South Dakota Transgender Bill...

[Littlejoe]

Based on the rather obvious reality that how far someone can hit a ball is going to be related to their strength. Do you think it is otherwise? If so - what do you think it is related to?

In golf, club head speed is what makes a golf ball fly as far as it does. (obviously) Like other sports, strength is important, but also, height matters. In golf, a taller man has an advantage due to the physics of the golf swing (as does a basketball shooter with longer arms). i.e. the longer the arc of the stroke of the swing (or shot) the faster the speed of the club head. So, a person with longer arms has an advantage. Women on average are shorter than men so harder for them to make up height AND strength disadvantage.

[Catholicity]

I am a proponent of LGBT rights, but not when it comes to trans genders and sports. Sports really need to be based on biological sex as there are serious differences biological capabilities. Hate to think of how this would play out in gymnastics. EECH...

[carpedm9587]

I am a proponent of LGBT rights, but not when it comes to trans genders and sports. Sports really need to be based on biological sex as there are serious differences biological capabilities. Hate to think of how this would play out in gymnastics. EECH...

I will always be a proponent of making differentiations on the basis of merit and skill, and encouraging us to step away from unnecessary distinctions based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I think it is possible to rethink how we structure sports to minimize and/or eliminate the male/female distinction and shift the distinction to ability. It wouldn't necessarily be easy - but I think it might go a long way towards reducing the perennial "women as second-class citizens" phenomenon in our culture and our world.

[Catholicity]

I will always be a proponent of making differentiations on the basis of merit and skill, and encouraging us to step away from unnecessary distinctions based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I think it is possible to rethink how we structure sports to minimize and/or eliminate the male/female distinction and shift the distinction to ability. It wouldn't necessarily be easy - but I think it might go a long way towards reducing the perennial "women as second-class citizens" phenomenon in our culture and our world.

Mmm....nah. There's a bigger fish to fry than sports teams when it comes to making and treating women as equal to men. That's another debate. I Absolutely do not see the need to allow trans participation across sports teams. Given this one sport I pointed to earlier, gymnastics. Not sure how much you know about it but I follow it religiously. Women do lots of stunts and tricks that involve creative and insane displays of flexibility, strength, tumbling, balance and grace. Men do a ridiculous amount of tumbling and balance as well as flexibility but also display an element of strength and don't have the "grace"/Dance elements that women's gymnastics do. There's a lot about the sport that very clearly has the two (women's and men's gymnastics) Divided to show what each gender's capability is and within it both are allotted great capabilites to invent and show off new skills. I would hate to see that change because someone decides suddenly to take an unfair advantage. Also, Men do not have the same flexibility women do and women actually do not have the same muscle to fat tissue ratio men do and it would disrupt the fundamental elements of that particular sport. Ditto goes for ice skating.

[carpedm9587]

Mmm....nah. There's a bigger fish to fry than sports teams when it comes to making and treating women as equal to men. That's another debate. I Absolutely do not see the need to allow trans participation across sports teams. Given this one sport I pointed to earlier, gymnastics. Not sure how much you know about it but I follow it religiously. Women do lots of stunts and tricks that involve creative and insane displays of flexibility, strength, tumbling, balance and grace. Men do a ridiculous amount of tumbling and balance as well as flexibility but also display an element of strength and don't have the "grace"/Dance elements that women's gymnastics do. There's a lot about the sport that very clearly has the two (women's and men's gymnastics) Divided to show what each gender's capability is and within it both are allotted great capabilites to invent and show off new skills. I would hate to see that change because someone decides suddenly to take an unfair advantage. Also, Men do not have the same flexibility women do and women actually do not have the same muscle to fat tissue ratio men do and it would disrupt the fundamental elements of that particular sport. Ditto goes for ice skating.

The trans issue, for me, is just a further justification for the shift. If sports are not separated by sex - but rather by ability - then "trans" or "not trans" becomes a non-issue. So making the shift becomes a two-fer. Like I said - I don't claim the shift would be easy - and it is possible there are some places where it cannot be done. But I think we should make the attempt.

[Catholicity]

The trans issue, for me, is just a further justification for the shift. If sports are not separated by sex - but rather by ability - then "trans" or "not trans" becomes a non-issue. So making the shift becomes a two-fer. Like I said - I don't claim the shift would be easy - and it is possible there are some places where it cannot be done. But I think we should make the attempt.

Well can you find a woman who is capable of beating the same world record as a man in track and field? Also can you find a woman who can out-deadlift a man in the strongest men/strongest women competitions? If you do find that please do tell..... I would and believe me I would be one of the firs people to be all over the Look women are better than men at X nah nah nah nah in yo face!!! (Cause I know they actually DO make better fighter pilots and I Have pointed that out to people who were all too quick to place us in the lower sex category. It might help you to realize that I am egalitarian.)

