Current Events > Trans people have been allowed in the Olympics since 2003

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Thighon 02/08/21 10:13:34 AM #102:	Gwynevere posted... Imagine letting a novice user posting anti trans propaganda pieces with no reliable sources shit up this topic instead of just putting them on the block list Will CE ever learn? but he has to dunk on the alt! <cite>Thighon posted [p:950411954] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Gwynevere posted... </cite> <quote>Imagine letting a novice user posting anti trans propaganda pieces with no reliable sources shit up this topic instead of just putting them on the block list Will CE ever learn?</quote>but he has to dunk on the alt! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 10:14:59 AM #103:	Thighon posted... but he has to dunk on the alt! It's telling that people like you can only fight with assumptions, sarcasm, and insults. That makes you weak. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950411994] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Thighon posted... </cite> <quote>but he has to dunk on the alt!</quote> It's telling that people like you can only fight with assumptions, sarcasm, and insults. That makes you weak. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/08/21 10:17:36 AM #104:	pinky0926 posted... If I'm understanding you correctly, are you essentially arguing that physiology and talent are entirely irrelevant next to the pure resolve to win? Bro that's the plot of Bleach. That's not how elite sports works. Secondly are you suggesting we should sanction using performance enhancing drugs on otherwise healthy individuals so that they can win medals better? Lol It's not irrelevant but if you're at the top and you've exhausted every effort to win in training it's been shown time and time again that all testosorone can hope to do is push your mindset over the edge to the point you're willing to break yer body completely to win - it's basically fear removal combined with adrenaline from the moment itself logical posted... Determination is extremely important, but when it comes to roughhouse sports, physical prowess (strength, speed, skill) is what will almost always decide the outcome. I'm not saying that being a weak noodle and priming your mind to win is all you need since chances are if you're at that professional level already you probably are fit and have been training for a win anyway >_> the level of competition we know of wasn't pushed further because men grew bigger - it was pushed because men resolve to this idea of playing to win at such a high level they're willing to break their bones or limbs just to win at the championship level that's definitely not something that comes from testosorone alone, that comes from the idea we've built up around testosterone that it can push you farther when in reality we've just convinced kids to grow up wanting to be like Superman whose impervious to any challenge I just think there's more here than stats on paper --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950412076] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>If I'm understanding you correctly, are you essentially arguing that physiology and talent are entirely irrelevant next to the pure resolve to win? Bro that's the plot of Bleach. That's not how elite sports works. Secondly are you suggesting we should sanction using performance enhancing drugs on otherwise healthy individuals so that they can win medals better?</quote> Lol It's not irrelevant but if you're at the top and you've exhausted every effort to win in training it's been shown time and time again that all testosorone can hope to do is push your mindset over the edge to the point you're willing to break yer body completely to win - it's basically fear removal combined with adrenaline from the moment itself logical posted... </cite> <quote>Determination is extremely important, but when it comes to roughhouse sports, physical prowess (strength, speed, skill) is what will almost always decide the outcome.</quote> I'm not saying that being a weak noodle and priming your mind to win is all you need since chances are if you're at that professional level already you probably are fit and have been training for a win anyway >_> the level of competition we know of wasn't pushed further because men grew bigger - it was pushed because men resolve to this idea of playing to win at such a high level they're willing to break their bones or limbs just to win at the championship level that's definitely not something that comes from testosorone alone, that comes from the idea we've built up around testosterone that it can push you farther when in reality we've just convinced kids to grow up wanting to be like Superman whose impervious to any challenge I just think there's more here than stats on paper </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 10:20:47 AM #105:	RedJackson posted... Lol It's not irrelevant but if you're at the top and you've exhausted every effort to win in training it's been shown time and time again that all testosorone can hope to do is push your mindset over the edge to the point you're willing to break yer body completely to win - it's basically fear removal combined with adrenaline from the moment itself Ok. Please explain then with your model why there is not a single female in the history of athletics who has even entered into the top 3000-4000 of men's track times. Presumably since testosterone isn't that big of a deal and it's just the resolve to win that gets people medals, can you explain why in every event women are 10% slower than men? Following this idea, are women just...10% less motivated than men? Are you seriously suggesting that in the history of athletics there's just not been even a single woman ever on the planet who would push herself to the limit like men can? Really? --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950412155] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>Lol It's not irrelevant but if you're at the top and you've exhausted every effort to win in training it's been shown time and time again that all testosorone can hope to do is push your mindset over the edge to the point you're willing to break yer body completely to win - it's basically fear removal combined with adrenaline from the moment itself</quote> Ok. Please explain then with your model why there is not a single female in the history of athletics who has even entered into the top 3000-4000 of men's track times. Presumably since testosterone isn't that big of a deal and it's just the resolve to win that gets people medals, can you explain why in every event women are 10% slower than men? Following this idea, are women just...10% less motivated than men? Are you seriously suggesting that in the history of athletics there's just not been even a single woman ever on the planet who would push herself to the limit like men can? Really? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 10:21:17 AM #106:	RedJackson posted... I'm not saying that being a weak noodle and priming your mind to win is all you need since chances are if you're at that professional level already you probably are fit and have been training for a win anyway >_> the level of competition we know of wasn't pushed further because men grew bigger - it was pushed because men resolve to this idea of playing to win at such a high level they're willing to break their bones or limbs just to win at the championship level that's definitely not something that comes from testosorone alone, that comes from the idea we've built up around testosterone that it can push you farther when in reality we've just convinced kids to grow up wanting to be like Superman whose impervious to any challenge I just think there's more here than stats on paper You may be right. That's definitely an idea worth exploring. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950412166] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>I'm not saying that being a weak noodle and priming your mind to win is all you need since chances are if you're at that professional level already you probably are fit and have been training for a win anyway >_> the level of competition we know of wasn't pushed further because men grew bigger - it was pushed because men resolve to this idea of playing to win at such a high level they're willing to break their bones or limbs just to win at the championship level that's definitely not something that comes from testosorone alone, that comes from the idea we've built up around testosterone that it can push you farther when in reality we've just convinced kids to grow up wanting to be like Superman whose impervious to any challenge I just think there's more here than stats on paper</quote> You may be right. That's definitely an idea worth exploring. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/08/21 10:28:41 AM #107:	pinky0926 posted... Ok. Please explain then with your model why there is not a single female in the history of athletics who has even entered into the top 3000-4000 of men's track times. Presumably since testosterone isn't that big of a deal and it's just the resolve to win that gets people medals, can you explain why in every event women are 10% slower than men? Following this idea, are women just...10% less motivated than men? Women are 10% slower than men and less motivated by men because we currently exclude a group of women who can actually skew those numbers if you really want me to work off of that sensationalist premise Act like all those track times are the result of testosterone alone, not months of training - not the implied standard of achievement because we think that 'alright for men this is the time for beat and for WOMEN this is the time to beat' If you're going to factor in testosterone at least factor in reality itself because this is what I mean by 'stats on paper' --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950412359] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>Ok. Please explain then with your model why there is not a single female in the history of athletics who has even entered into the top 3000-4000 of men's track times. Presumably since testosterone isn't that big of a deal and it's just the resolve to win that gets people medals, can you explain why in every event women are 10% slower than men? Following this idea, are women just...10% less motivated than men?</quote> Women are 10% slower than men and less motivated by men because we currently exclude a group of women who can actually skew those numbers if you really want me to work off of that sensationalist premise Act like all those track times are the result of testosterone alone, not months of training - not the implied standard of achievement because we think that 'alright for men this is the time for beat and for WOMEN this is the time to beat' If you're going to factor in testosterone at least factor in reality itself because this is what I mean by 'stats on paper' </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Proto_Spark 02/08/21 10:32:26 AM #108:	logical posted... So are you saying that the information relayed in the video is untrue? Because there's a difference between "this person has a bias that I disagree with" and "this person is objectively incorrect". If the person is objectively incorrect (the only thing I care about), then I'll dig deeper. Moreso the video is entirely based on one study that is incredibly flawed and biased, to the extent that taking any conclusions from said study is intellectually dishonest. Its possible the video isn't objectively incorrect, but it being a non-peer-reviewed study from a TERF with cherry picked data to make it look like she worked backwards to justify her own conclusions isn't good enough. pinky0926 posted... True. I'm having a look at these papers in the comments. Am I correct with this one that it suggests that bone mass and density is preserved in the first 1-2 years of transitioning? