LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[carpedm9587]

I get the point. If we eliminated sex divisions and simply ranked all participants on ability, comparatively low ranking men would dominate the women.

If you rank based on ability, that would seem to contradict your observation here.

It's not just William Thomas, being 492nd beating the best women but Karsten Braasch in 1998 was the 203rd ranked male tennis player while age 30 and he beat the Williams sisters back to back when they were 16 and 17. The US National Soccer team lost to an Under-15 boys team in Dallas in 2017. Women can't outcompete men, Sure women can beat men of lower ability but eventually there will be a point where women cannot compete.

And yet, if you rank by ability (or handicap, for some sports), skills will level out. The principle has been applied successfully in many venues. Your examples do not suggest that the skills were ranked. It's just an arbitrary selection of a person (low) in the male tier and a person (high) in the female tier.

Your idea of creating tiers of ability will naturally have men in the highest tiers.

Yes, that is very likely, and irrelevant. No lightweight ever gets to the heavyweight tier either. No one will be blocked from any tier on the basis of gender, race, or any other personal characteristic. Each tier will have its "champions." It's a simple strategy for eliminating the problem entirely. It only requires the will to explore it, work out the details, implement it, and then work out the kinks. 30 years from now, it will likely be "normal" and we will almost certainly be wondering why we ever did it any other way.

[carpedm9587]

First, no trained woman is going to beat a trained man in the same weight class. Right now women can fight men in the same weight class - they don't have a chance.

This is why I said a weight class is not sufficient, and other tiering characteristics need to be considered (e.g., reach, stamina, speed, etc.). The weight class in boxing and MMA is an example of a tiered system - not the exact system that is needed for this purpose.

BTW, look up Amanda Nunes and Pena (MMA). It pretty much puts to rest the claim that "no woman can do it," even with only weight as the tiering.

Everyone knows that except you Carp. And women can't pass the general physical requirements for basic infantry training. You are living in la la land...

That is, again, not the point (and highly unlikely, given that we already have women serving in venues that require passing those same physical requirements. Indeed, the numbers say that 70% of males and 16% of females pass those tests). The point is that any woman who thinks she can has the opportunity to do so, eliminating sex-based bias. The same principle can be applied to sports.

So far, none of your objections provides a clear, unambiguous reason why sports cannot be re-organized in this fashion.

[Diogenes]

If you rank based on ability, that would seem to contradict your observation here.

No it wouldn't

And yet, if you rank by ability (or handicap, for some sports), skills will level out.

Handicaps would violate any system of ability or merit nor are they used in professional sports.

The principle has been applied successfully in many venues.

Name one competitive venue that has a handicap system.

Your examples do not suggest that the skills were ranked. It's just an arbitrary selection of a person (low) in the male tier and a person (high) in the female tier.

The Williams sisters bragged that they could beat a 200 ranked male.

Here's the story:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...open/96876832/

Just 10 years ago, Serena said the quiet part out loud:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/07/s...ferent-sports/

Seeing as males have more physical ability, of course the skills weren't ranked. To be competitively ranked, the man would have to be of much low rank against other males.


The US National Team lost to literal kids. How much lower ranked would the boys need to be?

Yes, that is very likely, and irrelevant. No lightweight ever gets to the heavyweight tier either. No one will be blocked from any tier on the basis of gender, race, or any other personal characteristic. Each tier will have its "champions." It's a simple strategy for eliminating the problem entirely. It only requires the will to explore it, work out the details, implement it, and then work out the kinks. 30 years from now, it will likely be "normal" and we will almost certainly be wondering why we ever did it any other way.

And men will still dominate the higher tiers. I know your ideologically beholden to say women can compete against men and deluded men can be women. I know you're never going to concede the fact that the best men are literally in a league of their own. Even in golf men and women have different tee spots as women simply don't have the driving range. You will deny reality for the sake of ideology.

