(03-31-2017, 06:07 PM)Bolty Wrote: This thread's a great example of how so many things get derailed so badly here.In my original reply to you...
- 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.
Quote: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.
Quote:"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.