TERFs taking their gloves off for Imane Khelif
To clarify, the pictured poster Caroline Kwan is an ally, not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’
To clarify, the pictured poster Caroline Kwan is an ally, not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’
Yep, heard someone complain about Khelif and I asked them if we should have disqualified Phelps considering his genetics give him all the advantages and if they believed we would have complained about Khelif 20 years ago and if they believed that men who's testosterone is under a certain level should fight in the women's category. That was the end of them complaining.
50 bucks says they didn't listen to a word you said and are still complaining about it, just in online echo chambers instead of to you
Well, if that at least shut them up for the time I was hanging around them then good!
I keep bringing up Brittney Griner and ask if she should be forced to play in the NBA and suddenly it's, "no, she couldn't even come close to beating the worst NBA player."
So if you're a woman with masculine features and want to be an athlete, you can't compete with anyone apparently.
Realistically she had a choice - she could have either become the first woman in the NBA and been essentially an also-ran beyond that or do what she did - join the WNBA and set a single game record and tie a career record in her first game. Just going to point that out again, she tied a career record in the WNBA in a single game, the first one she played under them.
Now she's better known for being arrested and thrown in a Russian prison for trying to bring a weed vape into Russia when that's illegal there. Pretty sure that's technically international drug smuggling, albeit in the smallest and most innocuous possible way.
Ah yes, the Air Bud rule. "Nothing says women can't play in the NBA."
And, of course, it was her choice on which league to play in. Because players get to choose such things.
It was her choice which leagues to try to join. She didn't try for the NBA and fail - she didn't try for the NBA. There were even some commentators far deeper into the sport than I considering the possibility that she might do so before she joined the WNBA instead.
As far as it being the Air Bud rule, one woman has officially been drafted by the NBA in 1977. She decided not to try out because she got pregnant. Mark Cuban talked about considering Britney Griner back in 2013, and there's currently some chatter about possibly drafting Caitlin Clark though she'd be one of the smallest dozen or so players at only 6' tall.
But yeah, there is no professional sports league in the US that bans women from participating if they can compete at the relevant level. There's even the occasional woman that tries out for the NFL, the last of which got injured early on in the process and bowed out. High contact sports are a hard sell for women to compete with men just because of size, weight and strength differences and professional sports athletes being more than a standard deviation from the mean.
Or maybe most women who think they have a shot get scared off by a bunch of asshole misogynists- the same asshole misogynists who think that they also can't compete with women.
Reactionaries don’t want womens sports, they want beauty pageants with extra steps; something they can fap to. That’s why they go after somewhat brolic looking women, regardless if they’re cis or trans: they no make pp hard, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed
Look at how they used to require the female athletes to dress in beach volleyball. Men get loose, comfortable shirts and shorts, while woman were allowed a maximum of 10cm of cloth on their bikini bottoms.
And people were pissed when the new options weren't exposing almost their entire body. Got all angry about the woke giving athletes more options to choose from when performing their sport.
And there were complaints when that was changed. Including the similar white knight shit going on right now- "how will they be able to perform at their best in shorts?! You're forcing women to have a disadvantage!" No, they're forcing your dick to have a disadvantage.
Once you've had bro-lic, you just go chro-nic
Do women want to fight Imane? Probably not.
Do I want to fight Tyson in his prime? Probably also no lol
I'm not trying to make her look like Tyson but they are both outside the norm just like 99% of top athletes.
Do I want to fight Tyson right now at almost 60, also no lol
At least now you can get the drop on him. He won't hear you coming!
But then his pigeons would descend upon you in numbers
Anyone can become amazing at a sport if they work hard enough at it, but the top athletes are always going to be people who worked hard and have a genetic predisposition to it. Lots of sports are dominated by people who are taller than average. Where do we draw the line on a genetic trait giving someone too much of an advantage?
I mean, it's the Olympics. The best of the best. If we had a breath holding competition and that one tribe that developed extremely large lunge capacity entered, that's fair game IMO.
It's pretty much what happens in long-distance running, and it's seen as very positive (which it is)
I don't want to fight her, and I'm a dude with martial arts training twice her size. The lady has skill.
it reminds me of the recent volleyball injury case that went around. Trans student spiked a volley ball into the head of another student (not exactly intentionally) and it injured them quite significantly. Naturally her first reaction was to bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, nobody would want to be spiked in the face with a volleyball, from a man, women, child, anybody. That shit would at the very least concuss you, and might even kill you in all honesty.
the fact that the other student was trans is probably more inconsequential than you would think.
I feel this would be a great MythBusters episode: "can you die from being hit in the head with a volleyball? No, but what if we built a machine that shot it as fast as a bullet?"
it would certainly be an interesting one, though if i had to guess, the chicken airplane one is probably similar enough...
as long as you ignore the chicken and the airplane part lol.
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere about this debate. You probably wonder "so what should the rules be to include an athlete for women's sports? Surely there must be some rule". This is understandable but please realize that the transphobes who are pushing this aren't concerned at all with the specifics. They're not even interested in women's sports. They want to remove trans women from public life altogether. Not just sports but everywhere. Intimidating trans athletes into obscurity is just their most recent tactic.