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25377496/ Anyway, my takeaway here is that if transitioning after X amount of time removes any perceived "male" performance advantage, then there's no argument anymore to be had. That amount of time (X) would be the marker that should be where MTF athletes compete in the female category, in my view. I just don't think self-ID alone works for sport. This was my takeaway as well, the real controversy seems to be exactly where to put the line of where "X" should be. Although its worth taking note of most sports do not rely on self ID-ing. You can't just say "I'm a woman now" and compete in the women's divisions, its never been that acceptable. I would completely agree that self-ID isn't good enough for competitive sports. But that's not the situation we have now. I don't think there's any risk of MTF athletes dominating womens sport. Nor do I think there even will be many. Nor do I think that people are transitioning for the purpose of winning medals, that one is the most ridiculous of the lot. But I do think it's very reasonable to consider that at the top level of sport elite athletes (you know, those guys who cheat all the damn time) could easily abuse a well-meaning policy if its not carefully constructed. If elite athletes will risk their health and their credibility to take performance enhancing drugs to win medals, I don't think it's unfeasible that they would abuse a system like this to do so. I.e. a cis athlete could use a loose policy guideline to win in a category they have a better chance in. And I also think if sports have a welfare concern (like rugby seems to), they need to be very, very sure. In these cases it would need to have better regulations, I'd agree with that. Although in order to compete at a competitive level, you need year(s) of intervention, such as HRT. And given how much something like HRT can drastically affect your body (permanently) I really don't think that many athletes would be willing to make that kind of sacrifice, just for a chance to dominate a different division. <cite>Proto_Spark posted [p:950412461] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>So are you saying that the information relayed in the video is untrue? Because there's a difference between "this person has a bias that I disagree with" and "this person is objectively incorrect". If the person is objectively incorrect (the only thing I care about), then I'll dig deeper.</quote> Moreso the video is entirely based on one study that is incredibly flawed and biased, to the extent that taking any conclusions from said study is intellectually dishonest. Its possible the video isn't objectively incorrect, but it being a non-peer-reviewed study from a TERF with cherry picked data to make it look like she worked backwards to justify her own conclusions isn't good enough. pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>True. I'm having a look at these papers in the comments. Am I correct with this one that it suggests that bone mass and density is preserved in the first 1-2 years of transitioning? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25377496/ Anyway, my takeaway here is that if transitioning after X amount of time removes any perceived "male" performance advantage, then there's no argument anymore to be had. That amount of time (X) would be the marker that should be where MTF athletes compete in the female category, in my view. I just don't think self-ID alone works for sport. </quote> This was my takeaway as well, the real controversy seems to be exactly where to put the line of where "X" should be. Although its worth taking note of most sports do not rely on self ID-ing. You can't just say "I'm a woman now" and compete in the women's divisions, its never been that acceptable. I would completely agree that self-ID isn't good enough for competitive sports. But that's not the situation we have now. <quote>I don't think there's any risk of MTF athletes dominating womens sport. Nor do I think there even will be many. Nor do I think that people are transitioning for the purpose of winning medals, that one is the most ridiculous of the lot. But I do think it's very reasonable to consider that at the top level of sport elite athletes (you know, those guys who cheat all the damn time) could easily abuse a well-meaning policy if its not carefully constructed. If elite athletes will risk their health and their credibility to take performance enhancing drugs to win medals, I don't think it's unfeasible that they would abuse a system like this to do so. I.e. a cis athlete could use a loose policy guideline to win in a category they have a better chance in. And I also think if sports have a welfare concern (like rugby seems to), they need to be very, very sure.</quote> In these cases it would need to have better regulations, I'd agree with that. Although in order to compete at a competitive level, you need year(s) of intervention, such as HRT. And given how much something like HRT can drastically affect your body (permanently) I really don't think that many athletes would be willing to make that kind of sacrifice, just for a chance to dominate a different division. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 10:33:35 AM #109:	Proto_Spark posted... Moreso the video is entirely based on one study that is incredibly flawed and biased, to the extent that taking any conclusions from said study is intellectually dishonest. Its possible the video isn't objectively incorrect, but it being a non-peer-reviewed study from a TERF with cherry picked data to make it look like she worked backwards to justify her own conclusions isn't good enough. Fair enough. I'll look into that. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950412489] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Proto_Spark posted... </cite> <quote>Moreso the video is entirely based on one study that is incredibly flawed and biased, to the extent that taking any conclusions from said study is intellectually dishonest. Its possible the video isn't objectively incorrect, but it being a non-peer-reviewed study from a TERF with cherry picked data to make it look like she worked backwards to justify her own conclusions isn't good enough.</quote> Fair enough. I'll look into that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 10:41:55 AM #110:	RedJackson posted... Women are 10% slower than men and less motivated by men because we currently exclude a group of women who can actually skew those numbers if you really want me to work off of that sensationalist premise And why can they skew those numbers again? What is the reason it is believed they might skew those numbers? Act like all those track times are the result of testosterone alone, not months of training - not the implied standard of achievement because we think that 'alright for men this is the time for beat and for WOMEN this is the time to beat' If you're going to factor in testosterone at least factor in reality itself because this is what I mean by 'stats on paper' There is not a single model and nore have I or should anyone be making an argument to say that testosterone alone is all you need to win at sports. This is a ridiculously reductive strawman. What is being said is that once you have an elite athlete who has ALL The advantages to compete at an elite level, testosterone provides an extra 10% performance advantage that is insurmountable for the group that doesn't enjoy that advantage. I'm saying that when you look at the lineup for an elite sporting event - such as the 100m Olympics - you're looking at a set of people so remarkable in all the aspects that make someone good at that event that they've managed to rise above an extraordinarily large selection pool of competition. In other words, any inefficiencies or weaknesses have been ironed out already. There is nobody in that lineup who is missing any of the qualities that are advantageous to running. They have the physiology, the training, diet, mindset, everything. This goes for both the top females and males. The difference between who came 1st place and who came 5th isn't that one person only had X quality but the other person had X and Y. It would be more accurate to say thatt the difference is that each of them had extraordinary amounts of A right through to Z but that one person had 0.5% less of Y. The margins are really that close. But - and this is the big but - testosterone provides an advantage (androgenisation) only to one of those groups (males). This advantage occurs in a 10% performance difference. You cannot win in elite sports if you are not getting a factor that others in the same elite group are getting that allows for a 10% difference (assuming we put males and females into the same group). that's all there is to it. Any other ideas like motivation or training or diet are completely irrelevant at that level, because every single competitor already has it all in spades. If this is not true, then you need to come up for another explanation as to why the best female athletes in history are unable to compete anywhere close to the top male level. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950412693] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>Women are 10% slower than men and less motivated by men because we currently exclude a group of women who can actually skew those numbers if you really want me to work off of that sensationalist premise</quote> And why can they skew those numbers again? What is the reason it is believed they might skew those numbers? <quote> Act like all those track times are the result of testosterone alone, not months of training - not the implied standard of achievement because we think that 'alright for men this is the time for beat and for WOMEN this is the time to beat' If you're going to factor in testosterone at least factor in reality itself because this is what I mean by 'stats on paper'</quote> There is not a single model and nore have I or should anyone be making an argument to say that testosterone alone is all you need to win at sports. This is a ridiculously reductive strawman. What is being said is that once you have an elite athlete who has ALL The advantages to compete at an elite level, testosterone provides an extra 10% performance advantage that is insurmountable for the group that doesn't enjoy that advantage. I'm saying that when you look at the lineup for an elite sporting event - such as the 100m Olympics - you're looking at a set of people so remarkable in all the aspects that make someone good at that event that they've managed to rise above an extraordinarily large selection pool of competition. In other words, any inefficiencies or weaknesses have been ironed out already. There is nobody in that lineup who is missing any of the qualities that are advantageous to running. They have the physiology, the training, diet, mindset, everything. This goes for both the top females and males. The difference between who came 1st place and who came 5th isn't that one person only had X quality but the other person had X and Y. It would be more accurate to say thatt the difference is that each of them had extraordinary amounts of A right through to Z but that one person had 0.5% less of Y. The margins are really that close. But - and this is the big but - testosterone provides an advantage (androgenisation) only to one of those groups (males). This advantage occurs in a 10% performance difference. You cannot win in elite sports if you are not getting a factor that others in the same elite group are getting that allows for a 10% difference (assuming we put males and females into the same group). that's all there is to it. Any other ideas like motivation or training or diet are completely irrelevant at that level, because every single competitor already has it all in spades. If this is not true, then you need to come up for another explanation as to why the best female athletes in history are unable to compete anywhere close to the top male level. