Winning!

[LavCat]

Bolty, I fear you have been had by Ashock. I have reservations that it is fair for weightlifter Laurel Hubbard to compete equally against other women. I admit I am not sure how to make this equal.

But consider the case of wrestler Mack Beggs who by high school rules in Texas must compete as a woman:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bre...story.html

This is not fair to Beggs nor to the women Beggs competes against. Though I am sure Ashock is applauding. I suspect Ashock does not care all that much about weightlifting, justice, nor for that matter rights of women.

[Bolty]

But consider the case of wrestler Mack Beggs who by high school rules in Texas must compete as a woman

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Lav. Someone born a woman who wants to compete in men's sports is a different situation than someone born a man who wants to compete in women's sports. The latter case is unfair to their competitors, where I'd argue the former doesn't have that problem.

Also, your comment about me being "had" by Ashock made me smile. Ashock didn't convince me of this, this was my opinion on the matter long before this thread. I'm asking you guys to explain why my opinion is incorrect because in all honesty I'm not seeing it.

It's not fair that a man who wants to identify as a woman be unallowed to do so in sport. However, it's also just as unfair for people born female to have to compete against such gender-reassigned people. We have large organizations dedicated to stopping unfair drug-based advantages (steroids, doping, etc) and, well, this is a pretty large advantage, no?

Society as a whole will go through a transition period here, because never before in human history has it been possible for someone to actually switch genders. We'll need a generation or two (or maybe more) to figure out how to handle things considering we're dealing with thousands of years of societal rules / boundaries. Sport is going to be one of those tricky things to figure out.

[LavCat]

But consider the case of wrestler Mack Beggs who by high school rules in Texas must compete as a woman

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Lav. Someone born a woman who wants to compete in men's sports is a different situation than someone born a man who wants to compete in women's sports. The latter case is unfair to their competitors, where I'd argue the former doesn't have that problem.

Also, your comment about me being "had" by Ashock made me smile. Ashock didn't convince me of this, this was my opinion on the matter long before this thread. I'm asking you guys to explain why my opinion is incorrect because in all honesty I'm not seeing it.

It's not fair that a man who wants to identify as a woman be unallowed to do so in sport. However, it's also just as unfair for people born female to have to compete against such gender-reassigned people. We have large organizations dedicated to stopping unfair drug-based advantages (steroids, doping, etc) and, well, this is a pretty large advantage, no?

Society as a whole will go through a transition period here, because never before in human history has it been possible for someone to actually switch genders. We'll need a generation or two (or maybe more) to figure out how to handle things considering we're dealing with thousands of years of societal rules / boundaries. Sport is going to be one of those tricky things to figure out.

I would argue that Ashocks's agenda has little to do with unfairness to women or with sport. I think you missed the point of the thread. Some of the same people that decry Hubbard competing against women would keep Beggs from wrestling other men.

Ashock is free to explain how I am mistaken.

[LennyLen]

Becca Swanson, from Nebraska, can dead lift almost 700 lbs. More than any man who is not at the top of the elite weight lifters.

Which means, when it comes to weight lifting, that there is an entire class of male weightlifters that are superior to the best female.

Men and women may be equal but we're certainly not the same.

[kandrathe]

Becca Swanson, from Nebraska, can dead lift almost 700 lbs. More than any man who is not at the top of the elite weight lifters.

Which means, when it comes to weight lifting, that there is an entire class of male weightlifters that are superior to the best female.

Men and women may be equal but we're certainly not the same.

Yes, but this is a class of dozens, not hundreds. This is true in athletic competitions where strength and endurance show a difference between the best trained men and the best trained women.

"It is also important to know that any strength and endurance advantages a transgender woman arguably may have as a result of her prior testosterone levels dissipate about one year of estrogen or testosterone suppression therapy. According to medical experts on this issue, the assumption that a transgender woman competing on a women’s team would have a competitive advantage outside the range of performance and competitive advantage or disadvantage that already exists among female athletes is not supported by evidence."
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/..._Final.pdf

Superior is subjective to the objectives being measured. They measure strength only by who can lift the most weight without regard to the size of the individual. Why not adapt the competition to include skills where women excel?

[FireIceTalon]

I think Lav is looking below the surface here just as I am. Ashock did NOT make this thread because he cares about womens rights or wants fairness & equality for them; in the realm of sports or elsewhere. He made this thread to push forth his right wing political agenda and yet again express his fear, hatred and contempt towards progressivism of any type.