So please remember that there is no test that will satisfy the transphobes. There is no fair rule that can be agreed upon, because the transphobes will always keep moving the goalposts. This gets extremely complex. There is no use in debating these people. They will debate forever, because the actual deep down motivation is disgust with trans people.
Save your energy. Don't debate transphobes.
How about you have to pinky promise that you're a woman to compete in the Olympics?
It can't really get more inclusive than that. Feel like a woman, compete like a woman.
If I felt like a woman one day at the local YMCA and joined the woman's pickleball instead of the men's and just totally wooped ass that would be hilarious. I smoke most of the men so the woman would get destroyed.
Your submission in "TERFs taking their gloves off for Imane Khelif" was removed for Transphobia.
lemmy.blahaj.zone admin is using photon? 😁
Certainly am :)
Never JADE (justify, argue, debate or explain)
That's why transphobes shouldn't set the rules. And when the rules are set, there will be backlash, which needs to be ignored by the scientific community and the authorities governing professional sport.
This is a tall order, but I do think the question of where the line must be drawn to guarantee fairness is a question worth answering, preferrably not by me, because I don't have the credentials to deliberate on what's fair and what isn't. This is the role of science.
Yes, they are just weaponizing one disadvantaged group against another. Just like how in Portland, they had disabled people sue to remove homeless people from sidewalks (even though majority of homeless are also disabled). Or when churches bringing up abortions of PoC being a "genocide" (which they don't care about) so they can ban abortion for everyone.
When you're a gold medal winning man, you have overcome the obstacles of a normal man to become a superman.
When you're a gold medal winning woman, you have overcome the obstacles of a normal woman to become a man.
That's the logic at play.
That's so gross, I like it
I looked her up again to get caught up on what kind of info wikipedia has updated on her.
I really admire her stance.
Honestly I can’t believe she is so brave to face the world with a stance like that.
Courage.
Alfred Kinsey proved that everyone's on the vertical-align spectrum.
What stance are we talking about here? I don't see it indicated on the picture
it's listed below age
Oh rofl ty
So she was actually a robot all along...
Imane Khelif doesn't even have genetic differences! She's a cis woman who happens to currently be one of the best in the world at punching!
I admire the hell out of her.
She didn't let the bullshit stop her from competing to the best of her ability.
Proves she's as strong in character as she is in the ring. Keep kicking ass Imane Khelif!
I agree with your point but
Trans women are women, and are perfectly normal.
oof you're right my bad
You seem to be unaware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development issues, particularly 46,XY DSD in competitive female sports.
Which doesn’t apply to Khelif in any way that anyone has been able to prove, and which she and the IOC has denied even being tested for. This was a rumor from a disgraced Russian testing firm and spread by Russian state media after Khelif beat a Russian boxer. So why are you mentioning it here?
Can you elaborate in your own words how this is an issue in women's sports? That wikipedia page only mentioned at the end about "issues" in competitive female sport but did not elaborate and only cited one study. I clicked on the linked study but no one has the time to read eight pages of it especially one that is full of jargon for those without scientific or sports background. So far though, I see that the authors of the study criticised IAAF testing methods as being flawed but I couldn't find the meat and bones of what specifically they are trying to criticise.
It is a complicated issue, hence the need for details. In a nutshell, rare people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya have such a significant competitive advantage against vanilla females they would come to dominate some female olympic disciplines to the point it would destroy female olympics as a sport competition. I would argue they need to compete in their own class for the same reasons of fairness as female and male ligas are distinct.
This cannot be discussed rationally in the current political shitstorm unfortunately.
No matter what arbitrary divisions are in place, be that gender or weight or race or whatever, there will always be people who dominate the field. That doesn't destroy the Olympics as a sport competition, that is the Olympics as a sport competition. Competing in order to find the best of the best, the "freaks of nature" who manage to far surpass the average person.
Competition is core to human nature, but so is fairness. Which is why men and women compete in different categories. If you want to discourage women athletes to compete it would seem somewhat unfair to me, but really I only care enough to correct technical points in a discussion.
I don't know your political leanings, but this is consistent with the same people who are anti-DEI and anti-anything else that forces equality.
So what's so wrong about forcing equality literally anywhere else? Or, why is it necessary only in women's sports?
Then, going back to the original post, why is Michael Phelps lauded despite having clear genetic advantages?
As a general rule in sports, men participate in essentially "open" leagues, while women's leagues exist to protect women from having to compete against everyone else to promote women taking part. In other words, women's leagues are already a form of protectionism to encourage participation because people care about women having a "fair" environment to participate in in a way they do not for men.
This idea that sports leagues for women/girls are a form of protectionism even extends down to school sports and Title IX, which is why under current Title IX policy girls must be allowed to try out for boys teams but not the reverse.
But where are you basing your definition of "fairness"? If you exclude people with a biological advantage, since that would be unfair, then literally all current athletes would be excluded, since by qualifying for the Olympics they have proven that they have a strong biological advantage over the average person.
The only solution is to Harrison Bergeron everyone.
Please define "vanilla females."
