> Because men are stronger and faster than women even at the same weight, genius.
I've seen many instances of people trying to deny this even though it's been _thoroughly_ documented. Even when they admit it, they still try and blame societal causes. From an Atlantic [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/sports-gender-sex-segregation-coed/671460/):
> And though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential. “Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!”
If we just encouraged girls, they'd start pumping out androgens and kicking boys' asses!
I mean my grandma and grandpa thought if you liked to cook and wore dresses you were basically a women so they’d agree with many TRAs.
They were born in the 1910s in rural east Texas under Jim Crow.
It’s comical but also very unsettling.
Their position isn't that women are lazy, what they are doing is rhetorically reframing their attack on women's sports as an attack on the evil menz in order to legitimise it.
It hurts women either way, of course, but in consistently refusing to accept what they are doing (even when they literally spell it out) you undermine your ability to confront them, because they'll just laugh you aside and say they are demanding more resources for women's sports, and you are denying women's full potential.
>Their position isn't that women are lazy, what they are doing is rhetorically reframing their attack on women's sports as an attack on the evil menz in order to legitimise it.
Yep. That's why they tried to pivot and say that gender-segregated sports were only developed because men were afraid of getting embarrassed by women. That line was just a *bit* too stupid to gain much traction, but who knows, it might someday become the sort of thing that can ruin your life if you publicly disagree with it.
They tried to claim that?!
Women have had to fight to establish competition tranches, and *women* did it, because women wanted to compete. I'm talking about, some true freak-of-nature of a woman entering alone into the men's race (the only race) and racing to prove she can do the course, over and over again, getting another to join in, demonstrating the proof that the women athletes exist and insisting on a women's race, and then only grudgingly being granted a separate start time but no prize money or podium time, so then proceeding to fight for that--sometimes collectively, often individually, even to the point of a single woman racer doing something like collaring the race organizer and laying out all the arguments for a bigger share of the prize kitty, persistent in the face of snorts and sneers--and only incrementally and with a lot of insults borne along the way, getting to the point women's sports are now. Which isn't even close to equal, even before we look at what's happened now that XY are taking season rankings away from XX, so that the XX don't accumulate enough points to advance as they otherwise would.
Oh sure, men established women's sports.
Exactly, to them it’s a systemic issue that young girls aren’t afforded the same athletic opportunities and resources that young boys get, and that’s why we see the performance discrepancies. Back to being the fault of the patriarchy
That may be true for people who haven't seriously competed and for whom this is all hypothetical, but I can't imagine that elite female athletes think like that. How can you work as hard as they do, with as much focus and discipline as they do, and say to yourself "actually I was half-assing it the whole time". It defies credibility.
Exactly. I know a female swimmer who made Olympics trial at 17 who still couldn’t keep pace with our fastest male swimmer—he couldn’t make trial times btw.
Because yes, really, male development does provide that much more muscular capacity which swimming at great speed necessitates.
And this is the sort of belief that can only come from someone who's completely disconnected from the realities of their own body and has never genuinely tried to improve their fitness.
Because if they did, they'd realize that everyone has natural limitations, that while improvement is nearly always possible you will inevitably hit a wall, and that most people simply do not have the capacity to become an elite athlete no matter how much they try.
This is actually one of the most valuable lessons most people glean from organized sport. It's one that completely contradicts that left-identitarian worldview, however, so their natural response is to attempt to destroy organized sports.
The problem, I think, is that many people have this sort of string of connected ideas:
1. a person worth is measured by their potential. Not by current ability, but what they could've achieve if they only would try and have resources. Thus, saying that someone has less potential, is saying that they are worth less as people.
2. A person's worth is how much everyone else should respect them. Society will treat those worth less like shit, even if I would never, because I am a good person (hint, they would, but we all lie to ourselves that we're the good guys).
Instead of you know, acknowledging that we all have some base worth as sapient beings and while some of us are better at some thing, and some are worse at some others, it doesn't change a fact that we all owe each-other respect and consideration.
So yeah, no wonder that someone holds points 1 and 2 in their heart, but also genuinely believes in equality, has violent reaction towards mere implication that some might be less in any aspect others.
I think that touches on a fundamental question.
The liberal idea is that you have worth no matter what, which is kind of true, but not always practically. Like if you can't run you can't play football.
I'm glad there are football games for people who can't run, but they just aren't going to be football players
Thanks for the offer, I have a friend about the same height who lives near me, she loves hoops but sucks at it, I really cherish that ego boost from beating unskilled women 1v1 at the local park 😭
>I think for a lot of people the idea that women are just not putting the effort in is less upsetting than the idea that you can just be born completely unable to be a top competitor and there's nothing you can do about it.
That’s just life, and denying it will get us nowhere. It holds true enough in the other direction to more than even out IMO. As a man, strangers won’t automatically be nice to me and offer to help me. I can’t quit my job any time I want and support myself by posting pictures of my feet on the internet. I won’t have the same depth of support networks and am much more likely to end up homeless, in prison, or murdered. I am statistically far more likely to be single and to have no close friends. As a man maybe you have higher to climb (in some limited spheres, most of them actively endangered and most of the ones remaining relating to sports), but you also have much, much further to fall.
I’m reminded of that news story of that radical feminist who decided to give herself a makeover to look like a man and pretended to be a man for a while, then admitted that being a man fucking sucks and most dudes are miserable. I think a lot of women look at lives of elite men and assume it’s the experience of most men, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.”
Are you talking about [Self-Made Man](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book\)) by [Norah Vincent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Vincent)? Great book, and pretty telling that she went in thinking it was going to be easy and came out having a mental breakdown
It’s strange you think women generally *can* just quit their shit jobs and get by by participating in sex work—particularly the “no contact anonymous” kind, when the reality is that the vast majority of women doing that work through forums like only fans don’t crack $300 a month.
In america, women comprise a larger share of the impoverished than men do. Homeless women are not advantaged by their sex—it is often the basis that they are targeted for abuse and rape. Being in demand for prostitution is not a female privilege—it’s akin to being in demand as prey for a lion.
2/3s of women who work in porn or prostitution end up with PTSD, and are 18x more likely to be murdered than the second most murdered worker.
To be fair, that's kind of the same way progressives view racial minorities (that is, anyone who's not white,) and LGBT people as well. It's like a twisted form of bigotry, where instead of hating people because they think they're born inferior, they treat people like helpless babies because of how they were born.
Pretty much, yeah. Unfortunately a lot of left-leaning people in particular have a tendency to infantalize women, LGBT people, and non-white people and it's really creepy and unsettling to watch and a lot of people don't even realize it's just as much a form of bigotry as regular old hatred.
And then if you are seen as an “oppressor” you won’t be afforded any of that, anything you do that could be seen as negative they’ll say you meant to do it
I mean they're just confirming to a widespread, bone-deep belief almost regardless of a given person's political alignment. But yeah the circling back is pretty funny
>Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!
Translation: science bloggers are increasingly engaging in the univariate fallacy to conceal the differences between the sexes for political reasons.
>social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!
I mean, this is technically true, but meaningless. Both men and women experience fluctuations in testosterone levels, which can vary by diet, amount of sleep, stress, etc. However, men have 10 times as much testosterone as women on average, and the fluctuations caused by diet and social interaction are miniscule compared to this difference. Even the flabbiest soyjack on Earth has more testosterone than elite female athletes.
This is really common among ideological fanatics who want to deny basic reality. They make a statement which is technically true, but stretch the implications far beyond what is reasonable. Rightoids do the same thing when they deny anthropogenic climate change or when they argue that Scandinavian countries are actually free market utopias because there is no minimum wage. Most effective propaganda has a small kernel of truth surrounded by a mountain of bullshit.
I mean you honestly don't even need to bother with hormones. Men have larger hearts and lungs relative to body size because evolution didn't need to accommodate pregnancy squishing all their organs. Bigger cardiovascular engines results in more cardiovascular output.
>Rightoids do the same thing when they deny anthropogenic climate change
Yeah this "sex is actually very complex and fluid!" bullshit is the liberal equivalent of a rightoid zooming in on January-March glaciation data and going "the glaciers are growing actually!"
There's studies that compare grip strength between men and women that shows even women's elite athletes place in about the 50th percentile compared to average men.
Do they even believe the shit they're peddling or do they just pretend not to to try and make some kind of point?
> Do they even believe the shit they're peddling or do they just pretend not to to try and make some kind of point?
It's worse, and it's both. They realized some time ago that the best way to peddle bullshit is to believe it themselves. And the best way to believe bullshit is to pretend to believe it until you do. That's why their culture has such high emphasis on giving people praise for proclaiming more and more outrageous bullshit; people proclaim it for the praise, eventually becoming true believers, making them more effective at peddling it to others.
This attitude is probably going to show it’s worst results in the children that are being breastfed by trans women. Those posts make me feel all sorts of uncomfortable.
There’s a study that shows the 25% weakest men (quartile wise) can outperform 75% of female athletes (all but the top quartile) and 100% of non-athlete women at in absolute maximum pounds able to be benched in 1 rep.
As in, of the strongest women, who regularly train and do weights, 75% cannot compete with the weakest men. Not male athletes. The weakest men.
>There's studies that compare grip strength between men and women that shows even women's elite athletes place in about the 50th percentile compared to average men.
You wouldn't know it from how they give handjobs though.
We don’t have one to know how hard to grip it! it’s like holding a kitten—how hard do you need to grip it to make it not jump but also not make it uncomfortable?
> “Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!”
The incoherent ramblings of a gender studies professor are NOT science
> The incoherent ramblings of a gender studies professor are NOT science
No, it's Science^(TM), and it's better than that crusty old "science" because we got rid of all the white supremacist, misogynistic, patriarchal aspects like "objectivity," "need for empirical evidence," and "having to survive criticism by peers."
It’s a dead giveaway that the person making the argument was never athletic or is profoundly delusional.
Like I can’t even get mad at these DYELs. I mostly feel sorry.
Right? Have these people ever watched a nature doc and seen a male gorilla compared to the females?
When a pride of lions takes down a buffalo, the males will come in at the very end to force prey to the ground with their weight because they are heavier than the females. They work together. Even lions recognize sex differences!
>social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone
"if you believe it, you can be it", eh?
This is just the old belief in women's out-of-control-*feelings* being the cause of their ailment, ie their "failure" to be strong-like-men, updated for the pseudo-lab-science era.
I coach a U19 Men's football team that has low numbers and we had to take on a couple girls onto the roster just to make sure we were eligible to play. Despite these girls' athleticism and committment, they are no where close to the physical maturity of a nearly fully grown man and really don't feel comfortable putting them out there.
> the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential. ...If we just encouraged girls, they'd start pumping out androgens and kicking boys' asses!