It's kind of like how many conservatives claim to oppose abortion on the grounds of unborn children's rights, but its a load of crap. The reality is, they couldn't care less about those kids. To them, the kid is just a welfare moocher once its born and is just to be used as another cog in the labor market for the capitalist machine. Only in America do we care more about unborn children than about children who are already born and living in poverty. But the REAL reason they oppose abortion has nothing to do with unborn children's rights, and everything to do with controlling women's bodies and their reproductive rights.

This thread is exactly the same thing as that. Ashock probably thinks he's pretty slick because he has a few people here fooled, but not me or Lav. We see through his bullshit and know his ulterior motives.

[kandrathe]

I think Lav is looking below the surface here just as I am. Ashock did NOT make this thread because he cares about womens rights or wants fairness & equality for them; in the realm of sports or elsewhere. He made this thread to push forth his right wing political agenda and yet again express his fear, hatred and contempt towards progressivism of any type.

... and in response we can make a statement of solidarity for peoples rights.

[Ashock]

To all the brainwashed neo-communists in this thread:

I'm for fairness and common sense. Pushing your so called "progressive" political agendas at the cost of fairness and common sense never leads to positive results. You might make 1/1000th of 1% of the population happy, but you will hurt the other 99.999%.

As far as the wrestler is concerned.... Well, he, she or it (this is a kandrathe special) can compete against boys, if that is what is allowed. It will not lead to positive results, but hey if they want it, I don't care. Honestly, they are in a no win situation. It would be unfair to compete vs girls, due to all the drugs and it would be futile vs boys, due to the fact that while all the drugs make them stronger, they still won't make them stronger enough. Not by a mile.

It's not just the testosterone levels in human bodies. It is also pure muscle mass, which is genetic and no drugs will even that out. I don't really know why I need to provide evidence. This shit is common sense and the fact that you people dispute that shows how effective propaganda is and how delusional you are
.
The USA women's soccer team for example, which is one of the best in the world lost to U17 boys, 8-1 a couple of years ago and regularly practices vs U14 boys, where it loses. I bet most if not all of you did not know that and assumed that the US women's team is so good, they can probably beat some of our lesser male pro teams. Wake up. No one is talking about women's mental abilities, but physical? C'mon now. Stop lying to yourselves. The point is, that you can't make up these gigantic physical differences through some testosterone or estrogen shots and putting those who were born male vs real females is rediculous and completely unfair to all the women who have devoted a large chunk of their lives to training. While women's sports are not on the level of men's sports, it does not take away the respect I have for top female athletes. This makes a mockery of them. Here are some differences between the genders in top level athletics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sports/comments...the_uswnt/

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm...62,00.html

But anyway:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronger...n-average/


And this is what the result of trans in women's sports are:

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athlet...-once-men/

All of you who do not see that this is simply wrong are not worth any more of my time. You're not worth anyone's time, actually.

[DeeBye]

[kandrathe]

To all the brainwashed neo-communists in this thread:

I'm for fairness and common sense. ...

Best juxstaposition of cognitive dissonance ever.

I'll just close by saying you've fully explained why Title IX (or equivalent) was/is desperately needed, and not just in the USA. Then, maybe someday the USA and other nations women's soccer teams will have had the same salary, coaching, conditioning, and play time advantages as the men's teams of all nations.

http://www.voanews.com/a/us-womens-and-m...56121.html

[Ashock]

To all the brainwashed neo-communists in this thread:

I'm for fairness and common sense. ...

Best juxstaposition of cognitive dissonance ever.

I'll just close by saying you've fully explained why Title IX (or equivalent) was/is desperately needed, and not just in the USA. Then, maybe someday the USA and other nations women's soccer teams will have had the same salary, coaching, conditioning, and play time advantages as the men's teams of all nations.

http://www.voanews.com/a/us-womens-and-m...56121.html

So basically you have no valid counter and therefore you are going off the tangent. Ok, I understand. Must be an American thing. I'm still learning, you know.

The basic reply to your completely irrelevant point is simple economics. Salaries depend on how much money can be made from the athletes, models actors, etc.. Women's sports make significantly less, it's not even close... except maybe in tennis. BTW, in tennis, the salaries are the same, however women work significantly less for it. Figure it out. Hmm.

But to prove my point to you, here is the breakdown of top male vs female model's salaries. See, it's simple economics and logic, neither of which you seem to grasp.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...s-get.html

This will be the last time I am wasting my time on replying to you, btw. Let me be blunt as my wife says. You are not sufficiently intellectually challenging to me. This does not have to be a deal breaker, but you are also intellectually dishonest and that is.

Have a nice day.

[FireIceTalon]

Man, you really need to get a life. We all know the real reason you made this thread, and it hasn't shit to do with fairness for women in sports because we (and probably you) know damn well you couldn't care less about that. You made this thread to get on your soap box and bitch and moan about the so-called leftists agenda (real or imagined) and conspiracy theories. But this is what basically all your threads are, is you trolling and looking for attention.

