The suffix phobic means one who is afraid of something. The only people who are transphobic are those who lack the courage to tell a trans “woman” that he is actually a man.
Anonymous bigotry on a running website is definitely a symptom of fear.
I was listening to the Dax Shepard podcast Armchair Expert a few months ago and they had that guy from Queer Eye as a guest. His name is Johnathan Van Ness. He identifies as non-binary but uses he/him pronouns. During the very friendly discussion, Dax asked about trans women and sports. He didn't even take a position, he just wanted to discuss it. Van Ness started to cry and throw a fit about how exhausted he was and how these topics shouldn't be discussed because it is wrong to debate someone's existence. Dax is scared of being canceled so he backed off, but I was like "wtf!? Now the topic can't even be brought up?"
The “debate” on the anti-trans side is either:
1. “Fairness over inclusion” - which is not how sports are viewed in any other capacity except when transphobic people bring up gender.
2. “He will never be a woman” - which means you don’t think transgenderism is valid outside of sports.
neither of those talking points hold water. The reason why the guest on Dax’s podcast was exhausted by the question is because it seems like sports are the final hill that transphobic people are feeling safe to shout their hate on. They couldn’t keep trans people from getting married, or getting hired, or using the bathroom, so now they see keeping them out of sports as a way to keep them down.
If you can provide an argument outside of the two that I listed above, then I guess we can debate that, but the underlying dishonesty and hatred contained in both has been brought to the surface in every debate that I have witnessed on the topic.
The question I rarely (if ever) see discussed is why are there separate categories for male and female competitors? (and I do think it started as male and female not men and women). I always thought the answer was because of science/biology differences. If that is correct, then individuals with a Y chromosome should not be allowed to compete against individuals with no Y chromosome. It makes no sense to me to hold competitions based upon a social construct. If we divided the results by social construct or individual feelings then I want my award for being the first sales tax consultant in my last race.
And this does not make me transphobic, it just means I have a different opinion than those who disagree with me.
The question rarely gets discussed because it’s such common knowledge that has occurred in just the past two generations.
You “always thought” that we separate them based on science/biology differences, but we don’t. We haven’t since 1972.
Being ignorant is not the same as having “a different opinion than those who disagree” with you. It just means you are incorrect.
I don't think there is any real sport that lets the participants dictate the rules. Imagine if a pitcher adept against lefties could demand the opposing team to only bring lefties up to the plate? Why is a male allowed to demand participation in the female shot put? There should be 0 input from the athlete nor his parents.
The suffix phobic means one who is afraid of something. The only people who are transphobic are those who lack the courage to tell a trans “woman” that he is actually a man.
Anonymous bigotry on a running website is definitely a symptom of fear.
There is no bigotry on my part, only truth. You are the real coward because you come on a running website and encourage peoples’ delusional psychoses
I was listening to the Dax Shepard podcast Armchair Expert a few months ago and they had that guy from Queer Eye as a guest. His name is Johnathan Van Ness. He identifies as non-binary but uses he/him pronouns. During the very friendly discussion, Dax asked about trans women and sports. He didn't even take a position, he just wanted to discuss it. Van Ness started to cry and throw a fit about how exhausted he was and how these topics shouldn't be discussed because it is wrong to debate someone's existence. Dax is scared of being canceled so he backed off, but I was like "wtf!? Now the topic can't even be brought up?"
The “debate” on the anti-trans side is either:
1. “Fairness over inclusion” - which is not how sports are viewed in any other capacity except when transphobic people bring up gender.
2. “He will never be a woman” - which means you don’t think transgenderism is valid outside of sports.
neither of those talking points hold water. The reason why the guest on Dax’s podcast was exhausted by the question is because it seems like sports are the final hill that transphobic people are feeling safe to shout their hate on. They couldn’t keep trans people from getting married, or getting hired, or using the bathroom, so now they see keeping them out of sports as a way to keep them down.
If you can provide an argument outside of the two that I listed above, then I guess we can debate that, but the underlying dishonesty and hatred contained in both has been brought to the surface in every debate that I have witnessed on the topic.
Oh, the "debate" is much more broad than that, it includes putting all this trans apology/theory crap into criminal hate speech, because it enables the grooming, gaslighting, and sexual mutilation of children. Either the West will reform and criminalize this entire line of thinking, or it will be fixed when Islam or another group takes over, from within, or without.
1. “Fairness over inclusion” - which is not how sports are viewed in any other capacity except when transphobic people bring up gender.