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 10:50:56 AM #111:	Proto_Spark posted... This was my takeaway as well, the real controversy seems to be exactly where to put the line of where "X" should be. Although its worth taking note of most sports do not rely on self ID-ing. You can't just say "I'm a woman now" and compete in the women's divisions, its never been that acceptable. I would completely agree that self-ID isn't good enough for competitive sports. But that's not the situation we have now. Yeah agreed. I heard one scientist say the issue is that we don't exactly have a neat index for T like we do for say, insulin. And even if we did, where to drop the pin is difficult scientifically and ethically. You'd basically be saying "congratulations, you are X female enough to compete". It's a mess. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950412974] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Proto_Spark posted... </cite> <quote>This was my takeaway as well, the real controversy seems to be exactly where to put the line of where "X" should be. Although its worth taking note of most sports do not rely on self ID-ing. You can't just say "I'm a woman now" and compete in the women's divisions, its never been that acceptable. I would completely agree that self-ID isn't good enough for competitive sports. But that's not the situation we have now. </quote> Yeah agreed. I heard one scientist say the issue is that we don't exactly have a neat index for T like we do for say, insulin. And even if we did, where to drop the pin is difficult scientifically and ethically. You'd basically be saying "congratulations, you are X female enough to compete". It's a mess. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/08/21 11:18:19 AM #112:	pinky0926 posted... There is not a single model and nore have I or should anyone be making an argument to say that testosterone alone is all you need to win at sports. This is a ridiculously reductive strawman. Essentially your argument amounts to that so I addressed it as such lol pinky0926 posted... You cannot win in elite sports if you are not getting a factor that others in the same elite group are getting that allows for a 10% difference (assuming we put males and females into the same group). that's all there is to it. Any other ideas like motivation or training or diet are completely irrelevant at that level, because every single competitor already has it all in spades. 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? Just not a great measuring stick 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 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 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 --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950413858] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>There is not a single model and nore have I or should anyone be making an argument to say that testosterone alone is all you need to win at sports. This is a ridiculously reductive strawman.</quote> Essentially your argument amounts to that so I addressed it as such lol pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>You cannot win in elite sports if you are not getting a factor that others in the same elite group are getting that allows for a 10% difference (assuming we put males and females into the same group). that's all there is to it. Any other ideas like motivation or training or diet are completely irrelevant at that level, because every single competitor already has it all in spades.</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? Just not a great measuring stick 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 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 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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 02/08/21 11:18:43 AM #113:	logical posted... Posts 66 & 68 are full of facts, data, and sources. Youre just a selective observer. Post 66 is a collection of blurry images with no linked source. Post 68 is an unsourced YouTube video. You're wrong. <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:950413871] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>Posts 66 & 68 are full of facts, data, and sources. Youre just a selective observer.</quote> Post 66 is a collection of blurry images with no linked source. Post 68 is an unsourced YouTube video. You're wrong. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
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. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/08/21 12:37:47 PM #115:	pinky0926 posted... 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. 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+. 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. 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? 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. That advantage IS assumed - at no point in these studies is there an actual test of whether or not testosterone is the deciding factor in a win or simply a persons determination to succeed Strong evidence albeit, but nothing conclusive or really even anything that has shown to take absolutely everything that COULD mitigate that 10% difference down - there's absolutely none of that in the articles or videos proposed here.. basically that tells me most of these studies are just relying on nobody saying 'but what about this factor or that factor'. They didn't even bother to go as far as to test variances in things like that. Nothings worse than when someone says 'he's going to win because his arm length is longer than the other guy' - overconfidence is something that has led to men losing in whatever gambles they make but that's not something you can quantify or factor in your studies either Basically my argument is this: Your study is so loose, and only looks at one specific factor and on top that doesn't even include a history of women AND men intermingling in a sport. What kind of study is that? >_> I mean this is your science at work here: You claim men have the advantage and didn't even bother to actually test it out - you pointed to completely different implied benchmarks of accepted standards to where we believe the female and male achievement score is and decided and then tried to sensationalize that to the classic reddit: so youre saying women are just lazy and then said 'yep' lol --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950416564] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <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. 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+. 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. 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? 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.</quote> That advantage IS assumed - at no point in these studies is there an actual test of whether or not testosterone is the deciding factor in a win or simply a persons determination to succeed Strong evidence albeit, but nothing conclusive or really even anything that has shown to take absolutely everything that COULD mitigate that 10% difference down - there's absolutely none of that in the articles or videos proposed here.. basically that tells me most of these studies are just relying on nobody saying 'but what about this factor or that factor'. They didn't even bother to go as far as to test variances in things like that. Nothings worse than when someone says 'he's going to win because his arm length is longer than the other guy' - overconfidence is something that has led to men losing in whatever gambles they make but that's not something you can quantify or factor in your studies either Basically my argument is this: Your study is so loose, and only looks at one specific factor and on top that doesn't even include a history of women AND men intermingling in a sport. What kind of study is that? >_> I mean this is your science at work here: You claim men have the advantage and didn't even bother to actually test it out - you pointed to completely different implied benchmarks of accepted standards to where we believe the female and male achievement score is and decided and then tried to sensationalize that to the classic reddit: so youre saying women are just lazy and then said 'yep' lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 12:54:04 PM #116:	RedJackson posted... That advantage IS assumed - at no point in these studies is there an actual test of whether or not testosterone is the deciding factor in a win or simply a persons determination to succeed No one is making the argument that testosterone is the deciding factor in a given race. The argument is that testosterone creates the potential advantage that ultimately results in a huge performance difference between the male/female categories of which there is no overlap in the top range. The argument is that since one group gets this advantage and the other does not, it is an unfair advantage, especially considering its size. And no one has found any other factors that explain this difference, especially since elite female athletes are homogenous with elite male athletes except for this. Saying "there is no studies" suggests you haven't read any of the literature on the topic, to be honest. There are entire fields of research that catalogue the difference in male and female sports physiology. The part where evidence is weak is on trans athletes in particular, but that's a different topic to the one we're discussing right now. Basically, we have a pretty good model for all of this stuff. It follows known scientific principles, it can predict with accuracy, it is reasoned out and evidence based. What you're suggesting isn't even a model. It predicts nothing, it can't be falsified, it can't be tested. It's just a vague idea with no consistent rationale. How you can argue therefore that it is more certainly the explanation is a mystery to me. Eitherway, the burden of proof is on you. Strong evidence albeit, but nothing conclusive or really even anything that has shown to take absolutely everything that COULD mitigate that 10% difference down - there's absolutely none of that in the articles or videos proposed here.. basically that tells me most of these studies are just relying on nobody saying 'but what about this factor or that factor' If I'm understanding you, you're saying that no one in the history of sports science has done any good science on male/female biological differences because in this one topic on gamefaqs you're not sure about the links someone posted? About how science works, to clarify one key point: the objective is not