LogFAQs > #950414226

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trans people have been allowed in the Olympics since 2003
pinky0926 02/08/21 11:29:46 AM #114:	RedJackson posted... Essentially your argument amounts to that so I addressed it as such lol It's quite literally not what I have argued anywhere at all and I don't know where you got confused. I have argued that it is the single common differentiator in the male/female category divide to date and it creates enough of a difference that no elite female can compete at the top male level. This is not an argument so much as a fact. The real question is whether or not that 10% makes an actual difference.. those track times are something for sure but how much of that IS the 10% advantage at play? are you trolling? You don't think 10% difference is significant in elite sports where the difference between 1st place and 10th place is factually a matter of 1.5%? Are you trolling or just not understanding me. 10% difference (the difference in performance between male and female in raw data) is the difference between coming 1st place and coming 4000+. There's no study yet on that and to take one study and try to apply it without actually inspecting or setting up an actual experiment to test this out means it's incredibly disingenuous to propose this 10% is some infallible component not to be disagreed upon on what I consider loose evidence No study on what? That men are 10% faster than women in every track and field event? Are you high? You seem to be confused by the premise here. The 10% difference I'm talking about isn't an assumed guess at how much better men are than women based on some weird theory. It is a literal calculation of the performance data on sports between male and female categories. You can verify it yourself if you want. Go see in any running event how the times compare from male to female. (Spoilers: it's 10%). And yes, there is endless amounts of studies on this. If we started training women to psychologically ingest material that made them say 'KILL YOUR ENEMY', 'BE ALPHA', 'FIGHT THROUGH THE PAIN' from the 1800's onwards I think that 10% would easily be reduced to nothing lol You are literally arguing that women are just not as good at sports as men because they are not determined enough psychologically. My friend, have you ever met a woman before? Do you really think this is the strong feminist ally hill to die on or something? I just don't think doing things in a perfect vacuum within a lab translates very well into something where the mentality and psychological portion of an athlete cannot actually be measured - the mind is literally the driving force behind everything Get me a complete psychological breakdown of a man and woman in tandem with this 10% clause and the societal impacts of gender roles and I'd be more interested in agreeing with you - at the moment all you have is potential that can be realized supported by a long history of omission, a long history of exclusion, a long history of sectioned off mentality that can be accessed and realized Like I realize arm length can make the difference in a UFC match but I'm pretty sure what you really need to do is be able to land one on someones glass jaw Your entire premise here is the idea that actual performance data and sports science can't account for psychological factors (it can, but nevermind) and that you're just sure that you've got a better model to explain all of this stuff, but it's something you yourself can't put into words or quantify in any way. Even better, you're actually suggesting that the reason men vastly outperform women in sports can't have anything to do with a known physiological mechanism that creates an enormous increase in power, breathing capacity, strength, speed, bone density and mass...but because of sexism. And presumably it's exactly 10% sexism in running but 30% sexism in weightlifting and 160% sexism in boxing...but 0% sexism in super long endurance running. And it would be sexism that only starts at about age 12, since up until that age girls outperform boys in elite categories. So it's a special sort of sexism that only begins at puberty. There's a word for this in science, when an idea can't be substantiated with any consistent rationale and is entirely unfalsifiable: nonsense. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950414226] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>Essentially your argument amounts to that so I addressed it as such lol</quote> It's quite literally not what I have argued anywhere at all and I don't know where you got confused. I have argued that it is the single common differentiator in the male/female category divide to date and it creates enough of a difference that no elite female can compete at the top male level. This is not an argument so much as a fact. <quote> The real question is whether or not that 10% makes an actual difference.. those track times are something for sure but how much of that IS the 10% advantage at play?</quote> are you trolling? You don't think 10% difference is significant in elite sports where the difference between 1st place and 10th place is factually a matter of 1.5%? Are you trolling or just not understanding me. 10% difference (the difference in performance between male and female in raw data) is the difference between coming 1st place and coming 4000+. <quote> There's no study yet on that and to take one study and try to apply it without actually inspecting or setting up an actual experiment to test this out means it's incredibly disingenuous to propose this 10% is some infallible component not to be disagreed upon on what I consider loose evidence</quote> No study on what? That men are 10% faster than women in every track and field event? Are you high? You seem to be confused by the premise here. The 10% difference I'm talking about isn't an assumed guess at how much better men are than women based on some weird theory. It is a literal calculation of the performance data on sports between male and female categories. You can verify it yourself if you want. Go see in any running event how the times compare from male to female. (Spoilers: it's 10%). And yes, there is endless amounts of studies on this. <quote>If we started training women to psychologically ingest material that made them say 'KILL YOUR ENEMY', 'BE ALPHA', 'FIGHT THROUGH THE PAIN' from the 1800's onwards I think that 10% would easily be reduced to nothing lol</quote> You are literally arguing that women are just not as good at sports as men because they are not determined enough psychologically. My friend, have you ever met a woman before? Do you really think this is the strong feminist ally hill to die on or something? <quote> I just don't think doing things in a perfect vacuum within a lab translates very well into something where the mentality and psychological portion of an athlete cannot actually be measured - the mind is literally the driving force behind everything Get me a complete psychological breakdown of a man and woman in tandem with this 10% clause and the societal impacts of gender roles and I'd be more interested in agreeing with you - at the moment all you have is potential that can be realized supported by a long history of omission, a long history of exclusion, a long history of sectioned off mentality that can be accessed and realized Like I realize arm length can make the difference in a UFC match but I'm pretty sure what you really need to do is be able to land one on someones glass jaw</quote> Your entire premise here is the idea that actual performance data and sports science can't account for psychological factors (it can, but nevermind) and that you're just sure that you've got a better model to explain all of this stuff, but it's something you yourself can't put into words or quantify in any way. Even better, you're actually suggesting that the reason men vastly outperform women in sports can't have anything to do with a known physiological mechanism that creates an enormous increase in power, breathing capacity, strength, speed, bone density and mass...but because of sexism. And presumably it's exactly 10% sexism in running but 30% sexism in weightlifting and 160% sexism in boxing...but 0% sexism in super long endurance running. And it would be sexism that only starts at about age 12, since up until that age girls outperform boys in elite categories. So it's a special sort of sexism that only begins at puberty. There's a word for this in science, when an idea can't be substantiated with any consistent rationale and is entirely unfalsifiable: nonsense. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1