Mea Culpa / We Were Wrong: Biological Males Don't Have an Unfair Advantage in Women's Sport

What about people post hysterectomy? Your argument sucks.

Just as posts stating the obvious about trans women in sport get heavily downvoted here, so do even posts highlighting three Kenyans suspended in one day.

It makes sense now. This place is overwhelmingly made up of suburban American males who were/are passionate about track or road running, but without the talent to become national or world class. Even identifying as a woman and competiting against women wouldn't make them world class, just as taking Rashid Ramzi levels of EPO wouldn't make them world class in men's competition.

So why should they care about either of these things? In fact, their support of doping in elite ahtletics, and of biological males competing in women's sport, is clearly motivated out of spite at having failed in their own athletics careers.

Rojo, can you tell the/a mod to stop deleting EVERY comment I make on Kenyan doping busts? Do you agree that three Kenyans being suspended in one day is indicative of a doping problem that is as much a threat to free and fair sport as biological males competing against women?

Rojo....can you tell the mods to please delete every post Coevett makes?

No one wants to read them.

Biologically speaking, in an evolutionary context, the role of a woman is to give birth and take care of children, which is evidenced by the presence of a womb, vagina and mammary glands. Sorry, no debating that, it's a fact and no amount of denial or screeching on your part is going to change it. That doesn't mean woman can't serve any other purpose socially, but biologically speaking that is their purpose just like a males purpose is to spread their sperm, among other things. Also, to your point these biological differences absolutely extend to the brain, it's why there are transgenders in the first place. The feeling of being a man or woman occurs in the brain, which points to neurological differences between the male and female brain.

There's your science lesson, I look forward to you throwing a temper tantrum and calling me a bigot.

Change the record, amirite?

If the only role of women "biologically speaking" and "in an evolutionary context" is to give birth, breastfeed and take care of (young) children, how come nature has arranged for us to have the ability to bear and birth children for only a portion of our adult lives?

Why have human females evolved so that it's customary for us to outlive our "childbearing years" by many, many years - indeed, by decades?

Most human females are naturally capable of getting pregnant and gestating a fetus to the point of birth for about 34 years of our lives - 15 through 49, though of course some have had and will have babies younger and older than that.

Moreover, our peak fertility and childbearing years fall into an even narrower time frame than that. Many sources say women's peak childbearing years are the 12-17 years from 18 to 30 or 35.

Yet women customarily and commonly live much longer than our reproductive years. The average life span for women in many countries today is over 85; and lots of women live into their late 90s and even past 100.

worlddata.info

Average life expectancy by country

International ranking of life expectancy in 124 countries including summary by continents. Explanation of significant factors.

Open link

If the only "purpose, biologically speaking" of women were giving birth, tending to young and breastfeeding as you say, then logically we should have a natural ability to reproduce for our whole lives after the puberty adolescence the way human males do - or we should die off in large numbers once we reach menopause or peri-menopause. Indeed, if your theory is correct, then logically women would start dying off in droves after we reach 35, the age when our ability to mature and release viable, healthy ova drops off sharply.

But instead, evolution has arranged to keep women around long, long after our childbearing years are over.

Seems that there might be more involved in the perpetuation of species, and in human evolution specifically - and more to women's "purpose, biologically speaking" - than your narrow, simplistic framing allows.

Been off this thread for about 24 hours. I’ll probably write more tomorrow. I don’t mind taking some backlash but my general inclination is I misread our audience.

The article wasn’t really directed at the main LetsRun audience . Just the people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for Lia Thomas to win NCAA titles as a woman. But I didn’t think a lot of the LetsRun audience would think I was punching down at someone. Some people who I respect said it sort of misfired for them so everything I know I think I’d try and see if I could get the same point across in a different way .

Hilarious!!!

Well done!

And nothing better than watching democrat fairies melt down over it.

Rojo wrote the article, yes? So while we appreciate your humility, we need to hear it from the person who wrote it. After all, Rojo is a co-CEO. So he needs to act like the adult in the room

I agree the piece probably want clever enough. I think the execution could have been better. But some of the explicit stuff was intentional to try and hammer home a point whicb misfired with some. I dont think we could have gone that route and been seen as clever.

Am I’m not sure if poignant is right word .

first definition of poignant is 1) painfully affecting the feelings.

Which this did for sure .

Nope now you’re losing points. It was a sh*tty piece, that Rojo wrote, correct? Stop defending it

What a stupid reply. Ok, maybe I should have said if you are born with a womb, you are a woman, and you are still a woman if you take it out. Just like if you cut off your penis, you are still a man. Good grief!

That was a reply to the person that said my point that you are not a woman if you don't have a womb is wrong because of hysterectomies.

You're still deflecting and equivocating, although not as bad as your brother. Thank god.

If you wanted to have an actual conversation about it, you'd have interviewed actual trans athletes (such as Keelin Godsey, who competed as a woman 16 years ago!), psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and so on. But you didn't. Clearly. You just wanted to make stupid jokes, and use April Fool's as a cowardly cover for it.

Robert and Weldon, you are really crappy. I keep wanting -- and hoping -- for you to be better, but you constantly fall short. It's a good thing you have your trust funds because it's only a matter of time until someone does what you do but...better. And with more integrity and humanity.

did this get reposted to reddit or shared by Vaush or something? Seems like most of the registered users at least got a chuckle out of this and the ones seething are all forum guests..

Think again, chumpo.