*intra-cis-women (not infra)
-
03
-
the argument is so dumb.
the person says; its really simple; if you believe trans women are real women then you have to allow them in women's sports.
But, i dont believe they should be in womens sports. so the person is telling me i dont actually believe trans women are women.
thank you for clarifying.
23 -
pupil3142 wrote:
the argument is so dumb.
the person says; its really simple; if you believe trans women are real women then you have to allow them in women's sports.
But, i dont believe they should be in womens sports. so the person is telling me i dont actually believe trans women are women.
thank you for clarifying.
I suspect that argument was intended to be dumbed down for a late night audience.
Thankfully WA doesn’t go with simplistic definitional arguments like “women are women, period!” and instead has been over the last decade in near real time changing their eligibility guidelines based on progressing state-of-the-art science over these years, not based on what you or I or trans women emphatically believe.
No one informed on this topic thinks the science is clear, rather it’s quite the contrary.
15 -
testy wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
You seem to know very little about sex differences in human anatomy and physiology; the markedly different ways humans physically develop and change over the course of our lives; and the dramatically different life experiences of males and females because of our different anatomy and physiology - and the fact that girls and women go through, or are at risk of going through, many additional bodily processes that males don't experience.
In fact, scientists have documented hundreds of physical differences between the sexes of myriad different kinds which involve most of the body's many different organs, tissues, fluids, cells, genes and processes. For example, starting at birth there are marked differences in the airway cells, secretions and overall respiratory function in males and females - and also in the ways that the two sexes breathe, and the amount of energy and exertion it takes for males and females to move the same amount of air in and out of the lungs. This is one of the reasons why cystic fibrosis has a different trajectory in males and females even when they are siblings in the same family and their CF is caused by the same gene mutation(s).
At 6 months of age, the left ventricles of baby boys' hearts are on average 6-8% larger and more powerful than the LVs of baby girls of their peers who are of similar length and weight. Since the LV is the pump that sends oxygenated blood to the rest of the body, this gives male babies and children a huge leg up over female children in all sorts of physical tasks.
In the era of cell biology and genetics, scientists have found that the differences between the ways male and female cells function and the way the genes work in the two sexes, the physical differences between males and females work number in the thousands. Already more than 6,500 differences have been found in the way the same genes are expressed in the two sexes.
You also seem totally unaware that one of the reasons males are advantaged in sports has nothing to do with testosterone - it's simply because males go through none of the sex-specific processes that female humans go through as a matter of course which greatly affect our sports fitness, training and performance. Such as the 28 day ovulation-menstruation cycle; periods; menstrual cramps; heavy blood loss and clotting; PMDD/PMS; pregnancy; labor; childbirth; childbirth injuries; miscarriage; abortion; stillbirth; lactation; weaning; peri menopause; full menopause; and the host of gynecological problems like ovarian cysts, fibroids, endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain that affect so many girls and women.
Not all the physical differences between the two sexes translate into an advantage for males in terms of sports. Moreover, many of the differences give females an advantage entirely apart from sports. For example, girl babies are more likely than male babies to survive past the first year even when boys are fed and cared for more; women have better immune function; and women live longer than men.
But back to the specific context of sports: your contention that the male physical advantage in sports "is just our belief, not objectively verifiable fact" is nonsense. And it's just plain nuts - which I guess is to be expected from someone who goes by the handle "testy."
Someone from WA told the press a couple of years ago that there's plenty of documents going back more than 100 years that provide indisputable proof that males have a marked advantage over females in nearly all sports: "They're called world records."
First, cut this crap about personal attacks like in this post as well as your previous gratuitously insulting post that got moderated out.
If you are interested in a civilized evidence based exchange, follow these guidelines:
1) Don’t attribute anything I didn’t say to me.
2) Don’t gratuitously assume others are unaware of common knowledge unless you can point or something contrary that they explicitly said demonstrating their ignorance.
3) Learn to phrase your responses specifically and concisely to points I made, not long rambling things that have little to do with the topic. For example, if you have something against my “objectively verifiable” claim, quote in the exact context it was stated and respond with an understanding of the statistical metrics with which it was quantified.
4) State whether or what your response is to my second para of my post 51.
If you can not follow the above guidelines, I have little interest in engaging with you.
Well, that's me told! Reminds me of this:
22 -
You promised wrote:
testy wrote:
We are going in circles, so I’ll stop on this sub-thread.