Presumably they mean XX cis female persons with no medical disorder altering production or action of any sex-related hormone or anatomy. But that's a big mouthful to describe a large majority of female persons, and folks get real angry when you describe the by far most common set of common traits a group of humans have as "normal".
By that argument, Christianity is normal. It's the most common religion.
So I assume you think Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are abnormal, yes?
I think when talking about what religion is "normal" you're better off to talk about within a given society or region because it is an extremely regional trait and trying to consider it globally makes it less useful. And it shows a lot in how those societies interact in the broad strokes with those religions. Including the presumption that one is at least probably familiar with it and it's broader teachings by default. For example, in India Hinduism is "normal" and you would expect a typical person to have a familiarity with Hinduism, to be aware of it, to see it's influences on culture even if a given individual isn't a devout Hindu. You see the same as regards Christianity in most of western Europe and North America, Mormonism in Utah, Islam in the Middle East, etc.
By comparison, unless you are in one of a few very particular contexts, Scientology is almost never normal.
But then you're trying to assign a moral value to being "normal." The degree to which one resembles the average or typical person of some group or social context is not a measure of their goodness or morality.
Is "christian" not a common set of common traits? Are Christians not of the largest religion?
They are, but they're not remotely as dominant on a global scale at 31% as things like "has XX chromosomes" or "has female sex organs" or "produces little testosterone and comparatively large amounts of estrogen" are for women as a group.
Because religion tends to be much more regional than that - for example the US is about 2/3 Christian and one can expect that if you grab a random person off the street they are at least passingly familiar with the broad strokes of what Christianity is, can recognize the most major Christian symbols, are familiar with Christian holidays, etc even if they themselves are not a devout Christian because of the impact the normality of Christianity has on the culture. The same thing applies to Islam in say Saudi Arabia. Or Shinto or Buddhism in Japan.
Again, normality is not morality. It's just resembling the statistical mode. Often the least normal things about people are the best parts.
...but not when it's a "masculine" woman who is good at sports that is competing against other women?
Didn't say that, my involvement in all this started with the question of what another poster meant by "vanilla women".
Personally I think the question of where to draw the lines is going to be particular to the sport, since the whole point of women's leagues in the first place is protectionism for women athletes who would otherwise just be dominated in many sports by male athletes out of a sense of fairness and no one was even thinking about trans or intersex athletes at the time.
So how intersex is too "masculine" to be a "fair" competition is going to depend on the sport, as is what guidelines are required for trans women to be "fair" competition against the protected class of cis women.
Someone said it better:
Lol, no one complain about Michael Phelps but people are suddenly making faux concerns about women's sports-- which is specifically strange considering no one says the same about men's sports. It is though this isn't motivated by misogyny and transphobia.
Yes, by all means let us abolish the artificial separation between olympic male and female sports. I personally don't care one bit, since I don't have a stake in the game. Career athletes will probably disagree, but fuck them, right?
So, would you agree that if a born male is below the certain testosterone level that the person should compete in women's category? No one seems to be railing on this but somehow everyone is up in arms when it comes to women's sports.
I do love how the people constantly white knighting women by claiming that women who are athletes should be protected from other women who are athletes, but with masculine traits, but when you flip the script and try to suggest that maybe that should apply across the board if that's how we're doing things and "feminine" men should play against women, suddenly it's "no, not like that! Our precious
propertywomen must be protected!"The person we replied to is literally doing what the posted screenshot is criticising lol. It's not about fairness and equality, some folks are really misogynists and protecting their own idea of what a woman is.
Right. It's a total white knight move. I do not know of any women athletes on the level of a woman like Ms. Khelif (or any other Olympian for that matter) who have asked to be protected from having to compete against a "man."
Not really. Not a sport physiologist, but the core advantage is due to male puberty. If you prevent male puberty with blockers and afterwards keep male testosteron in low range and/or use the same regimen as in M2F transition these individuals would be better matched in a female competition.
"I'm not an expert, but here's my expert opinion."
I have studied molecular biology and researched M2F transition issues privately. I have not claimed to be an expert is sport physiology. Your comeback has no substance.
Ah yes. Privately. You did your own research. Now you're a scientician.
Are you saying some of these born males intentionally use blockers during their puberty? Let's say these born male individuals want to compete athletically in male sports but were outperformed; basically you're saying it's their fault for using blockers during their puberty?
There are now some M2F transitioners who take puberty blockers during adolescence. Some of them might become athletes.
Or, you know, one could separate athletes into brackets/categories that are better comparable and don't give certain people a huge advantage over others. Make a separate marathon category for East Africans. Make a separate swimming category for people like Phelps. Make categories for boxing based on strength or performance.
Multiple female skiers have called for a different way of doing things for example, because the shorter courses for women bore them and they aren't allowed to compete against men.
Holy fuck...
Source
So if you get good enough at a sport, you shouldn't be allowed to compete with athletes from other countries?
They're just taking the argument that Imane Khelif and others like her shouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's competition to it's logical conclusion. Pretty sure it's to show the ridiculousness of it suggesting she shouldn't be allowed to compete against women due to a genetic advantage despite being a woman.
It is so hard to tell at this point.