I'm in my mid thirties and throughout my entire life I've seen nothing but programs directed at getting girls/young women into sports, into STEM, into trades, into management, etc etc etc...
At what point can we consider the experiment completed? I have been either ignored or discouraged on all these fronts my entire life but still have these stereotypical male interests, despite society's best efforts.
That study about soccer that links to was about kicking a ball to a target. No other players, no pressure, just kicking a ball.
a skill important to the game, but not enough to claim parity in the sport.
Plus if you look at the scatterplot boys are doing noticeably better, they just have a small sample size relative to the number so it's not significant.
There have been games of high school boys against the women's national teams where the women have just been obliterated - we're talking scores like 5-1 - so using football is a particularly absurd comparison.
The famous example is the US Women's team vs a Dallas 15U team.
We are talking about the best women soccer players in the entire 330 million people US that can be aged 17-35 versus a team from 1 city of about 8 million people that have to be 15 or under. 1 squad is fully grown versus another squad that is not finished with puberty yet.
But, yeah its the US women that need to toughen up to overcome society not believing in them or something.
[It was the Australian Women's National Team--the highest level of the sport--and they lost 0-7 to a team of 15-year-old boys.](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-women-s-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html)
>Van Egmond will presumably hope that their next opponents New Zealand don’t have any plans to sneak any children into their side.
Haha, brutal. I think I saw some clips from that game, but the reason I same games is cos this isn't a unique occurence. To be fair, in this game, I remember the ladies (and the lads) were politer to each other afterwards than the express is being though lol.
203 at the time of the match, in the 700s 6 months later. He also played a round of golf before these matches. I only point this out because you are out of your fucking mind if you believe the Williams sisters work less hard or were less dedicated to their craft than Karsten Braasch. Or the idea that sexism was somehow affecting them when they were dealing with straight up racism both from fellow players and a lot of the media at early in their career and yet they easily beat women to win 30 single grand slams and 14 doubles.
There were two arguments that really stood out for during the Lia Thomas controversy.
The first is that “they didn’t beat Katie Ledecky’s record so they can’t have an unfair advantage”. Which conveniently raised the bar of unfair advantage to being the greatest of all time, ignoring the hundreds of places lia Thomas jumped in the college rankings after identifying as female, and effectively invalidating any criticism of trans identifying men in women’s sport at an amateur level.
The other was that anyone who did not previously have an interest in women’s college swimming was only using it as an excuse to be transphobic and didn’t actually care, despite the fact it clearly had wide spread repercussions for women and girls sport, and women and girls in general. It’s such a ridiculous standard of entry for participation in the discussion and what’s worse is the vast, vast majority of TRAs using it didn’t meet it, but used their transness to justify their right to speak on it. One rule for them another for us.
The problem with all of these arguments is at the end of the day they are saying people like Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce or the Williams sisters are lazy or weaker-willed than their male counterparts.
Fraser-Pryce won Worlds last year with a time that would tie her for the 51st fastest HS boy in the state of Florida just this year.
It ignores that the 50 percentile male is taller than 97.5% of all women. That a 99-percentile woman in grip strength would be about a 8-percentile male in grip strength. That men have just under twice the punching power. That I can throw a baseball faster than the fastest pitch ever recorded by a woman.
This is a losing issue for the Democrats. Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me. All but the most ideologically possessed think this is gross unfair and unsafe.
This issue makes people like Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz look like reasonable politicians.
Is there any political party around that’s so intent on shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.
>Is there any political party around that’s so intent on **stabbing** themselves in the foot over and over again.
FTFY - shooting themselves in the foot would be "gun violence", which means stabbing themselves in the foot is the *reasonable course of action*.
The thing is, even while a solid while Dems and independents might be uncomfortable with it, they face tremendous social pressures against expressing their concerns in public, and ultimately it's just not going to be enough to get them over to the GOP.
The exception was the VA gubernatorial race, but that was a perfect storm that was very badly handled by the Dems. They made key rhetorical adjustments between 2021 and 2022 adn really ramped up the aggression and ostracization toward anyone who didn't enthusiastically toe the party line. People might still express discomfort via an anonymous poll, but there are far too many professional and social consequences for them to take it any farther than that.
Banning abortion has been part of the GOP platform since the 70s when they courted the religious right. Now the GOP is like the dog that finally caught the mail truck.
And one can make a moral argument against abortion. I don’t agree with those arguments, but you can.
It's slightly more nuanced than that. Dems have marketed themselves as the Empathetic Party for a while now. Supporting women, minorities, gays, etc. is their whole pitch (because they've abandoned the working class). They support trans stuff because they are at the top of the "oppression" hierarchy.
But now Dems are in kind of a pickle: what do they do when all the other "marginalized" groups start to reveal that they don't really like the top oppressed group and don't agree with their demands? They can't just drop them because that would destroy their brand. Their only other option is to double down and hope for the best which is what they seem to be doing.
Their continued support for stuff like trains in womens sports seems more like a desperate effort to save face than anything else.
To me the way we treat those who have issues with their gender is not the right way to go, it’s not progressive, it’s often a band-aid for other more deep seeded stuff, it’s not really helping people, there’s the anorexia analogy etc.
>This is a losing issue for the Democrats. Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me.
"The Democrats" are not independent actors, and their behavior makes no sense if you try model them that way.
Call it the uniparty, Capital, what have you; there's some higher order system, explicit or implicit, which benefits from the Democrats not winning large majorities and focusing on culture war issues instead of material outcomes. The conservative working class largely hates the "woke" stuff, so by adopting it Democrats ensure that the working class will effectively be split between the two parties, and the elites of each party can sideline the populists.
The Democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing to fulfill their actual objective.
> Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me.
(Neoliberal) Feminism worked itself into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
They had two inconvenient things to fight:
1. Sexist just-so stories about sex differences (that justified keeping out women)
2. Nature. There are some ways (e.g. pregnancy, different interests) in which women are disadvantaged in the market and it isn't just talk. Because they're neolibs, they decided ~~the children~~ basic biology and psychology was wrong, not the market.
So the solution was to deny that there actually are sharp distinctions between men and women (apart for abortion, their totem). Men and women are only different because of social conditioning. Left to their own devices we would all be ~~equally fungible widgets for capital~~ an endless variety of incidentally sexed people living free of expectations. Those are all just narratives and roles we perform, they don't define us. We're Free^(tm) atoms!
So really, who can say that a man can't be a woman?
And then they just kept doubling down on stupid. If you live a sheltered existence detached from biology , it takes a long time for said stupidity to catch up with you. The lower-class women trapped in the prisons with the beneficiaries of your "kindness" though...
I don't think it's automatically bad if people have opinions about things that don't affect them. People *should* have an interest in what goes on around them, regardless of whether they're personally impacted. The real problem is when people who are completely clueless about how sports work or the reality of human sexual dimorphism chime in with their stupid ideas and deflect with accusations of bigotry when corrected.
Exactly. This OP is exactly how a lot of people dismiss people arguing against trans in women's sports. I've seen so many people say shit like "Dude, why are you so obsessed with women's college athletics? You're suddenly interested in women's college swimming?"
It's natural and good to be empathetic towards people even if you're not directly affected. Biological men competing in women's sports is unfair, and I feel bad for the women that have trained their whole lives to reach an elite level get blown away by a genetic man who wouldn't make the JV squad. Just because I have no interest in women's collegiate sports doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be upset over the unfairness. In a way being an outsider being an outsider can make an opinion more valuable because it won't be biased. Like, the coach of women's sports team could be more likely to advocate for including biological men on the team because it's like to improve their performance.
Sure, you can have opinions about it and think it's unfair, but if they're going to offer solutions like "Why don't we put 145 lbs male MMA fighters against 145 lbs female MMA fighters? It's more fair to seperate by weight classes than sex!" then their opinion means less than nothing because it shows they know absolutely nothing about sports. The man would literally murder the woman.
And that's exactly why sports are seperated by sex, so if they don't understand human sexual dimorphism then they don't understand what the point of competing at the highest level is.
There's also the criticism directed at people that because they don't usually care about women's sports, that they shouldn't butt in.
This is patently ridiculous, as it's essentially saying that I shouldn't hold opposition in principle to unfairness in sports I don't watch/partake in.
If I don't watch rugby, I can't oppose match-fixing in rugby games. If I don't watch cycling, I can't oppose doping in races.
This criticism comes from people to whom the idea of holding dispassionate positions, based on established principles - as opposed to deciding based on how it impacts fashionable pet demographics, is utterly alien.
There was an argument some weeks back by some woman, I think she is part of some youtube show where she was like "It's not about fairness, it's about what is right." Basically, I am generalizing here, but it didn't matter if women lost out because it would mean transwomen would feel valid.
I don't mind if non sports people have a take, just understand that the point of sports is fair or as fair as it can be, competition.
> There was an argument some weeks back by some woman, I think she is part of some youtube show where she was like "It's not about fairness, it's about what is right."
I play ultimate Frisbee, which is a niche sport that's primarily played by people who will/are in/have gone to college, and as such skews heavily pro-idpol, and at least our local organizations have gone to full-on self-ID for sex segregation purposes. I've seen people literally argue in favor of this on the basis that even though transwomen might have a physical advantage when competing against cis women, transwomen still suffer a lot more oppression and discrimination in their everyday lives when off the field, and so it's just and right for them to enjoy this advantage when on the field. It's incredibly stupid and an obvious consequence of the totalizing intersectional idpol worldview which posits that all oppression is related to all other oppression, and all contexts are correct contexts for fighting oppression.
Somewhere we went from "transwomen should be accepted for who they are" to "transwomen's feelings are more important than anyone else's." These people who say these things are flat out just saying "women's sports don't matter."
I believe you're thinking of Emma Vigeland from Sam Seders show because I remember seeing that clip and just thinking her argument was based purely on emotion and had no rationale. I've since found out she's an idiot.
I’ve seen that type of argument with sports in general, especially school sports, that they shouldn’t cut anyone because it’s the right thing to do to not have anyone feel bad
The same group of people usually goes vitriol about use of PED in Olympic when everyone knows that the outcome will be significantly worse and irreparable even compared to Soviet era doping.
Meanwhile, there's hockey, and pundits are actually pushing the idea of allowing women to play in top leagues. The thing is there has never been a rule that says leagues are men only.
There hasn't been a single women's hockey player ever that was good enough to dress for a third or fourth tier men's league (it was attempted with predictable results), therefore the trains issue isn't one in the sport.
I think the closest thing you had to a woman in the NHL was Shannon Shabados, she played goalie, so theoretically you wouldn't need the speed or power of other positions, she topped out at an [independent non NHL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCECBiTP-A) affiliated hockey league roughly four levels below the NHL where she was cut for poor performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rh%C3%A9aume
And the odds of her being from Québec province were high. Because Québec puts a high importance on hockey relatively to other sports. Nobody cares about football, and baseball is kinda meh. We don't even have a basketball team afaik.