[Diogenes]

That is, again, not the point (and highly unlikely, given that we already have women serving in venues that require passing those same physical requirements. Indeed, the numbers say that 70% of males and 16% of females pass those tests). The point is that any woman who thinks she can has the opportunity to do so, eliminating sex-based bias. The same principle can be applied to sports.

Army eases fitness test standards for women, older troops



WASHINGTON (AP) — After three years of complaints and debate, the Army has scrapped its move to have a physical fitness test that is gender- and age-neutral, and will now allow women and older soldiers to pass while meeting some reduced standards.

https://apnews.com/article/army-8107...72e98dd789fbff

[carpedm9587]

No it wouldn't

Yes it would.

Handicaps would violate any system of ability or merit nor are they used in professional sports.

Name one competitive venue that has a handicap system.

Handicaps are not ideal. They would be, at best, a stopgap (if necessary at all).

The Williams sisters bragged that they could beat a 200 ranked male.

Here's the story:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...open/96876832/

Just 10 years ago, Serena said the quiet part out loud:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/07/s...ferent-sports/

Seeing as males have more physical ability, of course the skills weren't ranked. To be competitively ranked, the man would have to be of much low rank against other males.


The US National Team lost to literal kids. How much lower ranked would the boys need to be?

Ranking is about finding a common metric for assessing skill. It doesn't matter how "low" it goes. Once a metric is found/implemented that levels skills, that becomes the "class" or tier. All members of that class/tier are, by definition, of a common capability level. If you overlap the tiers, you create a boundary layer where participants can choose which class to be in. Beyond the boundary, movement to another tier is mandatory. The concept is a simple, and a proven one. It makes no difference how many males or females are in any given tier.

And men will still dominate the higher tiers. I know your ideologically beholden to say women can compete against men and deluded men can be women. I know you're never going to concede the fact that the best men are literally in a league of their own. Even in golf men and women have different tee spots as women simply don't have the driving range. You will deny reality for the sake of ideology.

Again - it makes absolutely no difference how many males or females are in which tier. We don't complain that a featherweight can never be a heavyweight. Why would we complain that a Tier X can never be a tier X+Y? Each person rates in at their appropriate tier and that is where they compete until they qualify for a different tier or retire from the sport.

None of this denies reality. All of it is perfectly rational. There is little argument you are making that concludes it is unworkable. And it completely solves the sex-in-sports issue.

Separating sports by sex is a quaint, outdated notion whose time has come. With a little ingenuity, this is a solvable problem. And it doesn't even need to obviate the current systems. Set it up as a parallel system and see where the energy goes. What's the harm?

[carpedm9587]

Army eases fitness test standards for women, older troops



WASHINGTON (AP) — After three years of complaints and debate, the Army has scrapped its move to have a physical fitness test that is gender- and age-neutral, and will now allow women and older soldiers to pass while meeting some reduced standards.

https://apnews.com/article/army-8107...72e98dd789fbff

If you read the article (and others), you'll see that the complaints were largely about the requirement for passing a physical fitness test unrelated to the demands of the position. In other words, qualified women and older men were being passed over for positions they were perfectly capable of doing because the test demanded more than was necessary for the position. The army reduced the requirements for older men and for women for those types of positions, but retained the more strenuous test for combat positions, regardless of the sex of the applicant.

IMO, the error here is shifting back to the sex/age-related tests. There should be one test for all that requires only the skills necessary to serve in that position, regardless of the applicant. If I have the skills/capabilities to do the job, more skills/capabilities is irrelevant and should not be part of the test. If I do not have the skills, then I don't have the skills - and the test should not be lowered so I can pass.

Isn't that what so many of you have been screaming about - merit/skill-based hiring? Why is it now verboten in this context?

[seer]

This is why I said a weight class is not sufficient, and other tiering characteristics need to be considered (e.g., reach, stamina, speed, etc.). The weight class in boxing and MMA is an example of a tiered system - not the exact system that is needed for this purpose.