[kandrathe]

p

To all the brainwashed neo-communists in this thread:

I'm for fairness and common sense. ...

Best juxstaposition of cognitive dissonance ever.

I'll just close by saying you've fully explained why Title IX (or equivalent) was/is desperately needed, and not just in the USA. Then, maybe someday the USA and other nations women's soccer teams will have had the same salary, coaching, conditioning, and play time advantages as the men's teams of all nations.

http://www.voanews.com/a/us-womens-and-m...56121.html

So basically you have no valid counter and therefore you are going off the tangent. Ok, I understand.

No. You don't. So, I gave up. I can't teach pigs to sing. My points were clear. You either don't get it, or won't.

[Ashock]

Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.

[Taem]

But to prove my point to you, here is the breakdown of top male vs female model's salaries. See, it's simple economics and logic, neither of which you seem to grasp.

So the males should just get sex changes then for an unfair advantage then, lol

I couldn't resist; there was some irony in there. Re: thread, I feel the same as Bolty and Ashock, that at face value, gender swapping provides an unfair advantage. If it's allowed in sports, why even bother with women's leagues at all because in general, males dominant sports due to their fierce strength. There needs to be clearly defined lines and a transgender should only be able to compete with other transgender, as awkward as that may be.

[Bolty]

This thread's a great example of how so many things get derailed so badly here.

• Original Poster comes in with an agenda, stating their opinion on something in a mildly incendiary way ("This is what liberals are fighting for. Grats!").
  
• Other posters of the opposite political leaning take the incendiary bait and challenge the Original Poster, not really over the issue, but because they fought with Original Poster in other threads.
  
• Someone at some point (in this case, me) jumps in and wants to discuss the point without including the incendiary language, separating the topic from the poster.
  
• Someone else suggests that the topic isn't worth discussing because they disagree fundamentally with the Original Poster.
  
• More posts flaming the Original Poster.
  
• Original Poster jumps back in, flaming the commenters and restating the original point in an even more incendiary way.
  
• Name-calling and flamewars.
  

Oh well. I'm not going to pretend this is a new thing, it's just that the Internet makes it a lot easier to play out.

[kandrathe]

This thread's a great example of how so many things get derailed so badly here.

• Original Poster comes in with an agenda, stating their opinion on something in a mildly incendiary way ("This is what liberals are fighting for. Grats!").
  
• Other posters of the opposite political leaning take the incendiary bait and challenge the Original Poster, not really over the issue, but because they fought with Original Poster in other threads.
  
• Someone at some point (in this case, me) jumps in and wants to discuss the point without including the incendiary language, separating the topic from the poster.
  
• Someone else suggests that the topic isn't worth discussing because they disagree fundamentally with the Original Poster.
  
• More posts flaming the Original Poster.
  
• Original Poster jumps back in, flaming the commenters and restating the original point in an even more incendiary way.
  
• Name-calling and flamewars.
  

Oh well. I'm not going to pretend this is a new thing, it's just that the Internet makes it a lot easier to play out.

In my original reply to you...

The rules limit the "female" competitors testosterone levels. What is unfair is the decades of building musculature with the advantage of testosterone. Women have also used androgens to build male muscles. My case is that is not Laurels issue to resolve but the sports governing authority, as her desire to be considered female is clearly beyond competitive advantage. Yet, she clearly has an unfair competitive advantage. My proposed solution would be the use of a handicap system possible assigned by an objective medical assessment. This would level the playing field and allow all genders to compete fairly. But, yes, in lifting 1000lbs or more, it will be people who've had the advantages of androgens.

Change the nature of the contest to make it fair.

So, I posted early on that;

• I agreed/agree that having grown from puberty with extra testosterone ( natural or artificial) results in a more powerful "male" physique.
• The sports governing bodies are in control of setting the rules about the use of androgens ( natural or artificial), and in this case, what minimal level of testosterone qualifies her to compete as a female.
• and, that ultimately, if the competition were stratified more by ability ( like boxing weight) then gender doesn't matter. All genders who lift between 300 to 450 would compete in the same "weight class".
• Or, the governance could allow females to use testosterone to the normal male level in training.

This gender inequity is a social construct, and so, something we can change. We won't make women stronger than men without androgens.

But, there are many elite women athletes who are superior in their sport to 95% of the men e.g. golf.

"You may not know, but compare the driving stats of men and women golfers and you’ll find two very interesting things.