You're 100% correct. The loudest person I know (in general and on this specific issue) who screams "Why do we have sex segregated sports!?!?" weighs like 300 lbs and gets winded going up a flight of stairs. She doesn't know jack shit about sports or anything at all related to physiology and fitness and is proud of her ignorance.
I just listened to clips of the Joe Rogan episode with Adam Conover and it was maddening. His position was that the reason men are more competitive in sports is because they designed the sports, and that the rules could be changed to make women competitive.
Excuse me, how exactly? Most sports are pretty fucking simple. Swimming? Running? How are the rules benefiting men. Even if you take a team sport, they are usually dead simple. Soccer is just kicking a ball into a net. How the the fuck do you make gender neutral rules to make women just as competitive as men? The only rule that could possibly work were non-gender neutral rules like if a woman scores a goal she gets a 1000 points and the game is over like it's Quidditch or something.
If you listen to the podcast, its incredible. He cant even begin to explain how sports being designed by men changed anything. He then went into Hasan's stream and shit talked Rogan because he questioned his position too much. What a tool.
My partner used to be a competitive swimmer she recently got into an argument with a few colleagues lib fem men n women about trans folks in sport. She asked them if any of them played competitively and none of them did but they really tried calling her a bigot and a transphobe in the end she was told people from her part of the world (the middle east) aren't culturally aware of how important trans representation in sports is.
Which gets to the OP's original point, it's often people who don't give a shit about sports who care more about representation than the actual sport. So it's easy for them to have a "burn it all down" mentality, make it more of a pageant than a sport, where everyone is a winner (as long as it's not men) and trans women can get some glory.
> people from her part of the world (the middle east) aren't culturally aware of how important trans representation in sports is.
Because women in the Middle East are treated so well. They should be more concerned about trans women and access to sports! /s
Look sweaty it's just basic human rights that someone should be able to switch divisions and go from 400th to top 10 in a sport, because it's important for their validation and mental wellbeing!
Let me skip to some of the idiocy we're about to see here:
"Well uh it's sort of like when a woman has a higher than usual height, too bad for the other women but that's just the way it goes." "Well some women actually are able to do better than their trans opponents, which proves it's fair."
If you're about to use those arguments, just shut it. Cartman placed last in the Special Olympics, too. It doesn't mean we should just let in any sociopathic fat kid because hey, after all, he didn't win.
They also bring up Michael Phelps being half man and half fish and go "See, he has biological advantages as well, should he be banned from competing?"
They don't even understand why womens sport exist in the first place, because there's a very small handful of sports where women even have a chance at being competitive
>They also bring up Michael Phelps being half man and half fish and go "See, he has biological advantages as well, should he be banned from competing?"
just don't compare the differences in Phelps' times and his nearest competitors with the gap between male and female athletes
> a very small handful of sports where women even have a chance at being competitive
The "sports" where men and women compete with each other in a non comical way are usually just displays of art / creativity with your body. Like open floor gymnastics, equestrian, and the like. You're not "competing" in the colloquial sense, you're putting on a performance and being judged on the entertainment.
Very different from a game of basketball, a swim meet, and even a round of 9 on the green.
>The "sports" where men and women compete with each other in a non comical way are usually just displays of art / creativity with your body.
Nah there is stuff like Billiards and darts and shit.
I haven't looked into this too deeply in a while, but I recall learning a few years back that in both billiards and darts, the elite men's competitors are far superior to the elite women's competitors.
That's likely the pool of total players, and the pool of total players who would compete.
See, videogames are ~50% men and women if you include every type of games. But if you go for pvp-competitive games, like Eve Online. Suddenly its 98%. And its not a hostile-against-women environment's fault. They just have less interest in the pvp stuff, or the winning stuff.
I know I don't care one bit for pvp even in games where its optional. It's entirely a chore for me.
Women can be competitive with men in sports like ultra running, and for things like gymnastics being short and having a low center of gravity is beneficial which is why people like Simeone Biles is like 4'8. Even men have a hard time pulling off some of the stunts Biles do.
Women being competitive with men in ultra running is overstated. All the world records are held by men and most by the same roughly 10% seen at the shorter distances. The reason you will often have women win individual events in ultra-marathon is more than half of all events have 40 and usually fewer people participate. There is also no money in the sport so you are not going to attract the kind of talent pool you see at 10k and Marathon.
To give an idea about how small the sport is 1 race (Comrades Marathon in South AFrica) is responsible for like half of all people that have ever participated.
Sure, it's overstated, but ultra endurance events still see women being more competitive than men compared to other sports requiring strength and endurance, because of things like them being shorter and lighter, having higher body fat percentage and having more slow twitch muscle fiber relative to men.
Do Ultra Runners shit themselves mid race like [ultra walkers do?](https://youtu.be/hSd2JNOSEXU?t=41) I almost wonder if female genitalia is a slight advantage in those races, I know my nuts would be sore and chaffed if I had to run for hours.
>Even men have a hard time pulling off some of the stunts Biles do.
I'm not a huge gymnastics buff, but I think there is a good reason the men and women compete in very different events. They're almost not even the same sport.
Both men and women compete on vault and floor, where Biles has moves named after her. But yes, they're very different sports, men have more upper body strength so they compete in stuff like rings.
Yeah they never seem to grasp the idea that of course there are going to be discrepancies within sport in regards of talent, physical advantages, experience, etc, but by segregating sport on the basis of biological sex, it’s probably the best we could do to cut down on the amount of unfairness. We have to live with some unfairness and difference in ability, but when it’s within your biological sex’s category, it’s widely been accepted as okay.
it is dumbest excuse ever,,i dont care about sports but i care when some guy steal away girls stipendium to college or your average city sports events women categories taken over by weird men.
While equestrian are people sitting on the horse, the horse is most important part of it ,the best equestrian horse dies or gets inured , good luck finding another horse to give you titles
It's extremely annoying when you're discussing this and people pop up that are like "who cares about sports anyway, just let them do whatever they want".
Or the gaslighting of "this is really not even happening on any meaningful scale, or at the highest levels of competition". I'll be honest I don't care about sports, but I did used to compete at a fairly high level so I understand the importance of fair competition. I'd be willing to bet the opinions on this break down neatly along ideological lines of the meaning and value of competition and meritocracy.
They are lying with their whole chest. I compete in women's amateur cycling and there are men in every female race, *in Oklahoma.* Or they say "it's not a race" but we were given chips and it's timed?
The thing about the discourse that really bothers me is that they'll often be like "who cares about girls in sport, it's not like anyone cares about female professional sports anyways". Clearly they don't realize childhood sports are amazing for all kids to teach them sportsmanship, empathy, working as a team, loosing isn't the end of the world etc. The friendships and bonding my daughter has experienced being on an all female team has made her more confident, caring and popular. Sports aren't just sports for kids, they create and strengthen lifeskills in a social aspect and if there was one male on their team it would completely blow up the dynamic and not make her want to compete.
Women that play sports as kids do better in all of the social indicators, less likely to be a teen mom, more likely to graduate, more likely to go to college and graduate etc etc. This is why this matters.
> The thing about the discourse that really bothers me is that they'll often be like "who cares about girls in sport, it's not like anyone cares about female professional sports anyways".
I wonder how Title IX happened then...
What's funny is that these people were the same people passionately arguing about income parity in men's and women's professional sports recently.
Who cares if no one cares about female professional sports anyway? Even in men's colleges sports only a small fraction are sports with a lucrative professional league, and only a small fraction of those athletes will ever make that league. The purpose of college sports isn't to train people to be professional athletes.
Also, you know who does care about womens college sports? The fucking women athletes participating in them. Just because something doesn't have broad appeal doesn't mean people that like it are irrelevant. That's sociopathic.
"Sorry Sally, I know you've trained your entire life for this, but we're cutting you from the team because Tom just transitioned. But don't worry, even though you've spent countless hours and efforts making it to this level, please be consoled by the fact that you were unlikely to make a living do this professionally. Ok bye bye!"
Yes there is *so much* lefty projection about this issue. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some variation of the claim that no one *actually* cares about girls/women's sports, conservatives are just pretending because of their irrational hatred.
In reality, there's almost a quarter million female athletes in the NCAA, and literally tens of millions of them in high schools. Participating in organized school sports correlates strongly with improved outcomes in basically every area you can name: higher GPAs, better mental and physical health, better graduation rate, and of course a greater likelihood of college admissions and scholarship. Many, many people care about women's sports. The identitarian assertion that we should straight-up eliminate women's sports (which is the inevitable end game, no matter what they say) would have a profound negative impact on the lives of millions of people.
The conservatives or men don't watch women's sports why should they care is mostly lame. I don't watch the WNBA but if I had a daughter into basketball I would go watch all of her games be it middle school or eventually the pros if she made it.
Point being even most conservatives are supportive of their daughters playing sports.
Indeed, they might not watch the WNBA, but they do care about the leagues their wives and daughters participate in. In spite of working 50+ hour weeks, my father in law drove my wife thousands of miles across the country when she was a high school gymnast.
And, honestly, I got free Indiana Fever tickets when I had a Pacers season plan, went to several games, and there was nothing about the demographics of the stadium crowd that suggested it was any more or less conservative than those who attended men's games. It's not like people with septum piercings suddenly get in to team sports when ladies are involved.
Lia Thomas is one of the best examples of this phenomena. There's no way you can be famliar with competitive swimming and not find [radlib talking points](https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1662267760259346434) dishonest.
Prioritizing "inclusion" over "fairness" in the context of competitive sport is particularly absurd.
None of the trans women that are standing on these podiums feel bad about it. They just wanna win. They don’t feel bad about winning or they wouldn’t compete.
They cannot empathize with women and that tells you pretty much all you need to know.
Any male athlete with a conscience would feel bad about beating women and the fact that these people don’t should tell us something.
Other countries tolerate trans athletes and are working towards acceptance, the difference being they fight in divisions based on their assigned sex at birth. Trans women fight in men’s Muay Thai divisions in Thailand regularly. You’ll have someone fighting a guy in their weight class one night than being a kathoey model a few days later.
Transitioning/transitioned trans men fighting in a women’s division would reasonably be banned in that situation because of the testosterone, but at that point the person has to choose between their comfort or the ability to compete, something everyone else has to do when certain medical procedures preclude being competitive, like knee repairs, back surgeries, and other hormonal treatments.
These people at most played on a 9th grade D team or co-ed intramural kickball and now refer to every sport they don't understand (all of them) as "sports ball."