No, I actually think they're serious, considering their followup about female skiers. Who, I'm sure, would probably just prefer the female course be the same length as the male one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So should someone like Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have their "own classes"? Who would they be competing against?
They too are "rare people who have a significant competitive advantages against vanillas".
You misspelled "my own ideology isn't rational, so I can not discuss this rationally"
Fyi I don't agree with the previous commenters ideology about two separate classes for women.
I however agree that we can't discuss this rationally today because social media (including lemmee) is a terrible forum for this discussion, because, unfortunately, a person who is AFAB and has a DSD, or other naturally occurring condition, which gives them more or less testosterone/lactic acid/something else than the typical woman, and thus an advantage, gets conflated with having a trans woman compete, because then the people who feel strongly about trans people on both sides come out of the wood work and start yelling....
And then everyone gets pissed and/or understandardly triggered and nothing can be argued.
By naturally occurring I mean w/o the use of drugs/doping/surgery. Which in my understanding is what's the case with the boxer.
I don't post this to argue or convince. Just clarify what I think they're trying to say.
I won't respond to the "are they female"/"what to do" debate, only that this forum is terrible to have these debates.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk/soap box lecture
Without discussing the sex/gender side of this argument; I don't understand why you're not applying the same logic to freakishly dominant male athletes?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/02/does-michael-phelps-lung-capacity-allow-him-to-take-monster-bong-hits.html
We measured lung capacity in biology class in the ninth grade, and I had the largest of the class. Six liters. Most guys were around 5.5l.
Phelps has twelve.
And there's a ton of scientific studies about Usain Bolt.
I understand your point, but would the same logic not be applicable, even if the "unnatural" (they're very natural but you get the point, that's why the quotations) physical traits for Phelps and Bolt aren't necessarily as significant as having very high testosterone levels in a women's league?
Apologies I meant the person you were originally replying to. I can see it being ambiguous.
I agree with you, this argument is dumb, sexist, and not fair.
I'm just saying this is just not a good forum to handle it.
Yeah, okay.
It's a reasonable catchall, could have said baseline. Or define things by exclusion, which is unnecessarily technical and verbose.
It sure is a catchall. However, you don't need to be technical or verbose. The scientific term you want is phenotypical.
I still wonder how you don't think you're being intersexist at the moment though? Like, where do you draw the line? Is a woman with PCOS disallowed because it causes a slightly elevated testosterone level? What about a woman with webbed feet? They wouldn't be considered phenotypical either.
But why don't we get a little more technical and verbose for a second. The typical female testosterone range is 0.5-2.4 nmol/L (that's nanomoles per litre). The typical male range? 10-35 nmol/L. A woman with PCOS may have levels around 2.5-3.5 nmol/L. Someone with Caster Semanya's (alleged, never confirmed) condition would typically have around 3.5-5 nm/L. Still half or less than a phenotypical male. So I bring it back to the webbed feet, because they'd probably be similarly on par in terms of the advantage they provide.
Aren't the Olympics about finding the most capable athlete from whatever category the sport is separated into? Not even every event is gender segregated, there is no "female Olympics", there are simply gender segregated Olympic events.
And for those events, if the categories are separated by gender, wouldn't "rare people" like Caster Semenya be the most deserving female athletes to win Gold in those events?
And if that's a problem, maybe we need to find a different way to categorize athletes other than the current system that sorts them by their genitals.
Ugh I am still so frustrated with you for name-dropping Caster Semenya like you know what you're talking about! I have the same intersex variation that she (allegedly) has. The only reason anyone cares is that she has an XY karotype. She was born a girl, she was raised a woman. Why should she be disallowed from competing as one? Why is your solution to exclude some cis women from sports as well? Where will it stop?
Which doesn't matter in any way, shape, or form anyway. The original tweet is making that point. Phelps is a fucking fish mutant and we let him compete as a "man" but a woman somehow must conform to some platonic ideal of a woman to even be considered such.
It's fucking sexism, and genetics doesn't factor into it in the slightest.
Phelps needs to be investigated because I'm pretty sure he is a largely a dolphin
There I fixed your conclusion.
Genetically, he's been disqualified for swimming due to having a Z chromosome, meaning he's sexually a fish.
🙄
I thought ZZ made you a bird.
We need to settle this, everyone. Is Phelps a bird or a fish? No other options here.
Those guys are assholes. I keep bumping into them mid-air. Have they ever once apologized?
ZZ/ZW is used by assorted fish and birds. Disgusting. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA. Brought to you by the woke mob. Thanks, Obama.
No, it's because men participate in what is effectively an open division and if you want to participate in the protected division and you have traits that even hint at not being protected, you will be scrutinized to remain in the protected division. It's really that simple.
Should we have other protected divisions though? Why don't we have a protected division for people not born with attributes that help them? Making a division aimed at women and then not letting the best women compete in it seems rather dumb and it'd be similar to making a division for men who aren't athletic so they can compete without having to be the best.
We do, we have the Para-Olympics. But, it seems you're conflating being good with being scrutinized. The better you are in a protected class, the more you should be scrutinized to retain the class protection. It does not mean you will be disqualified... You may be the best ever in that protected class.