to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. This is science, not law. The objective is to come up with a falsifiable model that can predict and explain phenomena and come up with the most likely explanation. And yes, that has been done. We understand well the difference in male/female sports. It's naive of you to think sports scientists aren't examining and adjusting for all of these factors. Nothings worse than when someone says 'he's going to win because his arm length is longer than the other guy' - overconfidence is something that has led to men losing in whatever gambles they make but that's not something you can quantify or factor in your studies either Again, this argument has nothing to do with selecting individuals or predicting winners based on a single physiological factor. It is about determining if something is an advantage and then determining how much potential for advantage it creates. Sports is good this way because we know with the reference group that all of the other factors that need to be accommodated for already have been. You do not find elite athletes who only have "some" of the advantages. At the top level, they have all of them. The point is that male/female is divided on testosterone alone. So we now have two groups that are homogenous in every factor, except one: testosterone. Now there's your science experiment. Basically my argument is this: Your study is so loose, and only looks at specific factors and on top that doesn't even include a history of women AND men intermingling in a sport. What kind of study is that? >_> Which study are you talking about? Are you confusing me with the other guy? I mean this is your science at work here: You claim men have the advantage and didn't even bother to actually test it out - you pointed to completely different implied benchmarks of accepted standards to where we believe the female and male achievement score is and decided and then tried to sensationalize that to the classic reddit: so youre saying women are just lazy and then said 'yep' lol I don't need to claim men have the advantage at all. Men outperform women in every category of sport by an enormous margin. That is the established phenomena. So explain the phenomena. Because the only difference in the male/female category that we've been able to establish is the single difference that creates those categories in the first place: sex. Do you see what I mean? Sports is already a scientific experiment. It is a huge study on an enormous population of literally tens of thousands of individuals, and with the male/female division we've effectively created an A/B test. We test their performance together and then we create a division in sex to see how those groups compare. Even better, we've performed that experiment across so many different sports events, age groups, weight classes, and so on. All of the other factors that contribute to performance have been tested and controlled for. And the results for the difference in sex: both enormous and consistent. This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is not an important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage. If you don't think it's correct then provide a better model. Do a test or find a study that compares groups where one group experienced more/less sexism and how that affects athletic performance. I'm sure it has an affect, but not quite like this. But that's on you. While you're at it, explain why anabolic steroids improve performance so much that they're banned in all competitive sports, and then ask yourself what anabolic steroids are. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950417102] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>That advantage IS assumed - at no point in these studies is there an actual test of whether or not testosterone is the deciding factor in a win or simply a persons determination to succeed</quote> No one is making the argument that testosterone is the deciding factor in a given race. The argument is that testosterone creates the potential advantage that ultimately results in a huge performance difference between the male/female categories of which there is no overlap in the top range. The argument is that since one group gets this advantage and the other does not, it is an unfair advantage, especially considering its size. And no one has found any other factors that explain this difference, especially since elite female athletes are homogenous with elite male athletes except for this. Saying "there is no studies" suggests you haven't read any of the literature on the topic, to be honest. There are entire fields of research that catalogue the difference in male and female sports physiology. The part where evidence is weak is on trans athletes in particular, but that's a different topic to the one we're discussing right now. Basically, we have a pretty good model for all of this stuff. It follows known scientific principles, it can predict with accuracy, it is reasoned out and evidence based. What you're suggesting isn't even a model. It predicts nothing, it can't be falsified, it can't be tested. It's just a vague idea with no consistent rationale. How you can argue therefore that it is more certainly the explanation is a mystery to me. Eitherway, the burden of proof is on you. <quote> Strong evidence albeit, but nothing conclusive or really even anything that has shown to take absolutely everything that COULD mitigate that 10% difference down - there's absolutely none of that in the articles or videos proposed here.. basically that tells me most of these studies are just relying on nobody saying 'but what about this factor or that factor'</quote> If I'm understanding you, you're saying that no one in the history of sports science has done any good science on male/female biological differences because in this one topic on gamefaqs you're not sure about the links someone posted? About how science works, to clarify one key point: the objective is not to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. This is science, not law. The objective is to come up with a falsifiable model that can predict and explain phenomena and come up with the most likely explanation. And yes, that has been done. We understand well the difference in male/female sports. It's naive of you to think sports scientists aren't examining and adjusting for all of these factors. <quote>Nothings worse than when someone says 'he's going to win because his arm length is longer than the other guy' - overconfidence is something that has led to men losing in whatever gambles they make but that's not something you can quantify or factor in your studies either</quote> Again, this argument has nothing to do with selecting individuals or predicting winners based on a single physiological factor. It is about determining if something is an advantage and then determining how much potential for advantage it creates. Sports is good this way because we know with the reference group that all of the other factors that need to be accommodated for already have been. You do not find elite athletes who only have "some" of the advantages. At the top level, they have all of them. The point is that male/female is divided on testosterone alone. So we now have two groups that are homogenous in every factor, except one: testosterone. Now there's your science experiment. <quote> Basically my argument is this: Your study is so loose, and only looks at specific factors and on top that doesn't even include a history of women AND men intermingling in a sport. What kind of study is that? >_></quote> Which study are you talking about? Are you confusing me with the other guy? <quote> I mean this is your science at work here: You claim men have the advantage and didn't even bother to actually test it out - you pointed to completely different implied benchmarks of accepted standards to where we believe the female and male achievement score is and decided and then tried to sensationalize that to the classic reddit: so youre saying women are just lazy and then said 'yep' lol</quote> I don't need to claim men have the advantage at all. Men outperform women in every category of sport by an enormous margin. That is the established phenomena. So explain the phenomena. Because the only difference in the male/female category that we've been able to establish is the single difference that creates those categories in the first place: sex. Do you see what I mean? Sports is already a scientific experiment. It is a huge study on an enormous population of literally tens of thousands of individuals, and with the male/female division we've effectively created an A/B test. We test their performance together and then we create a division in sex to see how those groups compare. Even better, we've performed that experiment across so many different sports events, age groups, weight classes, and so on. All of the other factors that contribute to performance have been tested and controlled for. And the results for the difference in sex: both enormous and consistent. This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is not an important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage. If you don't think it's correct then provide a better model. Do a test or find a study that compares groups where one group experienced more/less sexism and how that affects athletic performance. I'm sure it has an affect, but not quite like this. But that's on you. While you're at it, explain why anabolic steroids improve performance so much that they're banned in all competitive sports, and then ask yourself what anabolic steroids are. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 1:14:34 PM #117:	Edit: This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is an* important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950417810] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>*Edit: This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is an important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/08/21 1:29:59 PM #118:	pinky0926 posted... Basically, we have a pretty good model for all of this stuff. It follows known scientific principles, it can predict with accuracy, it is reasoned out and evidence based. What you're suggesting isn't even a model. It predicts nothing, it can't be falsified, it can't be tested. It's just a vague idea with no consistent rationale. How you can argue therefore that it is more certainly the explanation is a mystery to me. Eitherway, the burden of proof is on you. I don't think it's a good model beyond simple givens like having an A/B test and the fact that there is a continuing betting pool - it's the ONLY thing we have and thus it's the only thing we roll with going forward lol Basically you lucked out pinky0926 posted... If I'm understanding you, you're saying that no one in the history of sports science has done any good science on male/female biological differences because in this one topic on gamefaqs you're not sure about the links someone posted? About how science works, to clarify one key point: the objective is not to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. This is science, not law. The objective is to come up with a falsifiable model that can predict and explain phenomena and come up with the most likely explanation. And yes, that has been done. We understand well the difference in male/female sports. It's naive of you to think sports scientists aren't examining and adjusting for all of these factors. Lol pinky0926 posted... That is the established phenomena. That