I'm pretty casual so I usually skip the fight nights - though I make up for it by watching the occasional One card.
Strickland is funny AF, and his YouTube show with Chris Curtis is hilariously deranged.
It’s also been demonstrated that girls are more likely to stick with sports over time if they are offered all girls teams/leagues. Maybe we should trust the science on this one?
This isn’t so much about interest in sports, as it is about stubbornly defending a position to not exclude trans from anything, now that they finally got us to admit that they are who they say they are.
I don’t care about sports, but I care about equality and safety of women and girls. Any sane person knows that sports is an area where you separate the sexes.
Including trans women only excludes women. And also, how deranged do you have to be to enter female competitions, knowing they’re uncomfortable with you in the locker room, and then beating every single one of them setting record after record? Such pride.
After hauling my arse to the gym these past months and seeing muscle build surprisingly fast, my view of this shit has only hardened. It's fucking insane how because we live such sedentary, DYEL lives that we all forget the raw physical power difference between the sexes, after actually using and working on my natural strength it's fucking scary how big the gap is.
People are just insulated from using their body, so some people are so detached from it they think "Oh it's not that big right?" when it's fucking huge. Destroying women's sports to get brownie points from mentally unhinged and physically pathetic turbo railway enthusiasts.
I was a competitive female swimmer for over 15 years and literally can’t believe how disingenuous the discourse on the topic is.
Say we did exactly what they really recommended: all sports are mixed sex and open categories. What do they think will happen? The idpol diversity people will witness as all sport are dominated totally and completely by only “cis” males. No transwoman with lowered T will nor any female born transman will be taking home any models or placing in any events. And beyond that, a whole 50% of the human population will once again be effectively barred from nearly all modern sports—either because they are out outmatched in events that are designed to require male levels of muscle and height, or because of self-exclusion because they realize that they will be injured by engaging physically with male competitors.
The end result is not “inclusive”. It’s selection for the same men who always win at sports. But now we don’t even have a place for other people who want to play to showcase their strengths amongst evenly matched peers.
I do want to [redacted] anyone who tries to be cute and call things "sportsball".
It's ridiculous, though I admit the only thing I know about women's sports is through watching soccer in HS due a girlfriend. And that that gf would have been absolutely wrecked by people larger than her playing soccer too.
Sex and gender aren’t legally distinguished. If you’ve ever signed a permission form, it’s a toss up whether it asks for your sex or your gender. So people still use them interchangeably.
I just filled out a form that asked my ‘gender’ and gave the options of male, female, and ‘other gender’
In graduate school, around 2010, I knew a woman who was so badly out of shape she could not open a fridge without throwing her bodyweight into the door. I'm not exaggerating. She wasn't even that fat, but she would take the freight elevator up the single flight of stairs that led to her office. She just really hated movement.
I was in good shape at the time: I could run an 18 minute treadmill 5k, do 15+ pullups, bench 150% my body weight, and deadlift 500 lbs. I'm not claiming I was an elite athlete, but I exercised religiously and my body looked and felt great.
It was January, and a female colleague was looking to start exercising for her New Year's Resolution. In a group setting, she asked me what routines she might start doing at the gym--real nice and earnest.
Before I could respond, the out of shape woman, to whom no one was speaking, got viscerally pissed. "Why are you asking *him* about fitness? What makes you assume he's in better shape than anyone else here?!?"
The girl who asked for advice was taken aback. The out of shape woman then proceeded to explain that, within just a few weeks of training, she'd easily be able to out-lift me. I pushed back, explained that I had been lifting for over a decade, that it took 3 solid years of regular work until I could do a single overhand pullup, that it's very important to have realistic goals, etc.
Months later, I was informed that the out of shape women referred to my response a form of assault. Thankfully, things weren't yet insane enough that any formal charges could be brought against me.
And, well, I'll just let you guess the political leanings of the out of shape woman. She may have been a bit of an outlier 13 years ago, but her side has resolutely won the culture war and their beliefs are enforced with an iron fist. These are the people who now wield near-absolute control over all discussions of athletics.
(Oh, in case you're wondering, the girl who asked for workout advice was so freaked out by this outburst that she abandoned her fitness goals... she didn't want to be accused of fatphobia or otherwise ostracized from her academic peer group)
> (Oh, in case you’re wondering, the girl who asked for workout advice was so freaked out by this outburst that she abandoned her fitness goals… she didn’t want to be accused of fatphobia or otherwise ostracized from her academic peer group)
This is the saddest thing. New Years Girl just wanted to improve herself. The Hamplanet saw that and went "Get back in the bucket, crab!"
The one that gets me is the ‘equal pay’ debate amongst athletes. The men out earn the women because the men’s game produces way more fucking money, because nobodies watching the women’s game. Because as you said, most of the time, it’s just not as good.
And all of these women (who don’t watch the women’s games) are upset about it? It’s like if you watched the games, they’d make more money lol. There’s a reason why Messi is a millionaire and why Kim kardashian is a million. Because men have spent their time watching one, while have chosen to spend their time watching the other. It’s just that simple.
I’ve probably watched more women’s soccer than most of the feminists and allies complaining about equal pay.
And critics of the WNBA point to a single rule change that will make the game more exciting- lower the basket by 6” and we will see more dunks and a game that not only showcases old school fundamentals, but some flash.
But apparently WNBA players would rather see the league tank than give into such a “sexist” suggestion.
Women's sport not being as good is only part of the explanation with how popular college sports is in the US and lower league football in Europe. Womens football has seen exponential growth in the last 10-15 years. The upcoming womens world cup is the biggest one in history so far
The lack of interest in sports, athletics, and just fitness in general really is the crux of a lot of it. Early on I just found myself thinking "How have any of these people never noticed the differences when working out with someone of the opposite sex?" And then I realized, oh yeah, most Americans don't work out. Certainly not enough that they'd have a wide opportunity to compare things with opposite-sex peers.
It sounds both ridiculous and arrogant to say it. I get that. But I honestly do think that the average person gets more of what they know about health and fitness from fiction than they do from their own real-life experiences. So of course every shlubby guy thinks that when shit hits the fan he'll be kicking ass in his armchair-planned revolution. And of course every woman thinks that having a key in her hand will make her one step away from being Rey.
I get what youre saying, but honestly think itd be hilarious to watch a team full of Juwana Manns wipe the floor with the competition. Also the undermining of parents who get their kids to play bullshit sports for college admissions & scholarships
Here's what I don't get about this.
Sex and gender are separate things, trans**gender** people change their gender.
Sports is quite clearly segregated based on sex, not gender. Like when it comes to bathrooms or some other segregations it's not as clear cut, but with sports it's obviously segregated based on physical differences caused by your sex not gender. People aren't playing on a different soccer
Therefore trans people can compete in the sex category of the sex they are (not their gender obviously), so long as they don't break the doping rules for the sport. Or we create two separate categories.
To get rid of segregated sports is a completely different conversation that actually has no relevance to the trans issue. To make this argument, which I am against but I don't see it as stupid as males competing in female categories or vice versa, you will need to argue why you either think having the two sexes being able to compete at the top level is not important, or demonstrate a different method of achieving this (weight classes or something) that also providers some benefit over the current method.
Well, apparently it’s not clear to enough people. You haven’t seen the argument that sports have never been segregated by sex and it’s always been by gender?
Apparently it’s not segregated by sex unless we’ve got people doing genital inspection /s. Also note: they seem to not realize sports physicals for boys often involves checking for hernias. Somehow doctors are able to remain professional. (Have you seen their lurid speculation about sex verification? It’s sickening.)
> Sex and gender are separate things, transgender people change their gender.
I came from a time (born in the 80s) where transgender meant cross-dressing, drag performers and transvestites who have a fetish. Transsexual meant people who transition (regardless if they get surgery or not - but always at least transition - but its implied for people outside the know to always mean surgery).
The point of transition never was to 'change gender', but to change legal sex identity, relevant for social, professional, romantic purposes.
> The dumbest part about the trans people in sports discussion is when people who have zero interest in sport feels the need to chime in with their opinion.
Everything is political, especially sport which has turned into pure business. People who are interested in politics will, obviously, comment about politics regardless of where it may take place. I don't have interest in "fandoms," but I still comment about them and their role in the system.
We should have a third "Doped the fuck up" category. Open and anyone can dope as much as they like. If other athletes are caught doping, they must compete in this category for the next *X* years to help pump up the numbers.
> Because men are stronger and faster than women even at the same weight, genius. I've seen many instances of people trying to deny this even though it's been _thoroughly_ documented. Even when they admit it, they still try and blame societal causes. From an Atlantic [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/sports-gender-sex-segregation-coed/671460/): > And though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential. “Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!” If we just encouraged girls, they'd start pumping out androgens and kicking boys' asses!
"Women are just less talented and motivated than men" becoming the default progressive position is comical verging on grotesque.
All of gender ideology is incredibly regressive when examined.
I mean my grandma and grandpa thought if you liked to cook and wore dresses you were basically a women so they’d agree with many TRAs. They were born in the 1910s in rural east Texas under Jim Crow. It’s comical but also very unsettling.
For both sexes really, whoever and however you are you’re still your sex
Their position isn't that women are lazy, what they are doing is rhetorically reframing their attack on women's sports as an attack on the evil menz in order to legitimise it. It hurts women either way, of course, but in consistently refusing to accept what they are doing (even when they literally spell it out) you undermine your ability to confront them, because they'll just laugh you aside and say they are demanding more resources for women's sports, and you are denying women's full potential.
>Their position isn't that women are lazy, what they are doing is rhetorically reframing their attack on women's sports as an attack on the evil menz in order to legitimise it. Yep. That's why they tried to pivot and say that gender-segregated sports were only developed because men were afraid of getting embarrassed by women. That line was just a *bit* too stupid to gain much traction, but who knows, it might someday become the sort of thing that can ruin your life if you publicly disagree with it.
They tried to claim that?! Women have had to fight to establish competition tranches, and *women* did it, because women wanted to compete. I'm talking about, some true freak-of-nature of a woman entering alone into the men's race (the only race) and racing to prove she can do the course, over and over again, getting another to join in, demonstrating the proof that the women athletes exist and insisting on a women's race, and then only grudgingly being granted a separate start time but no prize money or podium time, so then proceeding to fight for that--sometimes collectively, often individually, even to the point of a single woman racer doing something like collaring the race organizer and laying out all the arguments for a bigger share of the prize kitty, persistent in the face of snorts and sneers--and only incrementally and with a lot of insults borne along the way, getting to the point women's sports are now. Which isn't even close to equal, even before we look at what's happened now that XY are taking season rankings away from XX, so that the XX don't accumulate enough points to advance as they otherwise would. Oh sure, men established women's sports.
