Mods are highly inconsistent, especially when it comes to political correctness. One guy said he was the only one to get suspended for posting that South Park pic and the others are still up. He is also sad that no one made a " _____ is SUSPENDED!" topic for him.
Lol, purg'd now.
---
All I have is my balls and my word and this site tries to break both of 'em
At least you got one for a legit violation instead of a double jeopardy hit where they suspend and purge you via user profile violation because someone thought the original moderation was too lenient.
So a bunch of people who think they can decide what constitute a "real" female want to legalize sexually assault women to determine if they can play sports.
So a bunch of people who think they can decide what constitute a "real" female want to legalize sexually assault women to determine if they can play sports.
To be fair, you should have had a proper medical examination before starting a sport anyway. This is nothing more than a reactionary codification of sour grapes, however.
To be fair, you should have had a proper medical examination before starting a sport anyway. This is nothing more than a reactionary codification of sour grapes, however.
Yeah, when I was in high school we had to take physicals to make sure we were Ok to do sports and at least one of those was a visual exam with a hernia check. I would not say it was humiliating to be exposed in front of a medical professional, but maybe that was because I was used to being in an open shower at the high school gym.
If you have never experienced any of this, then I totally understand that it could be off-putting.
What point are you trying to make here? I dont see you as being conservative-minded, so Im wondering if youre low key saying we should not have divisions at all. I have heard that proposed before, but I dont think biological women or trans women would support that.
I'm more pointing out the classic idea of traditional (conservative) safe spaces through history and how it's not some new zany SJW idea. (m/f bathrooms, and sex divisions in sports for example)
I'm also not settled on the debate because I think it's complex. Pinky put in the effort and I feel like it's hard to disagree with any of his posts here:
pinky0926 posted...
They literally are though. Did you read about the Caster Semenya IAAF CAS case? Sporting bodies are employing entire teams of scientists and ethics committees to dig into it at the absolute deepest level.
"Deconstruction of everything a sport is" - I would be interested to know what you mean by that. Is it that sports should be intrinsically fair (how?), or is it more likely that we do our best to draw somewhat arbitrary lines to keep sports reasonably fair and entertaining? I think it's the latter.
We don't have height restrictions in the NBA. We do have weight limits in fighting sports. But then we don't have an upper limit in heavyweight boxing. The lines make some sense, but they are arbitrary.
There's a question remaining here about who you think is worth protecting and why. Women are considered a protected class, so we have women's sport. Short people are not considered a protected class, so we don't have a short player basketball league. So what about trans women?
The lines were decided on by fairly arbitrary (but justifiable) social concepts of fairness, not immutable scientific law. And so we have a complex social situation about where to stick trans people.
Yes, no one should disagree with that, and neither was I.
So where do you drop the pin? What do we do with intersex athletes that are neither transitioning nor cut and dry male/female? That's the problem at the moment. We don't have neat and proven lines for how much testosterone is too much/not enough.
The best proxy we have right now is measuring/controlling testosterone levels, but it's imperfect, both from the point of view of legacy advantages (as you mentioned) and from the point of view of people who have DSDs and cannot utilise testosterone adequately and receive no advantage at all. So you can have a woman who has an unusually high level of testosterone, is unable to use it, and therefore has no advantage - but who would be unable to compete.
Going back to Frolex's post, your point seems more true in some sports than others, and indicates a lack of sufficient evidence to back the point on a legal level.
Yes, I wasn't debating that point. I'm debating the particulars. It's easy to say testosterone provides a physiological advantage in sport. Much harder to define exactly how much that advantage is, whether testosterone alone is a sufficient enough proxy for how to define this, whether it can be corrected sufficiently or what to do about it in trans people.
What people are struggling with is where exactly to draw the line, and what to do in exceptional cases such as with DSD athletes.
Even sports scientists who agree in principle with "testosterone is too unfair of an advantage, that's why we separate men and women" are not entirely sure how to quantify this.
Literally never argued that point, not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Let me be clear. I understand exactly how much men outperform women. It's roughly 10% in nearly any sport. Or in numerical terms, the difference between rank 1 and rank 4000. Women cannot compete with men at the same level because of androgenisation, that much is very clear.
So clearly that distinction needs to remain, but that still doesn't neatly resolve how to treat intersex and transitioning athletes.
Read this article on the caster semenya case, written by a sports scientist. It agrees with you in principle but also highlights why it was ever a debate in the first place.
The issue and complexity has never been whether men have an advantage over women. Everyone knows that. If you're attempting to summarise the debate on that basis you're clubbing an imaginary seal.
The issue is: * How do we define sex in terms of athletics, and is doing so discriminatory * If it is discriminatory, is it still necessary, and do we have enough evidence* to support making a discriminatory rule? * Should women remain a protected class in sport? After all, we don't have a short person basketball league, and we don't consider the natural advantage of tall athletes to be discriminatory. So on what basis do we say being tall is fair, but having too much testosterone is unfair? Is it qualitative and/or quantitative * If you use testosterone as a proxy for how "female" someone is in athletics, where do you drop the pin? How much testosterone should someone have and for how long? Is it a good enough proxy to justify this? * Does someone who transition correct their advantages from androngenisation enough to merit fair competition? * What is considered fair competition in sport? Where do you draw the line between advantages that are fair and advantages that are not? * Is demanding otherwise healthy trans (and DSDs) athletes to go on a hormone course in order to compete a medical ethics issue * how do you define Intersex (DSD) athletes, who are neither transgender nor fit into any neat category, and who are sometimes unable to process testosterone at all even if they have a lot of it? These are not people who transition, they are people born this way who fit into no neat male/female divide, and yet are overrepresented in sport * Ultimately everyone wants to be inclusive in sport (it's just sport ffs), but where do you include people who don't fit into neat categories? * Do sporting bodies have to be inclusive? As above, it's just sport. This may not be a human right's issue, even if it's an ethical one. * As you pointed out, there are no FTms dominat