is you taking results and putting them forth towards your argument - yes, the data is there as far as who does what better but as to whether or not it is ultimately TESTOSTERONE has yet to be decided. I mean, that really is my whole schpiel. pinky0926 posted... This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is not an important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage. It is filled with biased accounts, you know this and you're telling me the study is passable and acceptable enough lol The test IS here: it is including both genders in the same sport and checking the results thereof You say: we cannot allow this to happen because the established scientific premise deems it irrelevant to continue further testing Fooling around with scientific dogma is exactly the reason why no evidence exists to the contrary. Also again, whether or not HRT diminishes an advantage in a vacuum is different from calculating an advantage AFTER you factor ALL of the advantages and disadvantages. You seem to be stopping at getting results and then throwing up your hands and saying 'well this is close enough' lol There is no test of this yet lol there is literature to corroborate in two vacuums but not to conclusively prove in any meaningful way when you consider the real reality of how people have grown up into the world of sports.. science is great for reproduceable results, none of that is found in an area where nothing has been produced --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950418353] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>Basically, we have a pretty good model for all of this stuff. It follows known scientific principles, it can predict with accuracy, it is reasoned out and evidence based. What you're suggesting isn't even a model. It predicts nothing, it can't be falsified, it can't be tested. It's just a vague idea with no consistent rationale. How you can argue therefore that it is more certainly the explanation is a mystery to me. Eitherway, the burden of proof is on you.</quote> I don't think it's a good model beyond simple givens like having an A/B test and the fact that there is a continuing betting pool - it's the ONLY thing we have and thus it's the only thing we roll with going forward lol Basically you lucked out pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>If I'm understanding you, you're saying that no one in the history of sports science has done any good science on male/female biological differences because in this one topic on gamefaqs you're not sure about the links someone posted? About how science works, to clarify one key point: the objective is not to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. This is science, not law. The objective is to come up with a falsifiable model that can predict and explain phenomena and come up with the most likely explanation. And yes, that has been done. We understand well the difference in male/female sports. It's naive of you to think sports scientists aren't examining and adjusting for all of these factors.</quote> Lol pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>That is the established phenomena.</quote> That is you taking results and putting them forth towards your argument - yes, the data is there as far as who does what better but as to whether or not it is ultimately TESTOSTERONE has yet to be decided. I mean, that really is my whole schpiel. pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>This is pure gaslighting on your part at this point. It's absolutely not up to me to establish that sex is not an important factor in sports performance. That is already the established scientific consensus. The only thing others are arguing about (and that is a genuine point of contention) is whether HRT diminishes the advantage.</quote> It is filled with biased accounts, you know this and you're telling me the study is passable and acceptable enough lol The test IS here: it is including both genders in the same sport and checking the results thereof You say: we cannot allow this to happen because the established scientific premise deems it irrelevant to continue further testing Fooling around with scientific dogma is exactly the reason why no evidence exists to the contrary. Also again, whether or not HRT diminishes an advantage in a vacuum is different from calculating an advantage AFTER you factor ALL of the advantages and disadvantages. You seem to be stopping at getting results and then throwing up your hands and saying 'well this is close enough' lol There is no test of this yet lol there is literature to corroborate in two vacuums but not to conclusively prove in any meaningful way when you consider the real reality of how people have grown up into the world of sports.. science is great for reproduceable results, none of that is found in an area where nothing has been produced </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 02/08/21 1:33:54 PM #119:	"But there haven't been any trans people in the Olympics" Hmm it's weird that they haven't qualified since there are apparently so many people that would claim to be women just to win all the women's sports. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:950418482] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>"But there haven't been any trans people in the Olympics" Hmm it's weird that they haven't qualified since there are apparently so many people that would claim to be women just to win all the women's sports. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CanuckCowboy 02/08/21 1:37:31 PM #120:	Its not the olympics but there's this good who identified as female for like a day so he could snatch the women's weight lifting record. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapper-zuby-identifies-as-female-to-smash-weightlifting-record-98b7086ml Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against anything in this topic... its just a thing this one dude did and clearly he had no interested in actually transitioning and I dobt think he did any hormone therapy or anything either. --- "A dope trailers no place for a kitty, Ricky. Thats why." https://files.catbox.moe/gqwlkg.jpeg ~ by JimCarrysToe. Be amaze. <cite>CanuckCowboy posted [p:950418597] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Its not the olympics but there's this good who identified as female for like a day so he could snatch the women's weight lifting record. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapper-zuby-identifies-as-female-to-smash-weightlifting-record-98b7086ml Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against anything in this topic... its just a thing this one dude did and clearly he had no interested in actually transitioning and I dobt think he did any hormone therapy or anything either. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InhumaneRaider 02/08/21 1:39:55 PM #121:	hockeybub89 posted... "But there haven't been any trans people in the Olympics" Hmm it's weird that they haven't qualified since there are apparently so many people that would claim to be women just to win all the women's sports. It's funny, there's trans athletes who rank low in their respective sport league, OFTEN, however, it's not headline worthy, so no one cares. As I said, people who argue this on the basis of Trans Athletes dominating sports, would make the same argument to exclude Black people from running sports. --- The War on Christmas begins now, comrades! Load up the Acai refreshers! Cash the Soros checks! Communism is free drink refills, nothing else. <cite>InhumaneRaider posted [p:950418669] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>hockeybub89 posted... </cite> <quote>"But there haven't been any trans people in the Olympics" Hmm it's weird that they haven't qualified since there are apparently so many people that would claim to be women just to win all the women's sports.</quote>It's funny, there's trans athletes who rank low in their respective sport league, OFTEN, however, it's not headline worthy, so no one cares. As I said, people who argue this on the basis of Trans Athletes dominating sports, would make the same argument to exclude Black people from running sports. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InhumaneRaider 02/08/21 1:40:57 PM #122:	CanuckCowboy posted... Its not the olympics but there's this good who identified as female for like a day so he could snatch the women's weight lifting record. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapper-zuby-identifies-as-female-to-smash-weightlifting-record-98b7086ml Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against anything in this topic... its just a thing this one dude did and clearly he had no interested in actually transitioning and I dobt think he did any hormone therapy or anything either. Speaking to several trans people, one I work with as well, HRT just tells your muscles to basically "get out of here". --- The War on Christmas begins now, comrades! Load up the Acai refreshers! Cash the Soros checks! Communism is free drink refills, nothing else. <cite>InhumaneRaider posted [p:950418697] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>CanuckCowboy posted... </cite> <quote>Its not the olympics but there's this good who identified as female for like a day so he could snatch the women's weight lifting record. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapper-zuby-identifies-as-female-to-smash-weightlifting-record-98b7086ml Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against anything in this topic... its just a thing this one dude did and clearly he had no interested in actually transitioning and I dobt think he did any hormone therapy or anything either.</quote>Speaking to several trans people, one I work with as well, HRT just tells your muscles to basically "get out of here". </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/08/21 2:15:55 PM #123:	RedJackson posted... I don't think it's a good model beyond simple givens like having an A/B test and the fact that there is a continuing betting pool - it's the ONLY thing we have and thus it's the only thing we roll with going forward lol Basically you lucked out Lol That is you taking results and putting them forth towards your argument - yes, the data is there as far as who does what better but as to whether or not it is ultimately TESTOSTERONE has yet to be decided. I mean, that really is my whole schpiel. It is filled with biased accounts, you know this and you're telling me the study is passable and acceptable enough lol The test IS here: it is including both genders in the same sport and checking the results thereof You say: we cannot allow this to happen because the established scientific premise deems it irrelevant to continue further testing Fooling around with scientific dogma is exactly the reason why no evidence exists to the contrary. Also again, whether or not HRT diminishes an advantage in a vacuum is different from calculating an advantage AFTER you factor ALL of the advantages and disadvantages. You seem to be stopping at getting results and then throwing up your hands and saying 'well this is close enough' lol There is no test of this yet lol there is literature to corroborate in two vacuums but not to conclusively prove in any meaningful way when you consider the real reality of how people have grown up into the world of sports.. science is great for reproduceable results, none of that is found in an area where nothing has been produced This entire mess basically can be reduced to "well it's all complicated and there are many factors, so who knows for sure". If that's as lazy as we want to be then sure, I guess we could say we don't really know anything for sure. The point is that your idea (presumably that sexism is the primary factor in sports performance difference between male/female) is an even less well established idea. Much less so. So provide a model. Something. Anything. It would have to be so robust that it would overwhelm the known physiological difference in secondary sex development and how they contribute to every factor in sports performance. In lieu of that, we have to go with what we've established with more clarity. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950419910] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>I don't think it's a good model beyond simple givens like having an A/B test and the fact that there is a continuing betting pool - it's the ONLY thing we have and thus it's the only thing we roll with going forward lol Basically you lucked out Lol That is you taking results and putting them forth towards your argument - yes, the data is there as far as who does what better but as to whether or not it is ultimately TESTOSTERONE has yet to be decided. I mean, that really is my whole schpiel. It is filled with biased accounts, you know this and you're telling me the study is passable and acceptable enough lol The test IS here: it is including both genders in the same sport and checking the results thereof You say: we cannot allow this to happen because the established scientific premise deems it irrelevant to continue further testing Fooling around with scientific dogma is exactly the reason why no evidence exists to the contrary. Also again, whether or not HRT diminishes an advantage in a vacuum is different from calculating an advantage AFTER you factor ALL of the advantages and disadvantages. You seem to be stopping at getting results and then throwing up your hands and saying 'well this is close enough' lol There is no test of this yet lol there is literature to corroborate in two vacuums but not to conclusively prove in any meaningful way when you consider the real reality of how people have grown up into the world of sports.. science is great for reproduceable results, none of that is found in an area where nothing has been produced</quote> This entire mess basically can be reduced to "well it's all complicated and there are many factors, so who knows for sure". If that's as lazy as we want to be then sure, I guess we could say we don't really know anything for sure. The point is that your idea (presumably that sexism is the primary factor in sports performance difference between male/female) is an even less well established idea. Much less so. So provide a model. Something. Anything. It would have to be so robust that it would overwhelm the known physiological difference in secondary sex development and how they contribute to every factor in sports performance. In lieu of that, we have to go with what we've established with more clarity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 2:47:05 PM #124:	TheOtherMike posted... Post 66 is a collection of blurry images with no linked source. Post 68 is an unsourced YouTube video. You're wrong. Post 66 has a whole list of sources in the final image, and the video in post 68 literally has this in the description: "Main source: [1] Hilton, E., Lundberg, T. (2020). Transgender women in the female category of sport--Perspectives on testosterone suppression and performance advantage. Sports Medicine. Sex difference sources: [2] Lee DH, Keum N, Hu FB et al. (2017). Development and validation of anthropometric prediction equations for lean body mass, fat mass and percent fat in adults using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2006. Br J Nutr., 118(10):858866. [3] Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R. (2000). Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J Appl Physiol. 89(1):8188. [4] Bohannon RW, Wang YC, Yen SC, Grogan KA. (2019). Handgrip strength: A comparison of values obtained from the NHANES and NIH Toolbox studies. Am J Occup Ther. 73(2). [5] Neder JA, Nery LE, Shinzato GT, Andrade MS, Peres C, Silva AC. (1999). Reference values for concentric knee isokinetic strength and power in nonathletic men and women from 20 to 80 years old. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 29(2):116126. [6] Jantz LM, Jantz RL. (1999). Secular change in long bone length and proportion in the United States, 1800-1970. Am J Phys Anthropol. 110(1):5767. [7] Lepley AS, Joseph MF, Daigle NR et al. (2018). Sex differences in mechanical properties of the achilles tendon: Longitudinal response to repetitive loading exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 32(11):30703079. [8] Pate RR, Kriska A. (1984). Physiological Basis of the Sex Difference in Cardiorespiratory Endurance. Sport Med An Int J Appl Med Sci Sport Exerc. 1(2):8789. [9] Best SA, Okada Y, Galbreath MM et al. (2014). Age and sex differences in muscle sympathetic nerve activity in relation to haemodynamics, blood volume and left ventricular size. Exp Physiol. 99(6):839848. [10] Tong E, Murphy WG, Kinsella A et al. (2010). Capillary and venous haemoglobin levels in blood donors: a 42-month study of 36 258 paired samples. Vox Sang. 98(4):547553. Longitudinal studies: [11] Gooren LJG, Bunck MCM. (2004). Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 151(4):4259. [12] Haraldsen IR, Haug E, Falch J, Egeland T, Opjordsmoen S. (2007). Cross-sex pattern of bone mineral density in early onset gender identity disorder. Horm Behav. 52(3):334 343. [13] Mueller A, Zollver H, Kronawitter D et al. (2011). Body composition and bone mineral density in male-to-female transsexuals during cross-sex hormone therapy using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 119(2):95100. [14] Wierckx K, Van Caenegem E, Schreiner T et al. (2014). Cross-sex hormone therapy in trans persons is safe and effective at short-time follow-up: results from the European network for the investigation of gender incongruence. J Sex Med. 11(8):1999 2011. [15] Van Caenegem E, Wierckx K, Taes Y et al. (2015). Preservation of volumetric bone density and geometry in trans women during cross-sex hormonal therapy: a prospective observational study. Osteoporos Int. 26(1):3547. [16] Gava G, Cerpolini S, Martelli V, Battista G, Seracchioli R, Meriggiola MC. (2016). Cyproterone acetate vs leuprolide acetate in combination with transdermal oestradiol in transwomen: a comparison of safety and effectiveness. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 85(2):239246. [17] Auer MK, Ebert T, Pietzner M et al. (2018). Effects of Sex Hormone Treatment on the Metabolic Syndrome in Transgender Individuals: Focus on Metabolic Cytokines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 103(2):790802. [18] Klaver M, De Blok CJM, Wiepjes CM et al. (2018). Changes in regional body fat, lean body mass and body shape in trans persons using cross-sex hormonal therapy: Results from a multicenter prospective study. Eur J Endocrinol. 178(2):163171. [19] Fighera TM, da Silva E, Lindenau JDR, Spritzer PM. (2018). Impact of cross-sex hormone therapy on bone mineral density and body composition in transwomen. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 88(6):856-862. [20] Scharff M, Wiepjes CM, Klaver M, Schreiner T, TSjoen G, Heijer M Den. (2019). Change in grip strength in trans people and its association with lean body mass and bone density. Endocr Connect. 8(7):10201028. [21] Wiik A, Lundberg TR, Rullman E et al. (2020). Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 105(3):dgz247." This is the second time you've been extremely selective in your observations. Might you have a bias to confront? --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950421010] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>TheOtherMike posted... </cite> <quote>Post 66 is a collection of blurry images with no linked source. Post 68 is an unsourced YouTube video. You're wrong.</quote> Post 66 has a whole list of sources in the final image, and the video in post 68 literally has this in the description: "Main source: [1] Hilton, E., Lundberg, T. (2020). Transgender women in the female category of sport--Perspectives on testosterone suppression and performance advantage. Sports Medicine. Sex difference sources: [2] Lee DH, Keum N, Hu FB et al. (2017). Development and validation of anthropometric prediction equations for lean body mass, fat mass and percent fat in adults using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2006. Br J Nutr., 118(10):858866. [3] Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R. (2000). Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J Appl Physiol. 89(1):8188. [4] Bohannon RW, Wang YC, Yen SC, Grogan KA. (2019). Handgrip strength: A comparison of values obtained from the NHANES and NIH Toolbox studies. Am J Occup Ther. 73(2). [5] Neder JA, Nery LE, Shinzato GT, Andrade MS, Peres C, Silva AC. (1999). Reference values for concentric knee isokinetic strength and power in nonathletic men and women from 20 to 80 years old. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 29(2):116126. [6] Jantz LM, Jantz RL. (1999). Secular change in long bone length and proportion in the United States, 1800-1970. Am J Phys Anthropol. 110(1):5767. [7] Lepley AS, Joseph MF, Daigle NR et al. (2018). Sex differences in mechanical properties of the achilles tendon: Longitudinal response to repetitive loading exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 32(11):30703079. [8] Pate RR, Kriska A. (1984). Physiological Basis of the Sex Difference in Cardiorespiratory Endurance. Sport Med An Int J Appl Med Sci Sport Exerc. 1(2):8789. [9] Best SA, Okada Y, Galbreath MM et al. (2014). Age and sex differences in muscle sympathetic nerve activity in relation to haemodynamics, blood volume and left ventricular size. Exp Physiol. 99(6):839848. [10] Tong E, Murphy WG, Kinsella A et al. (2010). Capillary and venous haemoglobin levels in blood donors: a 42-month study of 36 258 paired samples. Vox Sang. 98(4):547553. Longitudinal studies: [11] Gooren LJG, Bunck MCM. (2004). Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 151(4):4259. [12] Haraldsen IR, Haug E, Falch J, Egeland T, Opjordsmoen S. (2007). Cross-sex pattern of bone mineral density in early onset gender identity disorder. Horm Behav. 52(3):334 343. [13] Mueller A, Zollver H, Kronawitter D et al. (2011). Body composition and bone mineral density in male-to-female transsexuals during cross-sex hormone therapy using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 119(2):95100. [14] Wierckx K, Van Caenegem E, Schreiner T et al. (2014). Cross-sex hormone therapy in trans persons is safe and effective at short-time follow-up: results from the European network for the investigation of gender incongruence. J Sex Med. 11(8):1999 2011. [15] Van Caenegem E, Wierckx K, Taes Y et al. (2015). Preservation of volumetric bone density and geometry in trans women during cross-sex hormonal therapy: a prospective observational study. Osteoporos Int. 26(1):3547. [16] Gava G, Cerpolini S, Martelli V, Battista G, Seracchioli R, Meriggiola MC. (2016). Cyproterone acetate vs leuprolide acetate in combination with transdermal oestradiol in transwomen: a comparison of safety and effectiveness. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 85(2):239246. [17] Auer MK, Ebert T, Pietzner M et al. (2018). Effects of Sex Hormone Treatment on the Metabolic Syndrome in Transgender Individuals: Focus on Metabolic Cytokines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 103(2):790802. [18] Klaver M, De Blok CJM, Wiepjes CM et al. (2018). Changes in regional body fat, lean body mass and body shape in trans persons using cross-sex hormonal therapy: Results from a multicenter prospective study. Eur J Endocrinol. 178(2):163171. [19] Fighera TM, da Silva E, Lindenau JDR, Spritzer PM. (2018). Impact of cross-sex hormone therapy on bone mineral density and body composition in transwomen. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 88(6):856-862. [20] Scharff M, Wiepjes CM, Klaver M, Schreiner T, TSjoen G, Heijer M Den. (2019). Change in grip strength in trans people and its association with lean body mass and bone density. Endocr Connect. 8(7):10201028. [21] Wiik A, Lundberg TR, Rullman E et al. (2020). Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 105(3):dgz247." This is the second time you've been extremely selective in your observations. Might you have a bias to confront? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 02/08/21 2:48:49 PM #125:	oh hey, this is still going on... to 500? --- Taarsidath-an halsaam. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:950421065] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>oh hey, this is still going on... to 500? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CouldBeAnAlt 02/08/21 2:51:59 PM #126:	monkmith posted... oh hey, this is still going on... Of course ce loves a chance to be transphobic <cite>CouldBeAnAlt posted [p:950421174] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>monkmith posted... </cite> <quote>oh hey, this is still going on...</quote>Of course ce loves a chance to be transphobic </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 02/08/21 3:44:50 PM #127:	logical posted... Might you have a bias to confront? No. I don't have an opinion on the subject. Might you? <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:950422806] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>Might you have a bias to confront?</quote> No. I don't have an opinion on the subject. Might you? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 5:09:55 PM #128:	TheOtherMike posted... No. I don't have an opinion on the subject. Your selective observations suggest otherwise. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950425554] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>TheOtherMike posted... </cite> <quote>No. I don't have an opinion on the subject.</quote> Your selective observations suggest otherwise. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 02/08/21 5:37:25 PM #129:	logical posted... Your selective observations suggest otherwise. I haven't "selectively observed" anything. I've observed everything you've presented and pointed out that they don't qualify as "sources." <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:950426450] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>Your selective observations suggest otherwise.</quote> I haven't "selectively observed" anything. I've observed everything you've presented and pointed out that they don't qualify as "sources." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/08/21 6:09:23 PM #130:	TheOtherMike posted... I haven't "selectively observed" anything. I've observed everything you've presented and pointed out that they don't qualify as "sources." They do. By every definition, they qualify as sources. You're just speaking out of your ass now. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950427396] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>TheOtherMike posted... </cite> <quote>I haven't "selectively observed" anything. I've observed everything you've presented and pointed out that they don't qualify as "sources."</quote> They do. By every definition, they qualify as sources. You're just speaking out of your ass now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 02/09/21 4:43:44 AM #131:	He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods --- tfw no big tiddy goth vampire gf who lactates blood - viewmaster_pi <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:950442038] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cookie Bag 02/09/21 4:58:42 AM #132:	Legit just block the ** noodle and wait till he shows up with another alt to excuse his transphobic ass with more half assed biased sources, not that hard. --- https://imgur.com/gGHBH0F https://imgur.com/rNfCKIS https://imgur.com/Fj3wSVn https://imgur.com/OoMcG77 <cite>Cookie Bag posted [p:950442193] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Legit just block the ** noodle and wait till he shows up with another alt to excuse his transphobic ass with more half assed biased sources, not that hard. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 12:34:58 PM #134:	gunplagirl posted... He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods Got any actual arguments yet, or still nothing to offer but "wow he's really going in on the wow he's really going wow he's really wow wow wow"? --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950451659] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>gunplagirl posted... </cite> <quote>He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods</quote> Got any actual arguments yet, or still nothing to offer but "wow he's really going in on the wow he's really going wow he's really wow wow wow"? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Thighon 02/09/21 12:35:42 PM #135:	gunplagirl posted... He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods I'm not allowed to imply anything bad about the mods so i'll just laugh with you Cookie Bag posted... Legit just block the ** noodle and wait till he shows up with another alt to excuse his transphobic ass with more half assed biased sources, not that hard. bUt i HaVE tO dUnk On tHeM <cite>Thighon posted [p:950451696] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>gunplagirl posted... </cite> <quote>He's really going all in on this and unsurprisingly lolmods</quote> I'm not allowed to imply anything bad about the mods so i'll just laugh with you Cookie Bag posted... </cite> <quote>Legit just block the ** noodle and wait till he shows up with another alt to excuse his transphobic ass with more half assed biased sources, not that hard.</quote>bUt i HaVE tO dUnk On tHeM </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RedJackson 02/09/21 12:45:58 PM #136:	pinky0926 posted... This entire mess basically can be reduced to "well it's all complicated and there are many factors, so who knows for sure". If that's as lazy as we want to be then sure, I guess we could say we don't really know anything for sure. The point is that your idea (presumably that sexism is the primary factor in sports performance difference between male/female) is an even less well established idea. Much less so. So provide a model. Something. Anything. It would have to be so robust that it would overwhelm the known physiological difference in secondary sex development and how they contribute to every factor in sports performance. In lieu of that, we have to go with what we've established with more clarity. Thats not lazy, science has literally reached the edge of the cliff at which theres nothing else left to do but actually preform the experiment A/B and no mix of the two to see if that makes a difference? Lol Its fantastic! to have a scientific method in which the actual experiment that needs to be conducted is not factored in the results --- https://imgur.com/e6aBSof - Pus_N_Pecans original! https://imgur.com/bve6U7T - Error1335 original! <cite>RedJackson posted [p:950452047] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>pinky0926 posted... </cite> <quote>This entire mess basically can be reduced to "well it's all complicated and there are many factors, so who knows for sure". If that's as lazy as we want to be then sure, I guess we could say we don't really know anything for sure. The point is that your idea (presumably that sexism is the primary factor in sports performance difference between male/female) is an even less well established idea. Much less so. So provide a model. Something. Anything. It would have to be so robust that it would overwhelm the known physiological difference in secondary sex development and how they contribute to every factor in sports performance. In lieu of that, we have to go with what we've established with more clarity.</quote> Thats not lazy, science has literally reached the edge of the cliff at which theres nothing else left to do but actually preform the experiment A/B and no mix of the two to see if that makes a difference? Lol Its fantastic! to have a scientific method in which the actual experiment that needs to be conducted is not factored in the results </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 1:09:50 PM #137:	So basically, this thread is divided into two types of people: users like me, Red, pinky, etc. who may not agree on everything, but are at least willing to have a discussion without resorting to intellectually lazy labels...and people like gunplagirl, Cookie, Mike, etc. who follow the Twitter philosophy of "I'm so self-righteous that I don't have to actually make a case for my argument; life only has good guys and bad guys, and I'm OBVIOUSLY the former!" What a sad, binary way to view the complex experience of the human condition, and all the nuanced interpretations that come with it. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950452818] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>So basically, this thread is divided into two types of people: users like me, Red, pinky, etc. who may not agree on everything, but are at least willing to have a discussion without resorting to intellectually lazy labels...and people like gunplagirl, Cookie, Mike, etc. who follow the Twitter philosophy of "I'm so self-righteous that I don't have to actually make a case for my argument; life only has good guys and bad guys, and I'm OBVIOUSLY the former!" What a sad, binary way to view the complex experience of the human condition, and all the nuanced interpretations that come with it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Atralis 02/09/21 1:23:10 PM #138:	The issue is that the 1000th best man in many sports is better than the best woman. If you made the sport unisex that would be the same thing in practice as making those sports cease to exist for women after puberty. Imagine if there was some race of humans out there that was literally twice as strong and 6 inches taller than the average man. Their sports teams are full of 500 pound 7 and a half foot tall giants that are bigger, stronger, faster, and have far stronger bones than regular men. Would you want to compete against them? What if they took some pills to make them merely 400 pounds of muscle and 7.5 feet tall? <cite>Atralis posted [p:950453313] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>The issue is that the 1000th best man in many sports is better than the best woman. If you made the sport unisex that would be the same thing in practice as making those sports cease to exist for women after puberty. Imagine if there was some race of humans out there that was literally twice as strong and 6 inches taller than the average man. Their sports teams are full of 500 pound 7 and a half foot tall giants that are bigger, stronger, faster, and have far stronger bones than regular men. Would you want to compete against them? What if they took some pills to make them merely 400 pounds of muscle and 7.5 feet tall? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 02/09/21 2:03:29 PM #139:	logical posted... and people like gunplagirl, Cookie, Mike, etc. who follow the Twitter philosophy of "I'm so self-righteous that I don't have to actually make a case for my argument; life only has good guys and bad guys, and I'm OBVIOUSLY the former!" I didn't present an argument. I literally said I don't have an opinion on the subject. Just because you don't know how sources work is no reason to get pissy at other users. Unbunch your panties. <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:950454774] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>and people like gunplagirl, Cookie, Mike, etc. who follow the Twitter philosophy of "I'm so self-righteous that I don't have to actually make a case for my argument; life only has good guys and bad guys, and I'm OBVIOUSLY the former!"</quote> I didn't present an argument. I literally said I don't have an opinion on the subject. Just because you don't know how sources work is no reason to get pissy at other users. Unbunch your panties. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 3:12:48 PM #140:	TheOtherMike posted... Just because you don't know how sources work is no reason to get pissy at other users. A source is a place--ideally one with credibility--from which information derives. My posts have sources. Learn what words mean. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950457374] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>TheOtherMike posted... </cite> <quote>Just because you don't know how sources work is no reason to get pissy at other users.</quote> A source is a place--ideally one with credibility--from which information derives. My posts have sources. Learn what words mean. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 3:14:22 PM #141:	Atralis posted... The issue is that the 1000th best man in many sports is better than the best woman. If you made the sport unisex that would be the same thing in practice as making those sports cease to exist for women after puberty. Imagine if there was some race of humans out there that was literally twice as strong and 6 inches taller than the average man. Their sports teams are full of 500 pound 7 and a half foot tall giants that are bigger, stronger, faster, and have far stronger bones than regular men. Would you want to compete against them? What if they took some pills to make them merely 400 pounds of muscle and 7.5 feet tall? I like that you put it in such a vivid, easy-to-imagine way. Drives home the point. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950457448] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Atralis posted... </cite> <quote>The issue is that the 1000th best man in many sports is better than the best woman. If you made the sport unisex that would be the same thing in practice as making those sports cease to exist for women after puberty. Imagine if there was some race of humans out there that was literally twice as strong and 6 inches taller than the average man. Their sports teams are full of 500 pound 7 and a half foot tall giants that are bigger, stronger, faster, and have far stronger bones than regular men. Would you want to compete against them? What if they took some pills to make them merely 400 pounds of muscle and 7.5 feet tall?</quote> I like that you put it in such a vivid, easy-to-imagine way. Drives home the point. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FantasticAssGas 02/09/21 3:17:55 PM #142:	Technically they've been allowed since 1976. <cite>FantasticAssGas posted [p:950457610] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Technically they've been allowed since 1976. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 02/09/21 3:20:12 PM #143:	The Biden administration has weighed in: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1359203588984176649 --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:950457733] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>The Biden administration has weighed in: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1359203588984176649 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 3:33:19 PM #144:	CyricZ posted... The Biden administration has weighed in: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1359203588984176649 What a non-answer, lol of course trans rights are human rights, as they should be. The question was, "does Biden have an opinion on the debate about the questionable fairness of transwomen competing against cis-women in sports?" --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950458267] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>CyricZ posted... </cite> <quote>The Biden administration has weighed in: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1359203588984176649</quote> What a non-answer, lol of course trans rights are human rights, as they should be. The question was, "does Biden have an opinion on the debate about the questionable fairness of transwomen competing against cis-women in sports?" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/09/21 4:22:33 PM #145:	logical posted... What a non-answer, lol of course trans rights are human rights, as they should be. The question was, "does Biden have an opinion on the debate about the questionable fairness of transwomen competing against cis-women in sports?" The question was in a context of college sports scholarships. So do you feel Trans high school athletes have a right to sports scholarships or not? The answer seemed pretty direct and clear to me. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:950460000] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>What a non-answer, lol of course trans rights are human rights, as they should be. The question was, "does Biden have an opinion on the debate about the questionable fairness of transwomen competing against cis-women in sports?"</quote> The question was in a context of college sports scholarships. So do you feel Trans high school athletes have a right to sports scholarships or not? The answer seemed pretty direct and clear to me. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 4:23:46 PM #146:	Tyranthraxus posted... The question was in a context of college sports scholarships. So do you feel Trans high school athletes have a right to sports scholarships or not? Ah, I see. My mistake then. Yes, they most certainly do. --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950460046] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted... </cite> <quote>The question was in a context of college sports scholarships. So do you feel Trans high school athletes have a right to sports scholarships or not? </quote> Ah, I see. My mistake then. Yes, they most certainly do. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
logical 02/09/21 4:24:51 PM #147:	It took the woman forever to spit out her question, so I thought what she ultimately wanted was clarification on Biden's response to the whole "unfairness debate". --- (taps mic) Is this thing on? <cite>logical posted [p:950460103] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>It took the woman forever to spit out her question, so I thought what she ultimately wanted was clarification on Biden's response to the whole "unfairness debate". </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/09/21 4:30:57 PM #148:	logical posted... It took the woman forever to spit out her question, so I thought what she ultimately wanted was clarification on Biden's feelings about the "unfairness debate". She was trying to ask a leading question about transathletes having an "unfair advantage for scholarships" but was pretty bad at it and messed up her words a lot. You can tell it wasn't a good faith concern since she only asked specifically about trans girls and cis girls and didn't seem to care at all about trans boys even if it was only to imply trans boys would have an unfair disadvantage. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:950460312] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>logical posted... </cite> <quote>It took the woman forever to spit out her question, so I thought what she ultimately wanted was clarification on Biden's feelings about the "unfairness debate".</quote> She was trying to ask a leading question about transathletes having an "unfair advantage for scholarships" but was pretty bad at it and messed up her words a lot. You can tell it wasn't a good faith concern since she only asked specifically about trans girls and cis girls and didn't seem to care at all about trans boys even if it was only to imply trans boys would have an unfair disadvantage. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 02/09/21 4:49:50 PM #149:	Which is why all indications are clear that Ms. Jen Psaki is good at her job. --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:950461022] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>Which is why all indications are clear that Ms. Jen Psaki is good at her job. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 02/10/21 4:50:24 AM #150:	RedJackson posted... Thats not lazy, science has literally reached the edge of the cliff at which theres nothing else left to do but actually preform the experiment A/B and no mix of the two to see if that makes a difference? Lol Its fantastic! to have a scientific method in which the actual experiment that needs to be conducted is not factored in the results I suggest you read this thread, a high-level summary of what science knows about this stuff, in this case how science has looked at injury risk in rugby: https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1297915789530497025 It's impossibly nave to think sports scientists don't actively study this topic and factor in the variables and have been doing so for hundreds of years, let alone that nothing is known about it, all on that basis that I gave a very basic reduction of the premise here. It's like you're saying there's no ice in the arctic sea because I pointed to the tip of an iceberg. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Except in this case we have evidence, so...moot. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:950479288] in Trans peop... [t:79283525]...</cite> <quote>RedJackson posted... </cite> <quote>Thats not lazy, science has literally reached the edge of the cliff at which theres nothing else left to do but actually preform the experiment A/B and no mix of the two to see if that makes a difference? Lol Its fantastic! to have a scientific method in which the actual experiment that needs to be conducted is not factored in the results</quote> I suggest you read this thread, a high-level summary of what science knows about this stuff, in this case how science has looked at injury risk in rugby: https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1297915789530497025 It's impossibly nave to think sports scientists don't actively study this topic and factor in the variables and have been doing so for hundreds of years, let alone that nothing is known about it, all on that basis that I gave a very basic reduction of the premise here. It's like you're saying there's no ice in the arctic sea because I pointed to the tip of an iceberg. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Except in this case we have evidence, so...moot. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Trans people have been allowed in the Olympics since 2003 (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Trans people have been allowed in the Olympics since 2003