2. “He will never be a woman” - which means you don’t think transgenderism is valid outside of sports.
neither of those talking points hold water. The reason why the guest on Dax’s podcast was exhausted by the question is because it seems like sports are the final hill that transphobic people are feeling safe to shout their hate on. They couldn’t keep trans people from getting married, or getting hired, or using the bathroom, so now they see keeping them out of sports as a way to keep them down.
If you can provide an argument outside of the two that I listed above, then I guess we can debate that, but the underlying dishonesty and hatred contained in both has been brought to the surface in every debate that I have witnessed on the topic.
Oh, the "debate" is much more broad than that, it includes putting all this trans apology/theory crap into criminal hate speech, because it enables the grooming, gaslighting, and sexual mutilation of children. Either the West will reform and criminalize this entire line of thinking, or it will be fixed when Islam or another group takes over, from within, or without.
My mistake. I forgot how much you guys really, REALLY hate people.
3. Trans athletes should not be allowed to run races. Anyone who even thinks this without even saying it should be considered a criminal.
Come to think of it, that’s actually the most common talking point I hear from people on this site, so it should move to #1.
1. “Fairness over inclusion” - which is not how sports are viewed in any other capacity except when transphobic people bring up gender.
Those arguing “fairness” here just assert so based on a philosophical or religious binary position, not based on any mathematically or empirically quantifiable notion of fairness.
Empirically, a competition is not unfairly biased in favor of a subgroup if the fraction of medal winners from that subgroup doesn’t exceed their fraction in the entire group, all to within empirical variance tolerance and caveats of probabilistic analysis with small numbers.
Those arguing “fairness” here just assert so based on a philosophical or religious binary position, not based on any mathematically or empirically quantifiable notion of fairness.
Empirically, a competition is not unfairly biased in favor of a subgroup if the fraction of medal winners from that subgroup doesn’t exceed their fraction in the entire group, all to within empirical variance tolerance and caveats of probabilistic analysis with small numbers.
That is not how we define fairness, neither mathematically nor empirically.
If I run a bunch of 100m races against the finalists from the last world championships, and I get a 10m head start every time, I'm still going to win 0% of those races.
Nevertheless, those races are unfairly slanted in my favor.
People with no understanding of game theory should really stay away from mathematical terminology.
Those arguing “fairness” here just assert so based on a philosophical or religious binary position, not based on any mathematically or empirically quantifiable notion of fairness.
Empirically, a competition is not unfairly biased in favor of a subgroup if the fraction of medal winners from that subgroup doesn’t exceed their fraction in the entire group, all to within empirical variance tolerance and caveats of probabilistic analysis with small numbers.
That is not how we define fairness, neither mathematically nor empirically.
If I run a bunch of 100m races against the finalists from the last world championships, and I get a 10m head start every time, I'm still going to win 0% of those races.
Nevertheless, those races are unfairly slanted in my favor.
People with no understanding of game theory should really stay away from mathematical terminology.
Dr. Greg Brown delves into the complexities of pre-puberty athletic performance at the 2023 International Women’s Sports Summit. Learn about the physiologica...
In this compelling webinar, Dr. Greg Brown reveals his latest research on the physical fitness and athletic performance differences between boys and girls un...
Those arguing “fairness” here just assert so based on a philosophical or religious binary position, not based on any mathematically or empirically quantifiable notion of fairness.
Empirically, a competition is not unfairly biased in favor of a subgroup if the fraction of medal winners from that subgroup doesn’t exceed their fraction in the entire group, all to within empirical variance tolerance and caveats of probabilistic analysis with small numbers.
That is not how we define fairness, neither mathematically nor empirically.
If I run a bunch of 100m races against the finalists from the last world championships, and I get a 10m head start every time, I'm still going to win 0% of those races.
Nevertheless, those races are unfairly slanted in my favor.
People with no understanding of game theory should really stay away from mathematical terminology.
World Rugby Head Scientist Ross Tucker, PhD — has also consulted with multiple governing bodies around the world. Dr. Tucker explicates how safe and sensible...
Those arguing “fairness” here just assert so based on a philosophical or religious binary position, not based on any mathematically or empirically quantifiable notion of fairness.
Empirically, a competition is not unfairly biased in favor of a subgroup if the fraction of medal winners from that subgroup doesn’t exceed their fraction in the entire group, all to within empirical variance tolerance and caveats of probabilistic analysis with small numbers.
That is not how we define fairness, neither mathematically nor empirically.