BTW, look up Amanda Nunes and Pena (MMA). It pretty much puts to rest the claim that "no woman can do it," even with only weight as the tiering.



That is, again, not the point (and highly unlikely, given that we already have women serving in venues that require passing those same physical requirements. Indeed, the numbers say that 70% of males and 16% of females pass those tests). The point is that any woman who thinks she can has the opportunity to do so, eliminating sex-based bias. The same principle can be applied to sports.

So far, none of your objections provides a clear, unambiguous reason why sports cannot be re-organized in this fashion.

Again, women are already able to try in men's sports, but they will go nowhere.Has Amanda Nunes fought males of equal training and ability? Why no women in the NBA? We have a ton of women basket ball players. Where are they? And no women can not pass basic infantry requirements, unless the tests are dumbed down. And they are much more prone to injury costing the military time and money and readiness.

[eider]

Hopefully it will be appealed.

Do you really believe that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is run by LGBTQ Fascists? Really?

Stop worrying and wait just a few more months... your whole country could be led by a fascist soon.

[seer]

Do you really believe that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is run by LGBTQ Fascists? Really?

Stop worrying and wait just a few more months... your whole country could be led by a fascist soon.

The whole court did not weigh in, just three Justices. Whether the religious argument is a good legal one or not the point is the school district is still forcing this ideology on children.

[Starlight]

My personal favorite is the GenderBread Person

GenderBreadPerson.jpg

I look forward to our LGBT fascist overlords requiring that everyone be made of gingerbread. It's probably 2nd on their fascism list behind compulsory gay-marriage for everyone.

[carpedm9587]

Again, women are already able to try in men's sports, but they will go nowhere.Has Amanda Nunes fought males of equal training and ability? Why no women in the NBA? We have a ton of women basket ball players. Where are they? And no women can not pass basic infantry requirements, unless the tests are dumbed down. And they are much more prone to injury costing the military time and money and readiness.

The Nunes/Pena fight was an error on my part. I looked for a female/male battle to address the point that NO women can beat a man, and that is the fight that came up. I read enough to satisfy me that it was a real fight, but didn't read far enough to catch the first names of the fighters: they were both women. Here is another fight, this one between a man and woman of similar size (https://www.news.com.au/sport/boxing...337e399be5b53b). The point is, when the skills/capabilities are matched, women can win. We simply have never taken the time to create such a system.

There are no women in the NBA because there is no tiering system in place. If the NBA were restructured using a tiering structure, then there would be women in the NBA - just not in every tier.

As for your last statement, if you are going to simply ignore any evidence that you don't like, conversation is pointless. Here is an article that comes from a source you should be familiar with and approve of, since they have a strong "no women in combat" stance. Even they report that 84% of women fail the original combat test, which has NOT been altered for women. That means 16% are passing it. (https://www.cmrlink.org/issues/full/...-of-women-fail). So yes, some women do pass the test, and that is basically my point: people should serve when/if they have the necessary skills/capabilities and want to serve: without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, hair color, or any other personal characteristic.

[carpedm9587]

I look forward to our LGBT fascist overlords requiring that everyone be made of gingerbread. It's probably 2nd on their fascism list behind compulsory gay-marriage for everyone.

Truth be told, I am more put off by the "attraction" thing pointing to the heart. Attraction is a brain function too. The heart pumps blood. The use of the heart as a metaphor for love and attraction is just that - a metaphor. As far as I know, there is no capacity for thought or feelings in that pump.

[seer]

There are no women in the NBA because there is no tiering system in place. If the NBA were restructured using a tiering structure, then there would be women in the NBA - just not in every tier.

What the heck does that even look like, and who would even pay to see such a cluster....