We could make a lazy couch division if we wanted to. I don't think anyone wants that.
Para-Olympics are divisions for people with disabilities. It's not for people without advantages (and I'm not saying there should be, just posing a hypothetical). If we don't allow the best women to compete because they're too advantaged, doesn't that also imply we should have other divisions for less advantaged people too?
Obviously the woman thing we're seeing is just conservatives policing what the idea of a woman is though. They don't actually care about the women or the sport. They were not watching women's MMA (or whatever the event was) before this happened. It still does bring into consideration what divisions we should have though, and whether women's division actually makes sense to have or if it should be something else, and what that should be. We don't have divisions for socio-economic status despite that playing a large role in most sports. Should we?
Just saying it was another type of protected division. I agree, the men's division is also protected to some degree from PED users. There is no clean solution. I like someone else's post about Heap Problems. It's clear there are naturally occurring classes of athlete, but the lines we draw are arbitrary, and that's just how it is. Just like any other science experiment, we must pick and choose variables that make the most sense, as we cannot infinitely slice.
Sports is full of divisions. Age divisions. Weight divisions. Each sport has its own set of rules based on what gives an advantage in that sport.
I want to see a baseball game played by two teams of people with situs inversus and watch the arguments about if it's still left field
This is a pretty good take, except that the men's division is also protected. Performance enhancing drugs are not allowed, it is not a free-for-all open division.
I don't think anyone thinks the men's and woman's division should be combined because there is no good way to differentiate the difficult place in the middle; this is a classic heap paradox, just because the division between woman and not woman is difficult does not mean it doesn't exist.
Just one example from speed climbing men's WR = 4.74s, woman's WR = 6.06s; the men are 27.8% faster. No one is arguing that men are more dedicated and train more, that they have access to better nutrition or equipment. Men have a natural advantage; combining the divisions would simply mean that no women could possibly get into the top class competition. This maps across ALL sport.
Well, while mostly true, there are always exceptions.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men
Tldr ultradistance events and some shooting
Interesting.
TIL there are people who swim marathons.
Yes. I think that this is the concern of everyone who is genuinely interested in fair competition. While I'm sure that some people are triggered ( in both directions ) by the transgender debate.
I mentioned in another thread that I think the simple solution to this is to not define divisions by gender, but to simply measure testosterone and have a high-T "open" division and a low-T division. This is where the perceived competitive advantage lies and sidesteps the whole gender issue entirely.
While sensible, is T really the only factor at play here? Once you get into the science where do you draw the line?
Realistically it probably depends on the sport. Y chromosomes, being exposed to certain levels of testosterone in utero (unless one is resistant or unresponsive to the hormone), being exposed to certain levels of testosterone in puberty and maintaining certain levels of testosterone all do things to the body than could effect performance and that's all still mostly just focused on the one hormone. How much each of those things has an impact (if any) is going to depend entirely on the nature of the sport in question.
Should Brittney Griner be tested for testosterone and then forced to play in the NBA if it's too high?
You can't tell how high someone is by measuring testosterone. Maybe you were thinking of the Toblerone test.
Cute weed joke considering it landed her in a horrific Russian prison as a queer woman, but also, I didn't say she was too high.
You're right. Determining what's fair and what isn't is a task non-transphobic scientists should be working on, not something you discuss lightly around a beer at a pub. There needs to be actual research.
Transphobes will probably not like the conclusions of that research, though...
The WNBA is still part of the NBA. She's been playing in the NBA
You know what I mean.
What's funny is that is THE issue we're discussing - misogyny in sports. That the NBA in your mind defaults to "Real Men's Basketball^TM" and women have this little side denominator with their girl basketball.... like no. Be exact if you don't want to be sexist. The NBA is both the men's and women's basketball associations.
What you MEANT was whether Britney should change to the men's division of the NBA.
...or I don't watch basketball and just didn't know that.
Nah, it must be that I hate women.
What do you think the letters in "NBA" stand for?
Interesting apology for your accidental misogyny. Kinda looks like you do hate women.
I know you really want to get angry at someone who doesn't know about basketball and thought that the two groups were "NBA" for men and "WNBA" for women, but that's literally how I have always heard those two divisions named. So call me as hateful as you like, but the truth is I have no idea what to call the men's league now. I've never seen anyone call it MNBA anywhere. Certainly not the press.
Right, because of overwhelming sexism in sports. I don't "hate" you or feel any emotion towards you. I'm pointing out how sexism in sports isn't just the Olympics, it's so pervasive we even see it in things like the colloquial use of the term 'NBA.' If someone is concerned about bigotry in sports, then wouldn't they want to examine other areas? Don't you think - as an ostensible ally - that that's weird too?
I've been accidentally misogynistic too, because we are raised in a society that have given us propaganda to be misogynistic. It's worth it to self examine and apologize when that happens. No one is an angel. Grow up, be humble, and learn.
And your second sentence proves you didn't actually read my post:
What I said:
What you responded:
Plus, I specifically said I had no idea what to call the men's league now and you didn't tell me.
Let me know when you actually read my comment and respond to what I actually said and not what you pretended I said. No wonder you decide people are misogynists when you don't properly read their comments.
