s regarded as not that good?

The same as it is now for anyone who isn't sexist.

Top tier women do have a spotlight, regardless of what I think about it.

The question isn't merely if they do or don't.
The question is in what capacity do they have a spotlight now, and how will that change if you remove the sexism.
They would still be performing the same.
So either they should get the same spotlight, or they only got that spotlight due to blatant sexism.

So is that spotlight due to blatant sexism, so no decent person should care if it is lost; or is it just due to them performing as they are now, at which point it should remain even if you remove that sexism?

Men and women currently don’t compete against each other.

They don't need to compete directly against to compare them.
For example, all the people who have already compared the performance of male and female athletes, including pointing out top tier school kids beat women.

They also do occasionally compete directly, such as Serina Williams and her sister getting beating one after other by a male tennis player.
Or female teams training against male high school teams and getting beaten.

And you’re now saying you DO want to take the spotlight away?

No. I am saying that if the spotlight is genuine based upon their performance, then it wont be taken away by divisions not based upon sex. If it is just due to blatant sexism and cognitive dissonance, then it may be taken away, and I don't care.

You mean where is it coming from?

I meant where would it go if you were to remove sexism in sports.

It’s coming from interest people have in women’s sports, competing and watching.  Fans of the free markets call this supply and demand.

Where would these people, etc go if men of similar capability were competing against women, with a mixture of men and women winning in that division?
It has to go somewhere, unless you are suggesting they would just burn their money instead.

This is simplistic.  No one disputed that there would still be competition at low levels. But as sport works by promoting those with the best results, even the most dedicated women would not get very far in a huge number of sports and they would be in competition with men who need to try much less hard.

Yes, it is simplistic. So simple it is quite difficult to pretend to not understand it, or play dumb.
Again, if you want to divide based upon ability, there is no need to divide based upon sex.
If you only want to promote those with the best results, then why are women, with much worse results, being promoted?
In order to defend women's sports, you need to defy that very claim and instead want to promote those who are not the best.
At which point, why restrict that promotion of those that are not the best to just women?
What about all the men that have no chance competing against top athletes? Why should they be ignored just because of their sex?

I do not want it divided on ability because the fundamental contradiction introduced would make a total mess of how sport basically works.  It’s nonsense to compete on being the best in a category with an arbitrary cap on how good someone can be.

No more nonsense than being the best in a category with an arbitrary cap on how heavy someone can be or how male they can be.

And if you don't want it divided based upon ability, then stop using it as an excuse for sexism.
Instead, just admit you want blatant sexism to have females win regardless of ability.

No one is saying all men are better than all women.  The argument holds with an overlap in abilities.

And I'm not saying anyone is saying all men are better than all women.
Instead I am explaining why that argument requires it.

If you want to appeal to ability to divide based upon sex then you need all men to outperform all women.
Otherwise, with a significant overlap you would expect men and women to be competing together.
It is only in regions where there is no overlap would you expect only men or only women.

Your not liking it doesn’t change how it works.

And you liking sexism doesn't make it not sexism.

Correction, have refuted.  See above for another example.

Correction, have not refuted, apparently cannot refute.

You cannot justify why the male should be excluded just because they are male. The closest you get is blatant sexism, where you arbitrarily divide based upon sex, and nothing more.

OMG, IT WAS YOUR IDEA!

I am pointing out the contradiction in your argument.
How the argument you are presenting applies to the current system, where people are excluded to allow less able or worse performing individuals to play.
How is that any fairer than what I propose?

Your argument shuold simply be that there should be no divisions at all at the Olympics. Instead, ANYONE can compete, regardless of age, race, sex, height, weight, etc. and the best wins.

Again, it is not an argument in favour of dividing based upon sex. If anything, it is an argument against doing that.

We have one or more parameters to create categories (sex, weight, age, disabilities, etc) and they compete to be best in that category.  It works just fine.

And why not throw in others, like race or hair colour and so on? Or ability/potential?
It "working just fine" does not mean it is good.

And it means you are NOT finding the best.
Instead, you are finding the best after an arbitrary division.

And the women are competing because they beat all the other women in their country.

Again, try it without the sexism.
These mediocre people are competing, because they beat an arbitrarily selected group.
What is special about these PEOPLE compared to the people above them?
They are female. That is literally their claim to fame. They are female. If they weren't, then you wouldn't care.
So why should anyone care?

Women need separate events to be able to compete at any serious level.