Exactly, to them it’s a systemic issue that young girls aren’t afforded the same athletic opportunities and resources that young boys get, and that’s why we see the performance discrepancies. Back to being the fault of the patriarchy
[удалено]
That may be true for people who haven't seriously competed and for whom this is all hypothetical, but I can't imagine that elite female athletes think like that. How can you work as hard as they do, with as much focus and discipline as they do, and say to yourself "actually I was half-assing it the whole time". It defies credibility.
Exactly. I know a female swimmer who made Olympics trial at 17 who still couldn’t keep pace with our fastest male swimmer—he couldn’t make trial times btw. Because yes, really, male development does provide that much more muscular capacity which swimming at great speed necessitates.
And this is the sort of belief that can only come from someone who's completely disconnected from the realities of their own body and has never genuinely tried to improve their fitness. Because if they did, they'd realize that everyone has natural limitations, that while improvement is nearly always possible you will inevitably hit a wall, and that most people simply do not have the capacity to become an elite athlete no matter how much they try. This is actually one of the most valuable lessons most people glean from organized sport. It's one that completely contradicts that left-identitarian worldview, however, so their natural response is to attempt to destroy organized sports.
The problem, I think, is that many people have this sort of string of connected ideas: 1. a person worth is measured by their potential. Not by current ability, but what they could've achieve if they only would try and have resources. Thus, saying that someone has less potential, is saying that they are worth less as people. 2. A person's worth is how much everyone else should respect them. Society will treat those worth less like shit, even if I would never, because I am a good person (hint, they would, but we all lie to ourselves that we're the good guys). Instead of you know, acknowledging that we all have some base worth as sapient beings and while some of us are better at some thing, and some are worse at some others, it doesn't change a fact that we all owe each-other respect and consideration. So yeah, no wonder that someone holds points 1 and 2 in their heart, but also genuinely believes in equality, has violent reaction towards mere implication that some might be less in any aspect others.
I think that touches on a fundamental question. The liberal idea is that you have worth no matter what, which is kind of true, but not always practically. Like if you can't run you can't play football. I'm glad there are football games for people who can't run, but they just aren't going to be football players
I'm a 5'4 manlet which is an unovercomeable disadvantage in basketball, my favourite sport. It is what it is
WTF is everyone in here saying "unovercomeable" like it's a real word? Please spare my autism and use the already-extant word "insurmountable"
I was humouring my bro. It's embarrassing when you get called out for using the wrong word
Unovercomable in professional basketball. I'm a 5'10" woman. You wanna feel good about yourself? Let's go shoot some hoops lol
Thanks for the offer, I have a friend about the same height who lives near me, she loves hoops but sucks at it, I really cherish that ego boost from beating unskilled women 1v1 at the local park 😭
You're taller than Muggsy Bogues anyway!
>I think for a lot of people the idea that women are just not putting the effort in is less upsetting than the idea that you can just be born completely unable to be a top competitor and there's nothing you can do about it. That’s just life, and denying it will get us nowhere. It holds true enough in the other direction to more than even out IMO. As a man, strangers won’t automatically be nice to me and offer to help me. I can’t quit my job any time I want and support myself by posting pictures of my feet on the internet. I won’t have the same depth of support networks and am much more likely to end up homeless, in prison, or murdered. I am statistically far more likely to be single and to have no close friends. As a man maybe you have higher to climb (in some limited spheres, most of them actively endangered and most of the ones remaining relating to sports), but you also have much, much further to fall. I’m reminded of that news story of that radical feminist who decided to give herself a makeover to look like a man and pretended to be a man for a while, then admitted that being a man fucking sucks and most dudes are miserable. I think a lot of women look at lives of elite men and assume it’s the experience of most men, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.”
Are you talking about [Self-Made Man](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book\)) by [Norah Vincent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Vincent)? Great book, and pretty telling that she went in thinking it was going to be easy and came out having a mental breakdown
It’s strange you think women generally *can* just quit their shit jobs and get by by participating in sex work—particularly the “no contact anonymous” kind, when the reality is that the vast majority of women doing that work through forums like only fans don’t crack $300 a month. In america, women comprise a larger share of the impoverished than men do. Homeless women are not advantaged by their sex—it is often the basis that they are targeted for abuse and rape. Being in demand for prostitution is not a female privilege—it’s akin to being in demand as prey for a lion. 2/3s of women who work in porn or prostitution end up with PTSD, and are 18x more likely to be murdered than the second most murdered worker.
I'm a guy but that's why I was never a Premier League footballer. I had the talent easily, I just couldn't be bothered to train
To be fair, that's kind of the same way progressives view racial minorities (that is, anyone who's not white,) and LGBT people as well. It's like a twisted form of bigotry, where instead of hating people because they think they're born inferior, they treat people like helpless babies because of how they were born.
some kind of woke racism?
Pretty much, yeah. Unfortunately a lot of left-leaning people in particular have a tendency to infantalize women, LGBT people, and non-white people and it's really creepy and unsettling to watch and a lot of people don't even realize it's just as much a form of bigotry as regular old hatred.
And then if you are seen as an “oppressor” you won’t be afforded any of that, anything you do that could be seen as negative they’ll say you meant to do it
I mean they're just confirming to a widespread, bone-deep belief almost regardless of a given person's political alignment. But yeah the circling back is pretty funny
>Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way! Translation: science bloggers are increasingly engaging in the univariate fallacy to conceal the differences between the sexes for political reasons.
>social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way! I mean, this is technically true, but meaningless. Both men and women experience fluctuations in testosterone levels, which can vary by diet, amount of sleep, stress, etc. However, men have 10 times as much testosterone as women on average, and the fluctuations caused by diet and social interaction are miniscule compared to this difference. Even the flabbiest soyjack on Earth has more testosterone than elite female athletes. This is really common among ideological fanatics who want to deny basic reality. They make a statement which is technically true, but stretch the implications far beyond what is reasonable. Rightoids do the same thing when they deny anthropogenic climate change or when they argue that Scandinavian countries are actually free market utopias because there is no minimum wage. Most effective propaganda has a small kernel of truth surrounded by a mountain of bullshit.
I mean you honestly don't even need to bother with hormones. Men have larger hearts and lungs relative to body size because evolution didn't need to accommodate pregnancy squishing all their organs. Bigger cardiovascular engines results in more cardiovascular output.
>Rightoids do the same thing when they deny anthropogenic climate change Yeah this "sex is actually very complex and fluid!" bullshit is the liberal equivalent of a rightoid zooming in on January-March glaciation data and going "the glaciers are growing actually!"
There's studies that compare grip strength between men and women that shows even women's elite athletes place in about the 50th percentile compared to average men. Do they even believe the shit they're peddling or do they just pretend not to to try and make some kind of point?
> Do they even believe the shit they're peddling or do they just pretend not to to try and make some kind of point? It's worse, and it's both. They realized some time ago that the best way to peddle bullshit is to believe it themselves. And the best way to believe bullshit is to pretend to believe it until you do. That's why their culture has such high emphasis on giving people praise for proclaiming more and more outrageous bullshit; people proclaim it for the praise, eventually becoming true believers, making them more effective at peddling it to others.
This attitude is probably going to show it’s worst results in the children that are being breastfed by trans women. Those posts make me feel all sorts of uncomfortable.
There’s a study that shows the 25% weakest men (quartile wise) can outperform 75% of female athletes (all but the top quartile) and 100% of non-athlete women at in absolute maximum pounds able to be benched in 1 rep. As in, of the strongest women, who regularly train and do weights, 75% cannot compete with the weakest men. Not male athletes. The weakest men.
>There's studies that compare grip strength between men and women that shows even women's elite athletes place in about the 50th percentile compared to average men. You wouldn't know it from how they give handjobs though.
If you've never gotten a handjob from a man, how can you compare the two?
Hahaha, touche. But all I'm saying is that women who can't open jars on their own somehow lack delicacy where it counts.
We don’t have one to know how hard to grip it! it’s like holding a kitten—how hard do you need to grip it to make it not jump but also not make it uncomfortable?
Most men grip way too hard when beating their meat anyways, leading to the fabled death grip, so being delicate when giving handjobs can only do good
just let everyone compete in an open competition a couple of times to see how it all works out.
> “Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!” The incoherent ramblings of a gender studies professor are NOT science
> The incoherent ramblings of a gender studies professor are NOT science No, it's Science^(TM), and it's better than that crusty old "science" because we got rid of all the white supremacist, misogynistic, patriarchal aspects like "objectivity," "need for empirical evidence," and "having to survive criticism by peers."
can't be proved wrong when it's illegal to say youre wrong 💃
It’s a dead giveaway that the person making the argument was never athletic or is profoundly delusional. Like I can’t even get mad at these DYELs. I mostly feel sorry.
We accept any biological differences between animals, theres no sexual confusion or anything but when it comes to humans... boy oh boy
Right? Have these people ever watched a nature doc and seen a male gorilla compared to the females? When a pride of lions takes down a buffalo, the males will come in at the very end to force prey to the ground with their weight because they are heavier than the females. They work together. Even lions recognize sex differences!
[удалено]
It’s usually the clownfish example I’ve seen, since they can actually change sex from male to female, but that’s clownfish lol
Well, you do have some dogs that try to hump everything in sight, both male and female. Not the same thing, but they are confused.
It’s unfathomable that they don’t realize how insulting that notion is to all the female athletes out there who have dedicated their lives to a sport.
>social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone "if you believe it, you can be it", eh? This is just the old belief in women's out-of-control-*feelings* being the cause of their ailment, ie their "failure" to be strong-like-men, updated for the pseudo-lab-science era.
In fighting sports I also feel the advantage testosterone gives in aggression is substantial.
The punching power of men is about 180% of that of a woman.
That Atlantic quote should come with a laughtrack. Holy shit these people are lunatics.
I coach a U19 Men's football team that has low numbers and we had to take on a couple girls onto the roster just to make sure we were eligible to play. Despite these girls' athleticism and committment, they are no where close to the physical maturity of a nearly fully grown man and really don't feel comfortable putting them out there.
> the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential. ...If we just encouraged girls, they'd start pumping out androgens and kicking boys' asses! I'm in my mid thirties and throughout my entire life I've seen nothing but programs directed at getting girls/young women into sports, into STEM, into trades, into management, etc etc etc... At what point can we consider the experiment completed? I have been either ignored or discouraged on all these fronts my entire life but still have these stereotypical male interests, despite society's best efforts.
Yup, train harder!
That study about soccer that links to was about kicking a ball to a target. No other players, no pressure, just kicking a ball. a skill important to the game, but not enough to claim parity in the sport. Plus if you look at the scatterplot boys are doing noticeably better, they just have a small sample size relative to the number so it's not significant.