Your first sentence called me angry.
You call them the men's NBA. That's pretty clear as we both have referenced it as such.
Wow, it wasn't accidental misogyny then, huh? Like had you known, you would've just done it the same anyway. That's why you lack remorse and are trying to make this combative and paint me in a negative light - it's not about women's rights, it's about your ego and looking like you're so smart on these issues you're above criticism. Cool. I'm sorry I said you were doing it on accident? Like go back and read the comment chain - you're way out of line here if you actually care about women.
And what of high testosterone people who are completely testosterone insensitive? Those are the women who have Y chromosomes
i think we need a normie olympics, it'd be like the paralympics, but for people randomly selected from the average population.
My kid said just the other day. "they should have an average person do it first so we could see the difference."
Now I'm thinking which one would be the funniest. Hurdles are definitely up there
Relevant https://m.xkcd.com/2964/
Oh, right! Now I know why the image in my head was so vivid. I actually saw it before
Summer olympics: Pole vault
Winter olympics: Luge
For pole vaulting I'd be surprised if even one person would dare to do the jump. I'm pretty sure I'd chicken out, but to be fair, it looks like it's really easy to get hurt
There are a LOT of Olympic sports that you probably shouldn't "just do."
Diving, pole jumping, gymnastics in general
Fencing would be pretty amusing.
bonus points if it's horse based (though that's just jousting)
i absolutely agree with your kid, get that kid on marketing stat!
I told her the same thing. She should pitch it for the next Olympics. She'd be 14 when that happens. Gives her four years to plan.
You should watch Takeshis Castle then. It's pretty close to normie olympics.
Sometimes athletes go on, but the obstacles are so fucky even they struggle with it.
oh right, that show, i remember hearing about it at one point, what a weird show.
This whole thing de-legitimatizes any point any TERF argument ever had, is what I'd say if there was any point they had to begin with.
She almost, ALMOST has it!
Just a little bit of mental extension and she’ll realize that this is the same reason trans women should be allowed to play women’s sports as well
I was confused because despite the title suggesting she’s a TERF, this sounds on the face of it like a pretty trans-inclusive statement.
I'm pretty sure she isn't a TERF, Caroline is a left-wing pop culture/politics streamer.
Not sure that she is. I can't find anything that suggests that she is.
I found one tweet where she talked about the need to have trans actors play trans roles. I don't think that would even occur to many TERFs.
Ah, if she’s not a TERF it is pretty inclusive. The title made it sound like this person is a transphobe though and I have no idea who they are.
Also, these TERFs (and other bigots) haven't seemed to have noticed that women who play sports at a high level like in the Olympics haven't asked for their protection.
We hope that anyone implementing the guidance ensures science is at the heart of decisions, recognises there is a genuine conflict between safety and fairness
Everyone wants to play sports safely. You don't need to ask for it.
Yes, we really need to make sure a sport where people punch each other into unconsciousness is safe.
Why didn't I realize that before?
And yes, people who want protection do have to ask for it.
Regulations in general contradict you. You're forced to wear a seatbelt whether you asked for it or not, even if you don't want to. Not sure how that related to trans rights or sports, though.
Oh cool, let's check out some TERF messaging:
Alright, pretty reasonable start. We all want fairness.
Hold up, did we just use a study about (cis) adult males to argue that trans women shouldn't be allowed? Oh no, that doesn't seem very scientific... Well, I'm sure it's fine, let's check their references:
Okay, it's fine, I'll look them up myself:
Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr
Okay well, that can't be right, their numbers are just coming from a comparison to men, they're just pushing the narrative that trans women and men are equal. Huh. Let's check their other reference:
Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance
Wait, this study doesn't prove anything about trans women either. In fact, considering their comparisons of low and high-level testosterone in males, you could reasonably extrapolate that trans women on feminising HRT are comparable to their peers from this study. I wonder why the post didn't bring up that possibility? Ah well, let's move on, shall we?
Oh, huh, still conflating cis men and trans women...
Hmm, it doesn't seem very feminist to perpetuate the wildly inaccurate myth that the majority of males would outcompete elite female athletes...
Okay, so would you like me to keep picking this apart, or could we agree that it's scientifically unsound now? If any of these "facts" were relevant to the discussion of trans women in sports, I might (reluctantly) agree that there's a safety argument to be made. But I think what this conversation lacks most is empirical evidence. It seems that if an organisation like the one you linked above, who ostensibly want what's safest for all women, that they'd love to fund such a study that proves definitively what's safest. That they wouldn't care what the result was. So why have no studies into actual trans women been done?
I know this is quite anecdotal, but myself and most trans femmes I've talked too (who are on HRT) can describe the experience of losing that strength that comes alongside testosterone. If you want something more empirical, I have read countless instances of trans female athletes being unable to come close to matching their pre-transition Personal Best's. In fact, the gap between their pre and post-transition PBs is often on par with the gap between female and male results more generally. I can't recall a single instance where their PB went up after hormones. Whereas most athletes in their prime continue to push their PB higher.
The link was to disprove the previous claim and provide at least one example of women in sport calling for protection.
Whether or not they are justified in asking for a balance between saftey and fairness is a can of worms I'm leaving closed.