The first is expected: PGA Tour players hit the ball longer, for obvious reasons. The second is a little more surprising: LPGA Tour players hit the ball more accurately. A lot more accurately. It’s not even really close. Thomas Aiken is the most accurate driver on tour this season, and his 74 fairways hit percentage would rank him 42nd on the LPGA Tour. 42nd! The LPGA Tour’s leader, Mo Martin, hits an astonishing 88 percent of her fairways."

Why are LPGA Tour players so much more accurate than PGA Tour players?

Did you ever wonder why Men's gymnastics don't do balance beam? Because men are bad at it, which is why women don't do rings. So if we wanted fair gender inclusive competitions, we'd stop exacerbating our differences in competitions.

Oh, and, I guess *really* believing in gender equality and allowing LGBT individuals to freely and openly participate in our society makes me a) brain washed, b) a proto-neo-communist, and/or c) a filthy liberal.

[Ashock]

This thread's a great example of how so many things get derailed so badly here.

• Original Poster comes in with an agenda, stating their opinion on something in a mildly incendiary way ("This is what liberals are fighting for. Grats!").
  
• Other posters of the opposite political leaning take the incendiary bait and challenge the Original Poster, not really over the issue, but because they fought with Original Poster in other threads.
  
• Someone at some point (in this case, me) jumps in and wants to discuss the point without including the incendiary language, separating the topic from the poster.
  
• Someone else suggests that the topic isn't worth discussing because they disagree fundamentally with the Original Poster.
  
• More posts flaming the Original Poster.
  
• Original Poster jumps back in, flaming the commenters and restating the original point in an even more incendiary way.
  
• Name-calling and flamewars.
  

Oh well. I'm not going to pretend this is a new thing, it's just that the Internet makes it a lot easier to play out.

*shrug* When responses come in having nothing to do with the OP, because no valid counterpoints can be offered, they deserve a particular type of response. I believe I was very tame. Stick to a topic and discuss it, or don't post at all. As far as a lack of sufficient intellectual challenge and intellectual dishonesty, please see above, at my first sentence. It is disappointing, unlike the attempt to teach me about how "we" do things in this country, which is laughable. This assessment is also not based just on this thread. As far as chess with a pigeon.... well, that's not a flame and it's not directed at any particular individual. It is simply a statement of fact. Again, please see above.

Signing off for the weekend. Just letting you know, so you don't think that I "jumped" back in next week, if there is a reason to jump back in.

[kandrathe]

This thread's a great example of how so many things get derailed so badly here.

• Original Poster comes in with an agenda, stating their opinion on something in a mildly incendiary way ("This is what liberals are fighting for. Grats!").
  
• Other posters of the opposite political leaning take the incendiary bait and challenge the Original Poster, not really over the issue, but because they fought with Original Poster in other threads.
  
• Someone at some point (in this case, me) jumps in and wants to discuss the point without including the incendiary language, separating the topic from the poster.
  
• Someone else suggests that the topic isn't worth discussing because they disagree fundamentally with the Original Poster.
  
• More posts flaming the Original Poster.
  
• Original Poster jumps back in, flaming the commenters and restating the original point in an even more incendiary way.
  
• Name-calling and flamewars.
  

Oh well. I'm not going to pretend this is a new thing, it's just that the Internet makes it a lot easier to play out.

When responses come in having nothing to do with the OP, because no valid counterpoints can be offered, they deserve a particular type of response. I believe I was very tame. Stick to a topic and discuss it, or don't post at all. As far as the chess with a pigeon.... well, that's not a flame and it's not directed at any particular individual. It is simply a statement of fact.

And, of course, I was not calling you a pig. I was quoting a well known phrase by Robert Heinlein. But, I feel you've worked very hard to be intentionally incendiary and offensive. As for pigeons pooping on the OP, e.g. "So basically you have no valid counter and therefore you are going off the tangent.", you went there when you used Women's soccer team as an example of female inferiority. Dibaba is running the 1500m in 3:50, add another 100 meters and women will break the 4 minute mile.

If you are correct, why do women in equivalent weight classes lift more than men of the 1970s? Could it be that women are capable of catching up to men? Men are also taking advantage of better training and science, so the edge in ability remains.

So.... To square the circle, so as to not topple your chess board, men get more training, more sponsorship, and engage in sport as a means of income in numbers double that of women. Is it any wonder that with that amount of advantages that men might do better?

Back, to Laurel, lest we stray. She is considered by the rules(due to her transition and measured testostrone levels) to now be female for competing. She has had a great advantage growing up male, but I doubt hundreds, or even dozens of women would consider gender reassignment to game the competition. The contrary question is, when people do choose to bravely face the controversy of transitioning, such as exhibited here, how would we include them in our society?

[FireIceTalon]

Proud, brain-washed neo-communist here (but not a flithy liberal)