If I run a bunch of 100m races against the finalists from the last world championships, and I get a 10m head start every time, I'm still going to win 0% of those races.
Nevertheless, those races are unfairly slanted in my favor.
People with no understanding of game theory should really stay away from mathematical terminology.
Two years ago at a conference on women's sports, Ross Tucker gave a talk which illustrates how absurd - but tiresomely predictable - it is for gender identity ideologues to claim there's no empircal evidence, or not enough empirical evidence, to establish for certain that males as a class have significant physical advantages over females as a class which make it unfair for anyone male to be competing in female sports.
Tucker starts off by pointing out that traditionally sports scientists have not bothered doing any research on female athletes at all. Speaking about his work for World Rugby studying concussions, Tucker said:
One of the big challenges we've got is trying to get a handle on concussion in women because it turns out there may be some significant risks in females that don't exist in men.
There's actually a broader concept here. There are many areas of medicine where doctors have traditionally just treated people as though they are humans and they don't recognize these sex differences. This is another area where sex matters.
I remember when I was an honors student many years ago, we were doing research and the thing we were told at the very beginning was: "don't study women."
The very first research I ever did was where stuck a bunch of cyclists in a heat chamber and we measured their performance, and muscle activation, and body temperature and heart rate and so on in response to different temperatures - and the message was that you should only study men because otherwise you get complications that are induced by the menstrual cycle and female hormones. Everyone said "okay, fine."
This is how it was. This how sports science evolved. There was a box for "too hard" and female research was put into the "too hard" box.
The question I rarely (if ever) see discussed is why are there separate categories for male and female competitors? (and I do think it started as male and female not men and women). I always thought the answer was because of science/biology differences. If that is correct, then individuals with a Y chromosome should not be allowed to compete against individuals with no Y chromosome. It makes no sense to me to hold competitions based upon a social construct. If we divided the results by social construct or individual feelings then I want my award for being the first sales tax consultant in my last race.
And this does not make me transphobic, it just means I have a different opinion than those who disagree with me.
You may not be transphobic. But you are intersexphobic.
So, do you feel this way about athletes who dope? As long as they don't win more than their fair share of medals, it's ok?
Because terrible or mediocre male athletes don't win every award in women's sports, they don't have an advantage?
Doping is not cheating. "Fairness" comes from running the same distance without impeding the other runners. The workouts you do or vitamins you take doesn't make your participation unfair.
That is not how we define fairness, neither mathematically nor empirically.
If I run a bunch of 100m races against the finalists from the last world championships, and I get a 10m head start every time, I'm still going to win 0% of those races.
Nevertheless, those races are unfairly slanted in my favor.
People with no understanding of game theory should really stay away from mathematical terminology.
Two years ago at a conference on women's sports, Ross Tucker gave a talk which illustrates how absurd - but tiresomely predictable - it is for gender identity ideologues to claim there's no empircal evidence, or not enough empirical evidence, to establish for certain that males as a class have significant physical advantages over females as a class which make it unfair for anyone male to be competing in female sports.
Tucker starts off by pointing out that traditionally sports scientists have not bothered doing any research on female athletes at all. Speaking about his work for World Rugby studying concussions, Tucker said:
One of the big challenges we've got is trying to get a handle on concussion in women because it turns out there may be some significant risks in females that don't exist in men.
There's actually a broader concept here. There are many areas of medicine where doctors have traditionally just treated people as though they are humans and they don't recognize these sex differences. This is another area where sex matters.
I remember when I was an honors student many years ago, we were doing research and the thing we were told at the very beginning was: "don't study women."
The very first research I ever did was where stuck a bunch of cyclists in a heat chamber and we measured their performance, and muscle activation, and body temperature and heart rate and so on in response to different temperatures - and the message was that you should only study men because otherwise you get complications that are induced by the menstrual cycle and female hormones. Everyone said "okay, fine."
This is how it was. This how sports science evolved. There was a box for "too hard" and female research was put into the "too hard" box.
We are not debating whether transgender women have an athletic advantage. They do. It doesn't matter. They are still women, so they should run against women.
We are not debating whether transgender women have an athletic advantage. They do. It doesn't matter. They are still women, so they should run against women.
You are arguing against an invisible opponent.
Thanks, mate! It's really swell and sweet of you to take the time to try to enlighten silly old me about how and what to post. But I believe I know exactly what I'm doing - and I'm going to carry on as I see fit anyways.
If I need your advice in the future, I'll be sure to ask.