You said you were going to stop. Please stop.
Maybe try reading what was written.
05 -
testy wrote:
Joe Jackson wrote:
As someone else already posted, just look at the male vs. female world records for the same event.
Or perhaps even more to the point of what you are asking, here is statistical data regarding size for males and females:Spoiler alert: males overtake females in size at about age 14 and it isn’t even close from then on.
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
Who says we need a ‘clean discriminator…’ aside from what already exists to divide sports categories (men’s and women's)? At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women. Sure, at the non-elite level there is overlap but to call that ‘unfair’ makes one sound like a whiny child. Not everyone can be elite in sports otherwise there would be no elite athletes.
In a large enough sample (like the data I posted earlier), it is clear that men trend higher than women when you look at factors that affect performance in sports. Couple that with all the other disadvantages women have and only the most entitled born-as-a-male human would complain that it’s unfair that they can’t compete with the women.
42 -
Joe Jackson wrote:
testy wrote:
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
Who says we need a ‘clean discriminator…’ aside from what already exists to divide sports categories (men’s and women's)? At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women.
The Sonksen et al analysis is for elite men and women, so your claim is simply incorrect.
If you don’t have a clean discriminator based on performance metrics, all you have is a definition: women are those who were natally ovarian. Again, what part of the following statement, that is practically tautologically true, do you disagree with?
“You should either be able to identify performance advantageous metrics for inclusion/exclusion exclusion purposes OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?”
07 -
testy wrote:
Joe Jackson wrote:
As someone else already posted, just look at the male vs. female world records for the same event.
Or perhaps even more to the point of what you are asking, here is statistical data regarding size for males and females:Spoiler alert: males overtake females in size at about age 14 and it isn’t even close from then on.
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
The argument for excluding people like Veronica Ivy and Caster Semenya from the category of sport created and meant for female participants is not based on factors like Ivy's and Semenya's height, weight, girth and overall body size - or on the size of their feet, hands, waist, biceps, quads, femurs, calves, head or enormous egos. No one says Ivy, Semenya and people like them should be excluded because of their "natal gonad size" the way you keep alleging, either. We say that Ivy, Semenya and others like them should be excluded because of their sex.
41 -
testy wrote:
Joe Jackson wrote:
Who says we need a ‘clean discriminator…’ aside from what already exists to divide sports categories (men’s and women's)? At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women.
The Sonksen et al analysis is for elite men and women, so your claim is simply incorrect.
If you don’t have a clean discriminator based on performance metrics, all you have is a definition: women are those who were natally ovarian. Again, what part of the following statement, that is practically tautologically true, do you disagree with?
“You should either be able to identify performance advantageous metrics for inclusion/exclusion exclusion purposes OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?”
You've had about seven people now answer this question in good faith and you've ignored every single one of them. If you aren't Veronica Ivy, you're doing a damn good impression of her. Can we stop pushing this utterly tedious thread to the top now please?
60 -
testy wrote:
Joe Jackson wrote:
Who says we need a ‘clean discriminator…’ aside from what already exists to divide sports categories (men’s and women's)? At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women.
The Sonksen et al analysis is for elite men and women, so your claim is simply incorrect.
If you don’t have a clean discriminator based on performance metrics, all you have is a definition: women are those who were natally ovarian. Again, what part of the following statement, that is practically tautologically true, do you disagree with?
“You should either be able to identify performance advantageous metrics for inclusion/exclusion exclusion purposes OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?”
No, my claim is not incorrect. First, only weight and height were compared without any regard to whether those metrics are advantageous in the respective sports. What about strength, stamina, etc.? Second, even still, the men are taller and heavier at the extremes. Third, where there is overlap that frequency for men is far greater than women.
When discussing elite athletes, there is a clear gap between men and women. Attempting to blend the two categories at lower levels creates unnecessary complication as well as a situation where certain childish individuals (men like Ivy) are going to find ways to compete against athletes (women) with whom they have unfair advantages (sandbagging being the obvious method).
Because, in the end, it all comes down to money. When equal prizes are offered for the various categories, you are going to get individuals who will manipulate the situation to give them a better chance at winning money. If you don’t offer equal money, now you’ve just reversed decades of progress in sports with women again unable to ever have a chance at earning as much as men. That’s unfair.