[carpedm9587]

Well can you find a woman who is capable of beating the same world record as a man in track and field?

Not that I know of. But let's do a thought experiment with track and field, specifically the 440. The current record for the 440 is 44.5 seconds. So what if the 440 required either a qualifying race, or a runner with an official race record that included at least 5 (picking a number out of the air) officially timed races. Then the runners were grouped by historical performance: anyone with a time ≤ 50 seconds is one class, 50 < X ≤ 55 is another, 55 < X ≤ 60 is a third, and so forth (again, I'm picking numbers out of the air. Clearly these ranges would have to be based on something a bit more scientific). Each runner is thus competing with runners in their class. There is a distinct possibility the top class will never include women, but if a women happens to come along who can compete, the process is open to them. As you go down the time classes, women become more involved. Anyone, regardless of sex, can compete at any class level if they have the ability, and they can shift from one class level to another (upwards or downwards) by changing their historical trends.

What exactly makes this approach untenable? And what makes us think there might not even be a better system out there if we gave it a bit of creative thought?

Also can you find a woman who can out-deadlift a man in the strongest men/strongest women competitions?

I would think a similar structure based on historical performance could be created - again eliminating a "sex" difference and basing it on capability.

If you do find that please do tell..... I would and believe me I would be one of the firs people to be all over the Look women are better than men at X nah nah nah nah in yo face!!! (Cause I know they actually DO make better fighter pilots and I Have pointed that out to people who were all too quick to place us in the lower sex category. It might help you to realize that I am egalitarian.)

I actually am NOT into "look, women are better than men." Just as with affirmative action (which I do not like), you do not solve a racist/sexist position by just reversing the racism/sexism. If you want to reverse racism - the solution has to be indifferent to race. If you want to reverse sexism, the solution has to be indifferent to sex.

[Catholicity]

Not that I know of. But let's do a thought experiment with track and field, specifically the 440. The current record for the 440 is 44.5 seconds. So what if the 440 required either a qualifying race, or a runner with an official race record that included at least 5 (picking a number out of the air) officially timed races. Then the runners were grouped by historical performance: anyone with a time ≤ 50 seconds is one class, 50 < X ≤ 55 is another, 55 < X ≤ 60 is a third, and so forth (again, I'm picking numbers out of the air. Clearly these ranges would have to be based on something a bit more scientific). Each runner is thus competing with runners in their class. There is a distinct possibility the top class will never include women, but if a women happens to come along who can compete, the process is open to them. As you go down the time classes, women become more involved. Anyone, regardless of sex, can compete at any class level if they have the ability, and they can shift from one class level to another (upwards or downwards) by changing their historical trends.

What exactly makes this approach untenable? And what makes us think there might not even be a better system out there if we gave it a bit of creative thought?



I would think a similar structure based on historical performance could be created - again eliminating a "sex" difference and basing it on capability.



I actually am NOT into "look, women are better than men." Just as with affirmative action (which I do not like), you do not solve a racist/sexist position by just reversing the racism/sexism. If you want to reverse racism - the solution has to be indifferent to race. If you want to reverse sexism, the solution has to be indifferent to sex.

No, I think you're kind of losing on this one. Sure if a woman CAN outlift or out run a man great!! fan tastic. But it isn't there. The ability doesn't exist which is why sports are divided among the sexes. I can go on about other sports I follow closely but again I don't think you like to admit when you don't have much footing.

[carpedm9587]

No, I think you're kind of losing on this one. Sure if a woman CAN outlift or out run a man great!! fan tastic. But it isn't there. The ability doesn't exist which is why sports are divided among the sexes. I can go on about other sports I follow closely but again I don't think you like to admit when you don't have much footing.

This isn't a competition, Cath. I'm not looking to "win" or "lose." I'm expressing a hope for a different model. And you and Pix and the others keep coming back to "it would be great if a woman can beat a man, but they can't" That tells me you are still locked into a sex-based - or sexist - model of sports. The models I proposed do not require women to beat men, and do not prevent them from doing so if they can. They offer a different model for organizing the same sport that permits anyone to compete with anyone in any context - based on skill rather than genitalia.

As I noted, it is entirely possible (even likely) that the top-tier of competitors will never ever have a woman competing. But it will be because that level of competition is not one that they are capable of - and not because "they are a woman." In the model I proposed, anyone can compete with anyone who is at their approximate skill class.

So here's what I see:

Existing model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is unable to do so because she is a woman.
- Women have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.)
- Transgender athletes create a significant problem

My model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is able to do so
- Women continue to have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.) because they are only competing with others in their approximate class
- Transgender issues disappear

Personally - I think the model I suggested is better. You, obviously, disagree. However, it would be nice if your disagreement actually addressed the issues. "Men are stronger/faster" is not a relevant issue because the proposed model avoids that issue.