All I see is another progressive organisation that has been infiltrated by TERFs. The page you link too reeks of their tactics and arguments. The fact they're based on TERF Island (UK) says a lot as well.
For the women involved that aren't TERFs, I think it can be all too easy to subscribe to their arguments when you've worked so hard to achieve fairness and equality. But the conflation of trans women and cis men as equals, without any scientific proof, leads me to believe that even they are being deceptive here. I mean, the TERF tactic of denying trans men their identities also shows up towards the end:
Like, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to use people who dislike trans people to prove your point. You're fair and reasonable to not want to open that can of worms. All I'm saying is that finding a definitively anti-transgender reference doesn't prove your point, because there's no way to seperate the TERF from the science in that article. Meanwhile, I have never seen an Olympic-class athlete complain about transgender women in sports until Angela Carini. And even she has turned around and profusely apologised for what she said:
So, I dunno, I don't really think you've disproven that claim at all.
Ok. I think I can provide an example and avoid any sensitive topics. Co-ed soccer has different rules (e.g no slide tackles) because women have asked to be protected.
That wasn't the claim I was countering. A more general statement was made.
Olympic-classwomenathleteshave never asked for protectionfrom transgender womenin sports.The original statement made was too broad.
It sounds like that's her argument.
So much of this fear and hysteria is bound up in the media's need to find "perfect" athletes, rather than the social need to venerate exercise and healthy competition. You get this fixation on cheating and this endless bickering over who has an "unfair" advantage, while losing sight of the general value of people feeling inspired to play sports and swim and just get the fuck outside to touch some grass.
The need to know who should win the shiniest trophy seems to eclipse any other concern. It becomes a justification for all the hatred and bigotry that The Olympics was originally intended to cut against.
"Superman vs Thor" mentality.
How is that a TERFy statement as is? It's this post ragebait or brainrot?
Thank God I'm not the only one, I assumed maybe this was a well known terf I guess?
That’s Caroline Kwan. Will Neff’s girlfriend(maybe wife) who is Hasan Piker’s best friend.
I think OP is taking their side AGAINST transphobia and TERFism.
Or wait….. I reread the post and I’m confused too.
Do they think Caroline Kwan is a TERF?
I personally like to descirbe myself as tolerant. Not exactly progressive, but I very much see the struggle some people live with and so I decided that not being hostile to anyone is the least that I can do in case I don't just straight-up support some causes. I had to get this clear, because my opinion doesn't exactly match with the one detailed in the post or at the very least I find fault in it's reasoning.
The problem is that all the "genetic advantages" that make someone a good swimmer for example, are all unrelated traits, that are not really rare in people, it's just that it's quite rare for them to all be present in one person who then also goes off to be a swimmer. Testosterone on the other hand is a single hormone, exceptionally important in becoming an outstanding athlete and for that precise reason it's considered a performance-enhancing drug. If you look at it this way it's not that hard to see the problem.
Being more muscular certainly is an advantage. Being taller also is. Longer arms also are. Lower body-fat percentage also is. Better stamina also is. Better agility also is.
Any boxer you pick randomly should be expected to have one or more of these "genetic advantages", but all of them, resulting from a single condition is quite a different situation. Elevated testosterone levels are a single cause for developing some of the most important traits of a dominating boxer and so someone with such an advantage can't be considered a freak of nature in the same sense that someone like Phelps can be. There isn't a "swimmer hormone" that magically gives you all the advantages in swimming, but there is a "fighter hormone", that does in boxing. I personally don't think that Khelif could be anything other than a women. I just think that her body happens to overproduce a literal PED and that's a problem for anyone who wants to go up against her or those that want to see fights that are more or less determined by technique.
Now for solutions and as far as I see there's only one that doesn't involve excluding her from boxing. Simply put her and anyone with similar conditions in a weight class based on their muscle mass and not their actual body mass. Moving her one weight class up for example would at least mean that her opponents have trained with punches of similar force to her's, something that the lack of seemed to have been a problem for her foes in Paris. She would still have an advantage in terms of speed, but she would pay the price of having less fat for impact absorption. I think that would be a win-win scenario.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Phelp's unfair genetic advantage is no different! His mutation gives him advantages at pretty much all endurance sports, not just swimming, and that's unfair. That's a problem for anyone that wanted to go up against him. You can't handwave this.
The Olympics is actually just a competition for which country has the most athletic mutants.
I’m going to hold onto that one to use later!
Once you do that you will meed separate groups by height/arm length/anything else that is an advantage. Weight class already groups them in a way that avoids completely inbalanced fights based on muscle mass.
Not to mention the lack of volume of people who would fit the bill. Caster Semenya is the only other athlete I can think of, in recent memory, that might fall into this class & she was runner.
Fully acknowledging there could be other athletes, I haven’t necessarily looked, but I’d still wager the number is pretty low when it comes to this specific issue.
i mean, yeah as far as test goes, it's a PED, but at the end of the day, does it really matter significantly? I'm not sure.
Sometimes people have test so high it's literally impossible to measure, there's no real reason women can't also experience high test either, though high test is also arguably bad.