Again, leave out the sexism.
People of different ability/potential need separate events to be able to compete at any serious level.
This is not an issue that affects just women.

By introducing a system where doing too well gets you eliminated.

You mean by introducing new divisions which men who otherwise wouldn't have been able to compete it would be able to compete in.
What men are missing out in this system which aren't already missing out?

Only that they take away locations from men.

No, only that they take away locations based upon their sex, where they get locations because they are female, while other people of similar ability are excluded based upon their sex.

Everyone gets to play at their level.  I just don’t expect plaudits for men who aren’t particularly special.

No, they don't.
They are divided based upon sex. So a man and a woman at the same level could have the woman be an Olympian while the man is a nobody.
You don't expect plaudits for men who aren't particularly special, but do expect it for someone with the exact same history and performance, but female.
Again, that is blatant sexism.

Dodged the questions entirely, I see.

Not dogged. I pointed out that by definition it is taking away from something.
Even just a simple "Yes" would answer your question.

Again, this is the same as the above. Where is it all coming from, and where would it go if the sexism was removed?
It could allow a lower league for all to play in. Or it could just put more towards the world cup, possibly playing that more often, or it could go to something else entirely, like maybe a different sport or something not sport related.

Just where do you think it is coming from? Do you think all the money for it just pops into existence from nowhere, with the fields required just popping into a parallel existence so it can run without taking away space from other competitions, and so on?

As you are well aware, the point of making more previously mens events open is to allow trans athletes to compete without screwing up women’s sports.

Having trans women there does not screw up women's sport.
You still have people there. You still have them in the spotlight.
And some have performance quite comparable to that of cis women.

The point is there is no need for a "mens" event.
And the only reason for a womens event is blatant sexism to pretend those significantly below the top are the top.

tl;dr

It's just hilarious at this point. Apparently "female" is arbitrary.

I really don't think he's met one for a long time, and when he did, she beat him up.

It might sexist society norms requiring nonfunctional heels...

Or its uist that males have a 15% natural physical advantage

I really don't think he's met one for a long time, and when he did, she beat him up.

Of course you think delusional BS like that; because you need some BS to dismiss me to ignore your blatant sexism.

It's just hilarious at this point. Apparently "female" is arbitrary.

The division based upon "sex" is arbitrary, especially in light of intersex athletes which don't fit neatly into a binary divide.

Why sex, and not race?
Why sex, and not hair colour?
Why sex, and not eye colour?
Why sex, and not colour blindness?

You already know why it is sex and not those weird things you compare it to. You already know that "intersex" is not a third sex. Sex is binary. There are no in between sexes. No one makes a spegg.

Likewise, we already know that you really just think it is unfair that women have their own sports, separate from men. They are unfairly taking up the attention of people who should be watching the men kick a ball around. They are unfairly getting what the men should have all to themselves.

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!)

I can say with hand on heart that I do not consider myself sexist.
That you are unable to parse the difference between women and men, and for some reason consider your half-baked attempts to disguise the destruction of women’s sport as enlightened, is, if you hadn’t noticed a source of amusement to us, if admittedly drudgingly repetitive and underpinned by equal parts envy and bitterness towards the female of the species.

But carry on.

JB needs to stop being a mammalist.  We shouldn't be excluding other mammals from competing in sporting competitions.

hahaha






but only true competition worth watching is nonsexist competition fair competition (accoridng to JackB)...

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

And the women are competing because they beat all the other women in their country.

Again, try it without the sexism.
These mediocre people are competing, because they beat an arbitrarily selected group.
What is special about these PEOPLE compared to the people above them?
They are female. That is literally their claim to fame. They are female. If they weren't, then you wouldn't care.
So why should anyone care?

You want me to explain Women’s sports without distinguishing between men and women?  LOL.  That’s like a flat earther wanting you to explain gravity without mentioning mass.  Can’t be done and you know it.

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

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

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.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

Women need separate events to be able to compete at any serious level.

Again, leave out the sexism.
People of different ability/potential need separate events to be able to compete at any serious level.
This is not an issue that affects just women.

Sounds like your issue is with the nature of sport in general.  We don’t all get to compete at high level sports regardless of ability.  It’s fundamentally elitist.  The vast vast majority of people who play, just play for fun.

But a great many people also enjoy watching the elite compete.  And there’s nothing wrong with watching the elite women play as well as the elite men.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

By introducing a system where doing too well gets you eliminated.

You mean by introducing new divisions which men who otherwise wouldn't have been able to compete it would be able to compete in.
What men are missing out in this system which aren't already missing out?