[Cow Poke]

This isn't a competition, Cath. I'm not looking to "win" or "lose." I'm expressing a hope for a different model. And you and Pix and the others keep coming back to "it would be great if a woman can beat a man, but they can't" That tells me you are still locked into a sex-based - or sexist - model of sports. The models I proposed do not require women to beat men, and do not prevent them from doing so if they can. They offer a different model for organizing the same sport that permits anyone to compete with anyone in any context - based on skill rather than genitalia.

As I noted, it is entirely possible (even likely) that the top-tier of competitors will never ever have a woman competing. But it will be because that level of competition is not one that they are capable of - and not because "they are a woman." In the model I proposed, anyone can compete with anyone who is at their approximate skill class.

So here's what I see:

Existing model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is unable to do so because she is a woman.
- Women have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.)
- Transgender athletes create a significant problem

My model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is able to do so
- Women continue to have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.) because they are only competing with others in their approximate class
- Transgender issues disappear

Personally - I think the model I suggested is better. You, obviously, disagree. However, it would be nice if your disagreement actually addressed the issues. "Men are stronger/faster" is not a relevant issue because the proposed model avoids that issue.

That all sounds good, Carpe, but sadly, all too often, the "standards" get dumbed down to allow more women to compete. As I've seen for a number of years in law enforcement and public safety. Our Fire Department, for example, had to relax its standards on the "Fireman's Carry" - reducing the weight of the "victim" - so that more women would "achieve the goal".

[lilpixieofterror]

This isn't a competition, Cath. I'm not looking to "win" or "lose." I'm expressing a hope for a different model. And you and Pix and the others keep coming back to "it would be great if a woman can beat a man, but they can't" That tells me you are still locked into a sex-based - or sexist - model of sports. The models I proposed do not require women to beat men, and do not prevent them from doing so if they can. They offer a different model for organizing the same sport that permits anyone to compete with anyone in any context - based on skill rather than genitalia.

As I noted, it is entirely possible (even likely) that the top-tier of competitors will never ever have a woman competing. But it will be because that level of competition is not one that they are capable of - and not because "they are a woman." In the model I proposed, anyone can compete with anyone who is at their approximate skill class.

So here's what I see:

Existing model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is unable to do so because she is a woman.
- Women have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.)
- Transgender athletes create a significant problem

My model:

- Any woman who COULD successfully compete with a man is able to do so
- Women continue to have a "protected" class where they can compete without being "unfairly" confronted with a superior physiology (strength/endurance/etc.) because they are only competing with others in their approximate class
- Transgender issues disappear

Personally - I think the model I suggested is better. You, obviously, disagree. However, it would be nice if your disagreement actually addressed the issues. "Men are stronger/faster" is not a relevant issue because the proposed model avoids that issue.

[carpedm9587]

So a) what part of what I outlined "already exists" and what "reality" do you think I am ignoring?

At no point did I suggest otherwise, so this appears to respond to something I have not said and/or denied.

[carpedm9587]

That all sounds good, Carpe, but sadly, all too often, the "standards" get dumbed down to allow more women to compete.

How does establishing competition brackets "dumb down" and standard? And when the issue is "win the competition," how is it even possible to "dumb down" the standards?

As I've seen for a number of years in law enforcement and public safety. Our Fire Department, for example, had to relax its standards on the "Fireman's Carry" - reducing the weight of the "victim" - so that more women would "achieve the goal".

Then I disagree with that approach. The standard should be set to what the situation requires. If the standard was set artificially high to help eliminate candidates, then it should be adjusted downward to what is actually needed to do the job. If the standard is adjusted below what is needed to do the job, then that is a mistake and should not be tolerated.

[Cow Poke]

How does establishing competition brackets "dumb down" and standard? And when the issue is "win the competition," how is it even possible to "dumb down" the standards?

In the example I was giving --- the "standard" was that you are able to drag a 200lb man 30 yards, but that standard was "dumbed down" to require the weight be 175lbs for 20 yards.

Then I disagree with that approach. The standard should be set to what the situation requires. If the standard was set artificially high to help eliminate candidates,

The standards were set to simulate real life situations where somebody's life may depend on the proper performance.

then it should be adjusted downward to what is actually needed to do the job. If the standard is adjusted below what is needed to do the job, then that is a mistake and should not be tolerated.

Yuh - that's what I said.

[lilpixieofterror]

So a) what part of what I outlined "already exists" and what "reality" do you think I am ignoring?

Commercial purposes for starters. Why do professional sports exist?

At no point did I suggest otherwise, so this appears to respond to something I have not said and/or denied.

And Carp does his usual dodging to avoid having to being wrong about anything.