As for your last statement, if you are going to simply ignore any evidence that you don't like, conversation is pointless. Here is an article that comes from a source you should be familiar with and approve of, since they have a strong "no women in combat" stance. Even they report that 84% of women fail the original combat test, which has NOT been altered for women. That means 16% are passing it. (https://www.cmrlink.org/issues/full/...-of-women-fail). So yes, some women do pass the test, and that is basically my point: people should serve when/if they have the necessary skills/capabilities and want to serve: without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, hair color, or any other personal characteristic.

First I believe those are dumb downed requirements. Second did you even read your link?

This is not surprising, since Defense Secretary Carter ignored abundant evidence that treating women like men in the combat arms would increase injuries and weaken mission readiness. At least a dozen major studies warned of serious problems before the social experiment began, and in 2012, the Marine Corps initiated a three-year scientific research project to produce definitive facts.

Among other things, Marine proxy tests with hundreds of volunteers confirmed significant physical differences in weight-lifting exercises simulating heavy armor or artillery rounds. Most men could lift progressively heavy barbells above their heads, but 92% of female participants could not accomplish the “clean & press” with a 115 lb. weight. [2]

Injury rates for enlisted women in infantry training were two-to-six times higher than for men. And on the Marines’ tough Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, VA, only two out of more than thirty female officers passed – after adjustments were made in scoring requirements.


Thirty Army women reportedly have made it through Ranger School at Fort Benning, GA, since 2015, but it is not clear whether any have qualified for the elite 75^th Ranger Regiment. Thanks to a new book titled Stand Down: How Social Justice Warriors are Sabotaging America’s Military now we know that the first two women to graduate from Ranger school received special treatment and concessions to ensure their highly publicized success. [4]

Author James Hasson, a Ranger-trained Iraq veteran, interviewed confidential first-hand sources who revealed that the female trainees were forgiven major errors that would have caused men to be dropped from the course. Contemporaneous records published in Hasson’s book Stand Down showed that one of the women received a passing grade even though she had lost track of one of her soldiers while on patrol, forcing officials to terminate the entire mission.

Lowering requirements, much more prone to injury. Women do not belong in the infantry.

[carpedm9587]

What the heck does that even look like, and who would even pay to see such a cluster....

There are many possibilities. Which one would work best I do not know. As for who would pay, people pay now for other tiered sports systems. Why do you think they wouldn't pay for this? Indeed, the ones most likely NOT to pay are those like you, who just want things the way they are. Changing things could well open up an entirely new and broader market.

First I believe those are dumb downed requirements. Second did you even read your link?

I did. And those were not "dumb-down requirements." The "dumb down" requirements were only for non-infantry positions. The military has been clear that it will not compromise the fighting force. It will only adjust tests to match requirements for non-combat roles. Yes, there are reported instances of "giving women a pass." Read the lower part of the article - under "gender neutral."

Look, I am under no illusion that men, on average, don't outperform women. They do. But the "on average" is key. I don't care if 99% of men qualify and only 1% of women qualify. That 1% should be given the chance to do the job if they are capable.

Lowering requirements, much more prone to injury. Women do not belong in the infantry.

Anyone with the skill/capability to do a job deserves the opportunity to do it - regardless of gender, sex, race, or any other characteristic. Clearly, your objections to DEI on the basis of "hiring based on skill/capabilities" seems to stop at the edge of the military. I prefer to be consistent.

[seer]

I did. And those were not "dumb-down requirements." The "dumb down" requirements were only for non-infantry positions. The military has been clear that it will not compromise the fighting force. It will only adjust tests to match requirements for non-combat roles.

Bull crap, these are combat roles...

Injury rates for enlisted women in infantry training were two-to-six times higher than for men. And on the Marines’ tough Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, VA, only two out of more than thirty female officers passed – after adjustments were made in scoring requirements.

now we know that the first two women to graduate from Ranger school received special treatment and concessions to ensure their highly publicized success

interviewed confidential first-hand sources who revealed that the female trainees were forgiven major errors that would have caused men to be dropped from the course.