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.

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- that they are too good for the Olympic Games according to some arbitrary limit you set.  All those men watching the games would know that it could have been them if only they’d TRIED LESS HARD.

And everyone would know that the men they are watching aren’t the best of anything.  It would make a mockery of the whole competition.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

Only that they take away locations from men.

No, only that they take away locations based upon their sex, where they get locations because they are female, while other people of similar ability are excluded based upon their sex.

What locations are we talking about exactly?

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

Everyone gets to play at their level.  I just don’t expect plaudits for men who aren’t particularly special.

No, they don't.
They are divided based upon sex. So a man and a woman at the same level could have the woman be an Olympian while the man is a nobody.
You don't expect plaudits for men who aren't particularly special, but do expect it for someone with the exact same history and performance, but female.
Again, that is blatant sexism.

The women who get plaudits ARE special.  They are at the limits of what can be achieved by the female body.  Men at equivalent ability might be at limits of their own body, but it’s much more likely that they just don’t need to work as hard at it, and there’s no obvious way to distinguish between the two cases.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

Dodged the questions entirely, I see.

Not dogged. I pointed out that by definition it is taking away from something.
Even just a simple "Yes" would answer your question.

Again, this is the same as the above. Where is it all coming from, and where would it go if the sexism was removed?
It could allow a lower league for all to play in. Or it could just put more towards the world cup, possibly playing that more often, or it could go to something else entirely, like maybe a different sport or something not sport related.

Just where do you think it is coming from? Do you think all the money for it just pops into existence from nowhere, with the fields required just popping into a parallel existence so it can run without taking away space from other competitions, and so on?

Haha!  So you did!

I guess it was just such a flippant and ridiculous answer, I didn’t even register it.

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.

The money comes from people being interested in watching it.  If you can it and replace it with something no one gives a shit about, then it generates no money.  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.

There’s already buckets of money and tonnes of interest in leagues lower than the World Cup.  Such as the English Premiership.

As for the fields, that’s even more ridiculous. Most football stadiums stand empty for all but a few hours a week.  Their local teams don’t generally train in them.  Some stadiums like Wembley in London don’t even have a local team and are often used for concerts to make use of a relatively tiny proportion of their unused time.  Others are multiuse stadiums allowing other sports to be played there, but are still unused most of the time.

There’d be plenty of worldwide capacity to have mens and womens World Cups every year in major stadiums plus many additional lower league competitions if there was sufficient interest in doing so. 

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.

A woman’s World Cup is just another thing they can do, to be watched by the people who are interested in it and ignored by everyone who isn’t.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2023, 05:55:18 AM

As you are well aware, the point of making more previously mens events open is to allow trans athletes to compete without screwing up women’s sports.

Having trans women there does not screw up women's sport.
You still have people there. You still have them in the spotlight.
And some have performance quite comparable to that of cis women.

The point is there is no need for a "mens" event.
And the only reason for a womens event is blatant sexism to pretend those significantly below the top are the top.

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.

And again no one is pretending anything.  The top women are the top women.  No more and no less.  If that means nothing to you personally, then no one is forcing you give a shit about it.  You are free to ignore it.

The division based upon "sex" is arbitrary, especially in light of intersex athletes which don't fit neatly into a binary divide.

Why sex, and not race?
Why sex, and not hair colour?
Why sex, and not eye colour?
Why sex, and not colour blindness?

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:

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

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

We could have a fat man who drinks way too much compete against someone who’s lost a leg.  If they can manage similar performance, that should be fine right?

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!)

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

idk, there are some crazy ones. For example, JB's opinion is not much different from Neil DeGrasse Tyson's when it comes to sports.



I mean, he's a science celebrity, but I think he's also supposed to be a real scientists. Yet he conflates wearing makeup with being female, so he can feel 80% female one day and put on makeup, or 80% male the next and do whatever. He gets "gender expression" mixed up with sex. It's fucking weird. It's a mind virus.  He's so condescending about the whole issue. (he starts talking about sports at about 8 minutes) (he's also lying about the "genetically female" athlete, the athlete he's discussing is actually "genetically male")

he's a big mansplainer
i don't find him all that good.



i like the japanese guy and the british guy with a lisp.
but i've only ever seen them in documentaries not in public speeches/ interviews.


bill nye for the win!
except that one time he said USA should take over canada.

bill bill bill bill
BILL NYE THE SCIENCES GUY