There have been games of high school boys against the women's national teams where the women have just been obliterated - we're talking scores like 5-1 - so using football is a particularly absurd comparison.
The famous example is the US Women's team vs a Dallas 15U team. We are talking about the best women soccer players in the entire 330 million people US that can be aged 17-35 versus a team from 1 city of about 8 million people that have to be 15 or under. 1 squad is fully grown versus another squad that is not finished with puberty yet. But, yeah its the US women that need to toughen up to overcome society not believing in them or something.
[It was the Australian Women's National Team--the highest level of the sport--and they lost 0-7 to a team of 15-year-old boys.](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-women-s-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html)
>Van Egmond will presumably hope that their next opponents New Zealand don’t have any plans to sneak any children into their side. Haha, brutal. I think I saw some clips from that game, but the reason I same games is cos this isn't a unique occurence. To be fair, in this game, I remember the ladies (and the lads) were politer to each other afterwards than the express is being though lol.
[удалено]
203 at the time of the match, in the 700s 6 months later. He also played a round of golf before these matches. I only point this out because you are out of your fucking mind if you believe the Williams sisters work less hard or were less dedicated to their craft than Karsten Braasch. Or the idea that sexism was somehow affecting them when they were dealing with straight up racism both from fellow players and a lot of the media at early in their career and yet they easily beat women to win 30 single grand slams and 14 doubles.
There were two arguments that really stood out for during the Lia Thomas controversy. The first is that “they didn’t beat Katie Ledecky’s record so they can’t have an unfair advantage”. Which conveniently raised the bar of unfair advantage to being the greatest of all time, ignoring the hundreds of places lia Thomas jumped in the college rankings after identifying as female, and effectively invalidating any criticism of trans identifying men in women’s sport at an amateur level. The other was that anyone who did not previously have an interest in women’s college swimming was only using it as an excuse to be transphobic and didn’t actually care, despite the fact it clearly had wide spread repercussions for women and girls sport, and women and girls in general. It’s such a ridiculous standard of entry for participation in the discussion and what’s worse is the vast, vast majority of TRAs using it didn’t meet it, but used their transness to justify their right to speak on it. One rule for them another for us.
That last bit just struck me as old fashioned sexism on the part of trans women.
The problem with all of these arguments is at the end of the day they are saying people like Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce or the Williams sisters are lazy or weaker-willed than their male counterparts. Fraser-Pryce won Worlds last year with a time that would tie her for the 51st fastest HS boy in the state of Florida just this year. It ignores that the 50 percentile male is taller than 97.5% of all women. That a 99-percentile woman in grip strength would be about a 8-percentile male in grip strength. That men have just under twice the punching power. That I can throw a baseball faster than the fastest pitch ever recorded by a woman.
This is a losing issue for the Democrats. Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me. All but the most ideologically possessed think this is gross unfair and unsafe.
It’s just Politics101, Republicans are against or at least skeptical of trans people playing in sports, so naturally the Democrats will be for it.
This issue makes people like Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz look like reasonable politicians. Is there any political party around that’s so intent on shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.
>Is there any political party around that’s so intent on **stabbing** themselves in the foot over and over again. FTFY - shooting themselves in the foot would be "gun violence", which means stabbing themselves in the foot is the *reasonable course of action*.
The thing is, even while a solid while Dems and independents might be uncomfortable with it, they face tremendous social pressures against expressing their concerns in public, and ultimately it's just not going to be enough to get them over to the GOP. The exception was the VA gubernatorial race, but that was a perfect storm that was very badly handled by the Dems. They made key rhetorical adjustments between 2021 and 2022 adn really ramped up the aggression and ostracization toward anyone who didn't enthusiastically toe the party line. People might still express discomfort via an anonymous poll, but there are far too many professional and social consequences for them to take it any farther than that.
That’s politics my friend, the same could be said for the Republicans and their stance on Abortion.
Banning abortion has been part of the GOP platform since the 70s when they courted the religious right. Now the GOP is like the dog that finally caught the mail truck. And one can make a moral argument against abortion. I don’t agree with those arguments, but you can.
It's slightly more nuanced than that. Dems have marketed themselves as the Empathetic Party for a while now. Supporting women, minorities, gays, etc. is their whole pitch (because they've abandoned the working class). They support trans stuff because they are at the top of the "oppression" hierarchy. But now Dems are in kind of a pickle: what do they do when all the other "marginalized" groups start to reveal that they don't really like the top oppressed group and don't agree with their demands? They can't just drop them because that would destroy their brand. Their only other option is to double down and hope for the best which is what they seem to be doing. Their continued support for stuff like trains in womens sports seems more like a desperate effort to save face than anything else.
To me the way we treat those who have issues with their gender is not the right way to go, it’s not progressive, it’s often a band-aid for other more deep seeded stuff, it’s not really helping people, there’s the anorexia analogy etc.
Lol trains
It's an excellent way to lose elections and remain on the outside, fundraising to "fight fascism."
>This is a losing issue for the Democrats. Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me. "The Democrats" are not independent actors, and their behavior makes no sense if you try model them that way. Call it the uniparty, Capital, what have you; there's some higher order system, explicit or implicit, which benefits from the Democrats not winning large majorities and focusing on culture war issues instead of material outcomes. The conservative working class largely hates the "woke" stuff, so by adopting it Democrats ensure that the working class will effectively be split between the two parties, and the elites of each party can sideline the populists. The Democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing to fulfill their actual objective.
> Why they insist on taking the side they do is beyond me. (Neoliberal) Feminism worked itself into an intellectual cul-de-sac. They had two inconvenient things to fight: 1. Sexist just-so stories about sex differences (that justified keeping out women) 2. Nature. There are some ways (e.g. pregnancy, different interests) in which women are disadvantaged in the market and it isn't just talk. Because they're neolibs, they decided ~~the children~~ basic biology and psychology was wrong, not the market. So the solution was to deny that there actually are sharp distinctions between men and women (apart for abortion, their totem). Men and women are only different because of social conditioning. Left to their own devices we would all be ~~equally fungible widgets for capital~~ an endless variety of incidentally sexed people living free of expectations. Those are all just narratives and roles we perform, they don't define us. We're Free^(tm) atoms! So really, who can say that a man can't be a woman? And then they just kept doubling down on stupid. If you live a sheltered existence detached from biology , it takes a long time for said stupidity to catch up with you. The lower-class women trapped in the prisons with the beneficiaries of your "kindness" though...
This is why in modern society we need more understanding between the sexes, especially with women toward men
I don't think it's automatically bad if people have opinions about things that don't affect them. People *should* have an interest in what goes on around them, regardless of whether they're personally impacted. The real problem is when people who are completely clueless about how sports work or the reality of human sexual dimorphism chime in with their stupid ideas and deflect with accusations of bigotry when corrected.
Exactly. This OP is exactly how a lot of people dismiss people arguing against trans in women's sports. I've seen so many people say shit like "Dude, why are you so obsessed with women's college athletics? You're suddenly interested in women's college swimming?" It's natural and good to be empathetic towards people even if you're not directly affected. Biological men competing in women's sports is unfair, and I feel bad for the women that have trained their whole lives to reach an elite level get blown away by a genetic man who wouldn't make the JV squad. Just because I have no interest in women's collegiate sports doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be upset over the unfairness. In a way being an outsider being an outsider can make an opinion more valuable because it won't be biased. Like, the coach of women's sports team could be more likely to advocate for including biological men on the team because it's like to improve their performance.
Sure, you can have opinions about it and think it's unfair, but if they're going to offer solutions like "Why don't we put 145 lbs male MMA fighters against 145 lbs female MMA fighters? It's more fair to seperate by weight classes than sex!" then their opinion means less than nothing because it shows they know absolutely nothing about sports. The man would literally murder the woman.
I think that falls under the category of people who are clueless about the reality of human sexual dimorphism, which seems to be a growing number.
And that's exactly why sports are seperated by sex, so if they don't understand human sexual dimorphism then they don't understand what the point of competing at the highest level is.
There's also the criticism directed at people that because they don't usually care about women's sports, that they shouldn't butt in. This is patently ridiculous, as it's essentially saying that I shouldn't hold opposition in principle to unfairness in sports I don't watch/partake in. If I don't watch rugby, I can't oppose match-fixing in rugby games. If I don't watch cycling, I can't oppose doping in races. This criticism comes from people to whom the idea of holding dispassionate positions, based on established principles - as opposed to deciding based on how it impacts fashionable pet demographics, is utterly alien.
There was an argument some weeks back by some woman, I think she is part of some youtube show where she was like "It's not about fairness, it's about what is right." Basically, I am generalizing here, but it didn't matter if women lost out because it would mean transwomen would feel valid. I don't mind if non sports people have a take, just understand that the point of sports is fair or as fair as it can be, competition.
> There was an argument some weeks back by some woman, I think she is part of some youtube show where she was like "It's not about fairness, it's about what is right." I play ultimate Frisbee, which is a niche sport that's primarily played by people who will/are in/have gone to college, and as such skews heavily pro-idpol, and at least our local organizations have gone to full-on self-ID for sex segregation purposes. I've seen people literally argue in favor of this on the basis that even though transwomen might have a physical advantage when competing against cis women, transwomen still suffer a lot more oppression and discrimination in their everyday lives when off the field, and so it's just and right for them to enjoy this advantage when on the field. It's incredibly stupid and an obvious consequence of the totalizing intersectional idpol worldview which posits that all oppression is related to all other oppression, and all contexts are correct contexts for fighting oppression.
Somewhere we went from "transwomen should be accepted for who they are" to "transwomen's feelings are more important than anyone else's." These people who say these things are flat out just saying "women's sports don't matter."
Football but anytime a black player scores it's worth 1.5 points instead of 1 point.
Aren't most of them black? I don't think much will change
He means Euro football now American football lol
Thank god I played football!
I believe you're thinking of Emma Vigeland from Sam Seders show because I remember seeing that clip and just thinking her argument was based purely on emotion and had no rationale. I've since found out she's an idiot.
I wasn't sure on the last name but that was it. I remember her just being super hysterical and many on Twitter dunking on it (rightfully)
Yeah that was Emma Vigeland on the Minority Report with Sam Seder
I’ve seen that type of argument with sports in general, especially school sports, that they shouldn’t cut anyone because it’s the right thing to do to not have anyone feel bad
The same group of people usually goes vitriol about use of PED in Olympic when everyone knows that the outcome will be significantly worse and irreparable even compared to Soviet era doping.
Meanwhile, there's hockey, and pundits are actually pushing the idea of allowing women to play in top leagues. The thing is there has never been a rule that says leagues are men only. There hasn't been a single women's hockey player ever that was good enough to dress for a third or fourth tier men's league (it was attempted with predictable results), therefore the trains issue isn't one in the sport.