Sure they might be physically bigger, but the hard to answer question here is if it's any more significant than your average olympic athlete. With how prevalent trans people are (not very) and how common it would be for those trans people to be athletes (even less likely) i'm not sure it's a huge concern or even a significant consideration.
At the end of the day, you're already sampling for the most unusual, and weirdly built people, that's why it's the olympics. Excluding trans people from that seems like it might be a bit more redundant than necessary.
If it's a real concern, proper class weighting would help, that's a valid strategy, but another strategy is to simply have multiple medal winning categories.
An interesting rant! Cheers
I'm so stoked for the future of women rugby. Partially, because it's a very inclusive sport and it inherits a lot from its lore and ethos - with only a few years left until a woman will referee a high profile test game. And partially, because I want to see the same ferocious generic selection applied to female athletes.
Anyways, give it a go - some really good footy. If you're absolutely unaware of it, look up highlights of Portia Woodman.
Inclusive? World Rugby is famously transphobic and exclusionary when it comes to women's rugby...
Not that it's necessarily a reflection on them today, but rugby union was also one of the last major sports to ban apartheid South Africa. Athletics banned them by '70, cricket tours were being called off from '70, soccer suspended them all the way back in '61, and they weren't allowed in the Olympics from '64. But they were still doing official international rugby union tours as late as '84.
I'm not saying it's ideal, but things do change rapidly. South Africa about to start giving female players centralized contracts, etc.
Yeah because people get hurt in rugby. And when a man plays woman's rugby people REALLY get hurt. People don't like that.
Your submission in "TERFs taking their gloves off for Imane Khelif" was removed for Transphobia.
Trans women are women.
The NRLW in Australia is an awesome comp and is growing rapidly in viewership too! It’s a great game to watch and young female athletes are finally getting some serious role models they can aspire to as well. I’m not much into rugby union being a New South Welshman but the league games are intense.
rugby is the sport predisposed to head injuries correct?
That'll certainly make for an interesting game, regardless of who plays.
Rugby, NFL football, hockey, boxing, and even WWE professional wrestling all have histories of multiple athletes suffering from CTE. Women’s hockey I think will have fewer incidences of CTE due to rule and equipment differences but it’s still early to say. We often didn’t find out about CTE in men’s hockey players until after they died young in retirement.
I have no idea what the rules for women’s rugby are like, if there are any differences. The real issue is a swinging motion of the head (caused by falls or sudden stops), not unlike the way a hammer swings. The movement of the brain inside the skull with sudden stops or changes of direction causes tearing like you’d expect if you swung around a bucket of jello and then slammed it against something.
I try to be cognizant of these things and not support these sports so much, yet they’re in my social circles and I do enjoy them. Every athlete makes their own choice to participate in these sports at the end of the day, though I wonder how informed they are about the risks.
yeah, most sports include increased rates of brain damage, weirdly enough, but to my understanding, as somehow who doesn't know much about sports, rugby is just football (the american one) but with more contact and less padding afaik. Is that accurate?
I don't have a problem with people voluntarily giving themselves brain damage, i think, but it's definitely an odd problem to have.
Rugby has some similarities but is otherwise a completely different sport from American (gridiron) football. American football actually evolved out of rugby, first by the introduction of the snap. This led to the concept of “downs” and the requirement to advance the ball a minimum number of yards (originally 5, now 10) within the allotted number of tackles.
The sport was extremely dangerous at the time because of the way mass formations of players would impact into each other at full speed. More rule changes were needed to make it safer, and the field was made wider to give more room for players to run around the other team instead of ploughing through.
is this rugby or the variant of it known as american football?
It was neither? Both? It was an intermediate sport between the two. They had made some of the rule changes to rugby that are more in line with modern American football but not all of them. Modern American football has the forward pass and rules for protecting the passer, called the quarterback. That dangerous in between sport did not.
ok i see, i know that spots have changed over time, i'm just not really sure how they've changed. Obviously football has a lot of protective gear now, though it's debatable how well it works.
The new equipment has also had rule changes brought in to prevent it from being used as a weapon. Helmets and shoulder pads in particular are a big cause of injuries when they’re used as battering rams. Some of the newer rules (such as fair catch) have been really successful at preventing injuries.
yeah, the irony in protective gear causing more damage is due to players quite literally just impacting harder in general. You wouldn't want to do it without any protective gear, and you wouldn't and if you did impact, it was a lot more gracefully.
Though it makes sense misuse of them would also cause problems lol, reminds me of the DOT standards for motorcyle helmets, utter dogshit standard, and you should basically just ignore it, but it's also "technically better than nothing"
I remember hearing somewhere that people are more likely to tailgate someone on a bicycle if they’re wearing a helmet rather than not! That’s crazy to me!
The Italian just got skill issue'd and conservatives were attracted to it like my cat to a nice steak.
What do you mean by "TERFs"? Caroline Kwan is a leftist, not a TERF.
That's correct, Caroline Kwan is not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones 'protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is'
It's easier to be a man than it is to be a woman, sadly. :/
The lizard people were actually amphibians all along!
Did I miss something? Is the Olympic Committee handing out medals for litigation this year?