32 -
RunRagged wrote:
testy wrote:
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
03 -
You promised wrote:
testy wrote:
The Sonksen et al analysis is for elite men and women, so your claim is simply incorrect.
If you don’t have a clean discriminator based on performance metrics, all you have is a definition: women are those who were natally ovarian. Again, what part of the following statement, that is practically tautologically true, do you disagree with?
“You should either be able to identify performance advantageous metrics for inclusion/exclusion exclusion purposes OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?”
You've had about seven people now answer this question in good faith and you've ignored every single one of them. If you aren't Veronica Ivy, you're doing a damn good impression of her. Can we stop pushing this utterly tedious thread to the top now please?
No they didn’t. They either didn’t understand the premise or were going on and on unrelatedly oblivious to the tautological truth of the premise (like you too, it appears).
15 -
testy wrote:
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
As I said before, the argument for why Ivy doesn't belong in women's sports is based on Ivy's sex, not on Ivy's height or weight.
But since you keep mentioning size as in your repeated references to "natal gonad size" and "natal gamete size" - and now you've brought up adult height and body weight too - it seems only fitting to share this photo of Ivy next to some of the female cyclists Ivy triumphed over when competing in women's events under one of Ivy's previous names:
30 -
How much BS will this trans stuff warrant? Be a girl, if ya need be but you can;t complete in female sports because what ya wanna be means nothing there. All that matters is what you actually are.
No daughter of mine is competing vs the boys and any boy needing to take on the girls is a wacko.
12 -
RunRagged wrote:
testy wrote:
You omitted my second para above. Not sure if you didn’t understand it, but the point is that we don’t have a clean discriminator to separate two groups based on size even though there is a high correlation between natal gonad characteristics (aka cis male or female) and body size.
But I’m glad you are taking the conversation to data and evidence driven arguments. Here is data from Sonksen et al. 2018 on height and weight that shows much more overlap than endogenous T levels. Any cutoff on size to maintain fairness will either exclude some cis women or allow some cis men in women’s sport, so even if trans women have an advantage, why is it unfair compared to the infra-cis-women diversity that already exists? If it is unfair in specific cases, you need to establish a cutoff.
As I said before, the argument for why Ivy doesn't belong in women's sports is based on Ivy's sex, not on Ivy's height or weight.
As I said before, that’s your faith. Trans women have a different faith, based on their bodies now, not natal gonadal characteristics two decades back.
Scientists are focused on objective fairness metrics based on current physiology, and WA is hyperaware, certainly trying to be, of state of the art science.
05 -
testy wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
What a stupid and tedious - and, yes, testy - discussion. If performance metrics were the defining criteria for eligibility they would be the only criteria. Sex or gender would not apply. The result is that trans women would find themselves competing against males in open competition (as women would also) and always losing to the best. There would be no inclusivity for them on the basis of their gender identity - so the whole point of why they wish to compete as women would be lost - and nor would they ever find themselves on the dais. And along the way, women's sport would have disappeared.
41 -
testy wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
Did you mistype or do you believe that 50% of elite woman have performance metrics superior to 1% of elite men? You might like the bottom 1% of elite men? They wouldn’t be elite if women were better lol
10 -
testy wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
the argument is so dumb.
the person says; its really simple; if you believe trans women are real women then you have to allow them in women's sports.
But, i dont believe they should be in womens sports. so the person is telling me i dont actually believe trans women are women.
thank you for clarifying.
I suspect that argument was intended to be dumbed down for a late night audience.
Thankfully WA doesn’t go with simplistic definitional arguments like “women are women, period!” and instead has been over the last decade in near real time changing their eligibility guidelines based on progressing state-of-the-art science over these years, not based on what you or I or trans women emphatically believe.
No one informed on this topic thinks the science is clear, rather it’s quite the contrary.
Guys, we just don’t know if men are faster yet. Maybe we need some more state of the art science
41 -
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
testy wrote:
I suspect that argument was intended to be dumbed down for a late night audience.
Thankfully WA doesn’t go with simplistic definitional arguments like “women are women, period!” and instead has been over the last decade in near real time changing their eligibility guidelines based on progressing state-of-the-art science over these years, not based on what you or I or trans women emphatically believe.
No one informed on this topic thinks the science is clear, rather it’s quite the contrary.
Guys, we just don’t know if men are faster yet. Maybe we need some more state of the art science
There are some here who have never observed boys and girls races on school sports days.
22
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.