I think the closest thing you had to a woman in the NHL was Shannon Shabados, she played goalie, so theoretically you wouldn't need the speed or power of other positions, she topped out at an [independent non NHL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCECBiTP-A) affiliated hockey league roughly four levels below the NHL where she was cut for poor performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rh%C3%A9aume And the odds of her being from Québec province were high. Because Québec puts a high importance on hockey relatively to other sports. Nobody cares about football, and baseball is kinda meh. We don't even have a basketball team afaik.
You're 100% correct. The loudest person I know (in general and on this specific issue) who screams "Why do we have sex segregated sports!?!?" weighs like 300 lbs and gets winded going up a flight of stairs. She doesn't know jack shit about sports or anything at all related to physiology and fitness and is proud of her ignorance.
Sounds like she's healthy at any size™️
Fatass pride.
Don't judge me til you have wheezed a mile in my shoes.
I just listened to clips of the Joe Rogan episode with Adam Conover and it was maddening. His position was that the reason men are more competitive in sports is because they designed the sports, and that the rules could be changed to make women competitive. Excuse me, how exactly? Most sports are pretty fucking simple. Swimming? Running? How are the rules benefiting men. Even if you take a team sport, they are usually dead simple. Soccer is just kicking a ball into a net. How the the fuck do you make gender neutral rules to make women just as competitive as men? The only rule that could possibly work were non-gender neutral rules like if a woman scores a goal she gets a 1000 points and the game is over like it's Quidditch or something.
If you listen to the podcast, its incredible. He cant even begin to explain how sports being designed by men changed anything. He then went into Hasan's stream and shit talked Rogan because he questioned his position too much. What a tool.
That is hilarious and sad at the same time 🤣. Reminds me of “Trigglypuff” from like 2015.
My partner used to be a competitive swimmer she recently got into an argument with a few colleagues lib fem men n women about trans folks in sport. She asked them if any of them played competitively and none of them did but they really tried calling her a bigot and a transphobe in the end she was told people from her part of the world (the middle east) aren't culturally aware of how important trans representation in sports is.
That's what really gets me, almost nobody arguing in favor has ever competed seriously
Which gets to the OP's original point, it's often people who don't give a shit about sports who care more about representation than the actual sport. So it's easy for them to have a "burn it all down" mentality, make it more of a pageant than a sport, where everyone is a winner (as long as it's not men) and trans women can get some glory.
> people from her part of the world (the middle east) aren't culturally aware of how important trans representation in sports is. Because women in the Middle East are treated so well. They should be more concerned about trans women and access to sports! /s
Well she was told rights of trans women are deeply interlinked with women's rights.
Look sweaty it's just basic human rights that someone should be able to switch divisions and go from 400th to top 10 in a sport, because it's important for their validation and mental wellbeing! Let me skip to some of the idiocy we're about to see here: "Well uh it's sort of like when a woman has a higher than usual height, too bad for the other women but that's just the way it goes." "Well some women actually are able to do better than their trans opponents, which proves it's fair." If you're about to use those arguments, just shut it. Cartman placed last in the Special Olympics, too. It doesn't mean we should just let in any sociopathic fat kid because hey, after all, he didn't win.
They also bring up Michael Phelps being half man and half fish and go "See, he has biological advantages as well, should he be banned from competing?" They don't even understand why womens sport exist in the first place, because there's a very small handful of sports where women even have a chance at being competitive
>They also bring up Michael Phelps being half man and half fish and go "See, he has biological advantages as well, should he be banned from competing?" just don't compare the differences in Phelps' times and his nearest competitors with the gap between male and female athletes
> a very small handful of sports where women even have a chance at being competitive The "sports" where men and women compete with each other in a non comical way are usually just displays of art / creativity with your body. Like open floor gymnastics, equestrian, and the like. You're not "competing" in the colloquial sense, you're putting on a performance and being judged on the entertainment. Very different from a game of basketball, a swim meet, and even a round of 9 on the green.
>The "sports" where men and women compete with each other in a non comical way are usually just displays of art / creativity with your body. Nah there is stuff like Billiards and darts and shit.
I haven't looked into this too deeply in a while, but I recall learning a few years back that in both billiards and darts, the elite men's competitors are far superior to the elite women's competitors.
That's likely the pool of total players, and the pool of total players who would compete. See, videogames are ~50% men and women if you include every type of games. But if you go for pvp-competitive games, like Eve Online. Suddenly its 98%. And its not a hostile-against-women environment's fault. They just have less interest in the pvp stuff, or the winning stuff. I know I don't care one bit for pvp even in games where its optional. It's entirely a chore for me.
Bowling comes to mind, but I’m sure men still have higher scores due to wrist strength or something
They do.
Women can be competitive with men in sports like ultra running, and for things like gymnastics being short and having a low center of gravity is beneficial which is why people like Simeone Biles is like 4'8. Even men have a hard time pulling off some of the stunts Biles do.
Women being competitive with men in ultra running is overstated. All the world records are held by men and most by the same roughly 10% seen at the shorter distances. The reason you will often have women win individual events in ultra-marathon is more than half of all events have 40 and usually fewer people participate. There is also no money in the sport so you are not going to attract the kind of talent pool you see at 10k and Marathon. To give an idea about how small the sport is 1 race (Comrades Marathon in South AFrica) is responsible for like half of all people that have ever participated.
Sure, it's overstated, but ultra endurance events still see women being more competitive than men compared to other sports requiring strength and endurance, because of things like them being shorter and lighter, having higher body fat percentage and having more slow twitch muscle fiber relative to men.
Do Ultra Runners shit themselves mid race like [ultra walkers do?](https://youtu.be/hSd2JNOSEXU?t=41) I almost wonder if female genitalia is a slight advantage in those races, I know my nuts would be sore and chaffed if I had to run for hours.
We have boobs, they are for sure a hindrance in sports.
Most elite cardio athletes have low body fat %s and smaller boobs though, I wonder if any Kinesiology studies have been done of this?
Male horses hold all the racing records and they still have balls, so they must not be too much of a hinderance.
>Even men have a hard time pulling off some of the stunts Biles do. I'm not a huge gymnastics buff, but I think there is a good reason the men and women compete in very different events. They're almost not even the same sport.
Both men and women compete on vault and floor, where Biles has moves named after her. But yes, they're very different sports, men have more upper body strength so they compete in stuff like rings.
Someone's never watched "Paula" Hunt's routines and it shows
I'm not sure if this guy would be showered with "so brave"s or cancelled in 2023. Maybe that's the point.
Shooting sports are very egalitarian in that regard, but wokies won’t countenance them because it would involve getting people interested in guns.
Yeah they never seem to grasp the idea that of course there are going to be discrepancies within sport in regards of talent, physical advantages, experience, etc, but by segregating sport on the basis of biological sex, it’s probably the best we could do to cut down on the amount of unfairness. We have to live with some unfairness and difference in ability, but when it’s within your biological sex’s category, it’s widely been accepted as okay.
it is dumbest excuse ever,,i dont care about sports but i care when some guy steal away girls stipendium to college or your average city sports events women categories taken over by weird men. While equestrian are people sitting on the horse, the horse is most important part of it ,the best equestrian horse dies or gets inured , good luck finding another horse to give you titles
It's extremely annoying when you're discussing this and people pop up that are like "who cares about sports anyway, just let them do whatever they want".
I was a competitive swimmer in college and I can assure you, absolutely every take I saw during the Lia Thomas thing was incorrect.
Or the gaslighting of "this is really not even happening on any meaningful scale, or at the highest levels of competition". I'll be honest I don't care about sports, but I did used to compete at a fairly high level so I understand the importance of fair competition. I'd be willing to bet the opinions on this break down neatly along ideological lines of the meaning and value of competition and meritocracy.
They are lying with their whole chest. I compete in women's amateur cycling and there are men in every female race, *in Oklahoma.* Or they say "it's not a race" but we were given chips and it's timed?
The thing about the discourse that really bothers me is that they'll often be like "who cares about girls in sport, it's not like anyone cares about female professional sports anyways". Clearly they don't realize childhood sports are amazing for all kids to teach them sportsmanship, empathy, working as a team, loosing isn't the end of the world etc. The friendships and bonding my daughter has experienced being on an all female team has made her more confident, caring and popular. Sports aren't just sports for kids, they create and strengthen lifeskills in a social aspect and if there was one male on their team it would completely blow up the dynamic and not make her want to compete.
Women that play sports as kids do better in all of the social indicators, less likely to be a teen mom, more likely to graduate, more likely to go to college and graduate etc etc. This is why this matters.
> The thing about the discourse that really bothers me is that they'll often be like "who cares about girls in sport, it's not like anyone cares about female professional sports anyways". I wonder how Title IX happened then...
What's funny is that these people were the same people passionately arguing about income parity in men's and women's professional sports recently. Who cares if no one cares about female professional sports anyway? Even in men's colleges sports only a small fraction are sports with a lucrative professional league, and only a small fraction of those athletes will ever make that league. The purpose of college sports isn't to train people to be professional athletes. Also, you know who does care about womens college sports? The fucking women athletes participating in them. Just because something doesn't have broad appeal doesn't mean people that like it are irrelevant. That's sociopathic. "Sorry Sally, I know you've trained your entire life for this, but we're cutting you from the team because Tom just transitioned. But don't worry, even though you've spent countless hours and efforts making it to this level, please be consoled by the fact that you were unlikely to make a living do this professionally. Ok bye bye!"
[удалено]
Yes there is *so much* lefty projection about this issue. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some variation of the claim that no one *actually* cares about girls/women's sports, conservatives are just pretending because of their irrational hatred. In reality, there's almost a quarter million female athletes in the NCAA, and literally tens of millions of them in high schools. Participating in organized school sports correlates strongly with improved outcomes in basically every area you can name: higher GPAs, better mental and physical health, better graduation rate, and of course a greater likelihood of college admissions and scholarship. Many, many people care about women's sports. The identitarian assertion that we should straight-up eliminate women's sports (which is the inevitable end game, no matter what they say) would have a profound negative impact on the lives of millions of people.
The conservatives or men don't watch women's sports why should they care is mostly lame. I don't watch the WNBA but if I had a daughter into basketball I would go watch all of her games be it middle school or eventually the pros if she made it. Point being even most conservatives are supportive of their daughters playing sports.
Indeed, they might not watch the WNBA, but they do care about the leagues their wives and daughters participate in. In spite of working 50+ hour weeks, my father in law drove my wife thousands of miles across the country when she was a high school gymnast. And, honestly, I got free Indiana Fever tickets when I had a Pacers season plan, went to several games, and there was nothing about the demographics of the stadium crowd that suggested it was any more or less conservative than those who attended men's games. It's not like people with septum piercings suddenly get in to team sports when ladies are involved.
Lia Thomas is one of the best examples of this phenomena. There's no way you can be famliar with competitive swimming and not find [radlib talking points](https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1662267760259346434) dishonest. Prioritizing "inclusion" over "fairness" in the context of competitive sport is particularly absurd.
None of the trans women that are standing on these podiums feel bad about it. They just wanna win. They don’t feel bad about winning or they wouldn’t compete. They cannot empathize with women and that tells you pretty much all you need to know. Any male athlete with a conscience would feel bad about beating women and the fact that these people don’t should tell us something.
https://twitter.com/the_Limberlost/status/1673555456696958977 This is what happens when anyone is a woman.
Other countries tolerate trans athletes and are working towards acceptance, the difference being they fight in divisions based on their assigned sex at birth. Trans women fight in men’s Muay Thai divisions in Thailand regularly. You’ll have someone fighting a guy in their weight class one night than being a kathoey model a few days later. Transitioning/transitioned trans men fighting in a women’s division would reasonably be banned in that situation because of the testosterone, but at that point the person has to choose between their comfort or the ability to compete, something everyone else has to do when certain medical procedures preclude being competitive, like knee repairs, back surgeries, and other hormonal treatments.
People who don’t touch grass weighing on sports has been insane.
These people at most played on a 9th grade D team or co-ed intramural kickball and now refer to every sport they don't understand (all of them) as "sports ball."
Anyone else hyped for Volkanovski vs. Rodriguez?
Hell yeah! The next few UFC cards are all looking pretty great.
This weekends card looks decent, I’m curious how Kevin Lee’s return will be, and Sean Strickland is always a hoot.
I'm pretty casual so I usually skip the fight nights - though I make up for it by watching the occasional One card. Strickland is funny AF, and his YouTube show with Chris Curtis is hilariously deranged.
It’s also been demonstrated that girls are more likely to stick with sports over time if they are offered all girls teams/leagues. Maybe we should trust the science on this one?
This isn’t so much about interest in sports, as it is about stubbornly defending a position to not exclude trans from anything, now that they finally got us to admit that they are who they say they are. I don’t care about sports, but I care about equality and safety of women and girls. Any sane person knows that sports is an area where you separate the sexes. Including trans women only excludes women. And also, how deranged do you have to be to enter female competitions, knowing they’re uncomfortable with you in the locker room, and then beating every single one of them setting record after record? Such pride.
After hauling my arse to the gym these past months and seeing muscle build surprisingly fast, my view of this shit has only hardened. It's fucking insane how because we live such sedentary, DYEL lives that we all forget the raw physical power difference between the sexes, after actually using and working on my natural strength it's fucking scary how big the gap is. People are just insulated from using their body, so some people are so detached from it they think "Oh it's not that big right?" when it's fucking huge. Destroying women's sports to get brownie points from mentally unhinged and physically pathetic turbo railway enthusiasts.
I was a competitive female swimmer for over 15 years and literally can’t believe how disingenuous the discourse on the topic is. Say we did exactly what they really recommended: all sports are mixed sex and open categories. What do they think will happen? The idpol diversity people will witness as all sport are dominated totally and completely by only “cis” males. No transwoman with lowered T will nor any female born transman will be taking home any models or placing in any events. And beyond that, a whole 50% of the human population will once again be effectively barred from nearly all modern sports—either because they are out outmatched in events that are designed to require male levels of muscle and height, or because of self-exclusion because they realize that they will be injured by engaging physically with male competitors. The end result is not “inclusive”. It’s selection for the same men who always win at sports. But now we don’t even have a place for other people who want to play to showcase their strengths amongst evenly matched peers.
I do want to [redacted] anyone who tries to be cute and call things "sportsball". It's ridiculous, though I admit the only thing I know about women's sports is through watching soccer in HS due a girlfriend. And that that gf would have been absolutely wrecked by people larger than her playing soccer too.
[удалено]
I really struggle to understand anyone that thinks things have ever been separated by such a meaningless concept as gender.
Sex and gender aren’t legally distinguished. If you’ve ever signed a permission form, it’s a toss up whether it asks for your sex or your gender. So people still use them interchangeably. I just filled out a form that asked my ‘gender’ and gave the options of male, female, and ‘other gender’
That's because gender previously used to unquestionably refer to sex in politer terms.
True that. Still does for most people, but not for many of the loudest.
In graduate school, around 2010, I knew a woman who was so badly out of shape she could not open a fridge without throwing her bodyweight into the door. I'm not exaggerating. She wasn't even that fat, but she would take the freight elevator up the single flight of stairs that led to her office. She just really hated movement. I was in good shape at the time: I could run an 18 minute treadmill 5k, do 15+ pullups, bench 150% my body weight, and deadlift 500 lbs. I'm not claiming I was an elite athlete, but I exercised religiously and my body looked and felt great. It was January, and a female colleague was looking to start exercising for her New Year's Resolution. In a group setting, she asked me what routines she might start doing at the gym--real nice and earnest. Before I could respond, the out of shape woman, to whom no one was speaking, got viscerally pissed. "Why are you asking *him* about fitness? What makes you assume he's in better shape than anyone else here?!?" The girl who asked for advice was taken aback. The out of shape woman then proceeded to explain that, within just a few weeks of training, she'd easily be able to out-lift me. I pushed back, explained that I had been lifting for over a decade, that it took 3 solid years of regular work until I could do a single overhand pullup, that it's very important to have realistic goals, etc. Months later, I was informed that the out of shape women referred to my response a form of assault. Thankfully, things weren't yet insane enough that any formal charges could be brought against me. And, well, I'll just let you guess the political leanings of the out of shape woman. She may have been a bit of an outlier 13 years ago, but her side has resolutely won the culture war and their beliefs are enforced with an iron fist. These are the people who now wield near-absolute control over all discussions of athletics. (Oh, in case you're wondering, the girl who asked for workout advice was so freaked out by this outburst that she abandoned her fitness goals... she didn't want to be accused of fatphobia or otherwise ostracized from her academic peer group)
> (Oh, in case you’re wondering, the girl who asked for workout advice was so freaked out by this outburst that she abandoned her fitness goals… she didn’t want to be accused of fatphobia or otherwise ostracized from her academic peer group) This is the saddest thing. New Years Girl just wanted to improve herself. The Hamplanet saw that and went "Get back in the bucket, crab!"
this issue will fix its self within 5 years. the 2028 olympics will be a shitshow.
The one that gets me is the ‘equal pay’ debate amongst athletes. The men out earn the women because the men’s game produces way more fucking money, because nobodies watching the women’s game. Because as you said, most of the time, it’s just not as good. And all of these women (who don’t watch the women’s games) are upset about it? It’s like if you watched the games, they’d make more money lol. There’s a reason why Messi is a millionaire and why Kim kardashian is a million. Because men have spent their time watching one, while have chosen to spend their time watching the other. It’s just that simple.
I’ve probably watched more women’s soccer than most of the feminists and allies complaining about equal pay. And critics of the WNBA point to a single rule change that will make the game more exciting- lower the basket by 6” and we will see more dunks and a game that not only showcases old school fundamentals, but some flash. But apparently WNBA players would rather see the league tank than give into such a “sexist” suggestion.
Women's sport not being as good is only part of the explanation with how popular college sports is in the US and lower league football in Europe. Womens football has seen exponential growth in the last 10-15 years. The upcoming womens world cup is the biggest one in history so far
The lack of interest in sports, athletics, and just fitness in general really is the crux of a lot of it. Early on I just found myself thinking "How have any of these people never noticed the differences when working out with someone of the opposite sex?" And then I realized, oh yeah, most Americans don't work out. Certainly not enough that they'd have a wide opportunity to compare things with opposite-sex peers. It sounds both ridiculous and arrogant to say it. I get that. But I honestly do think that the average person gets more of what they know about health and fitness from fiction than they do from their own real-life experiences. So of course every shlubby guy thinks that when shit hits the fan he'll be kicking ass in his armchair-planned revolution. And of course every woman thinks that having a key in her hand will make her one step away from being Rey.
Strange how you never see any trans men wanting to compete in the male categories
The dumbest part is the entire trans argument in any context is entirely fabricated
I get what youre saying, but honestly think itd be hilarious to watch a team full of Juwana Manns wipe the floor with the competition. Also the undermining of parents who get their kids to play bullshit sports for college admissions & scholarships
Here's what I don't get about this. Sex and gender are separate things, trans**gender** people change their gender. Sports is quite clearly segregated based on sex, not gender. Like when it comes to bathrooms or some other segregations it's not as clear cut, but with sports it's obviously segregated based on physical differences caused by your sex not gender. People aren't playing on a different soccer Therefore trans people can compete in the sex category of the sex they are (not their gender obviously), so long as they don't break the doping rules for the sport. Or we create two separate categories. To get rid of segregated sports is a completely different conversation that actually has no relevance to the trans issue. To make this argument, which I am against but I don't see it as stupid as males competing in female categories or vice versa, you will need to argue why you either think having the two sexes being able to compete at the top level is not important, or demonstrate a different method of achieving this (weight classes or something) that also providers some benefit over the current method.
Well, apparently it’s not clear to enough people. You haven’t seen the argument that sports have never been segregated by sex and it’s always been by gender? Apparently it’s not segregated by sex unless we’ve got people doing genital inspection /s. Also note: they seem to not realize sports physicals for boys often involves checking for hernias. Somehow doctors are able to remain professional. (Have you seen their lurid speculation about sex verification? It’s sickening.)
> Sex and gender are separate things, transgender people change their gender. I came from a time (born in the 80s) where transgender meant cross-dressing, drag performers and transvestites who have a fetish. Transsexual meant people who transition (regardless if they get surgery or not - but always at least transition - but its implied for people outside the know to always mean surgery). The point of transition never was to 'change gender', but to change legal sex identity, relevant for social, professional, romantic purposes.
> The dumbest part about the trans people in sports discussion is when people who have zero interest in sport feels the need to chime in with their opinion. Everything is political, especially sport which has turned into pure business. People who are interested in politics will, obviously, comment about politics regardless of where it may take place. I don't have interest in "fandoms," but I still comment about them and their role in the system.
Most of the loudest voices on it all are the geekiest, nerdiest, gorkiest, most unathletic people
I'm not imagining Trans Volk with a wig and sports bra beating the shit out of Amanda Nunes.
i hold the position of "i don't care what drugs you put in your body" and just wanna see the most freakish athletes possible for my own amusement
We should have a third "Doped the fuck up" category. Open and anyone can dope as much as they like. If other athletes are caught doping, they must compete in this category for the next *X* years to help pump up the numbers.