Randomness thread, part two.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where are these categories?
What should trans people do after all this time when *still* there are no categories for them?

It sounds like your arguing they should sit down and shut up and wait for some privileged group to hand them their rights.
How has that worked out historically? Is that how women fought their own oppression and gained their rights?
No, of course not. Women injected themselves into historically male roles and protested in the streets and demanded to be an equal part of society. That equality is still not achieved... and your argument seems to be that since that's not finished, yet, all other oppressed groups need to wait their turn.

How about black rights? Did they just tolerate their oppression until some noble benefactor gave them equality? Of course not.
That's not how people have gotten rights, historically.

There should be categories. This has been fact for decades and really, always. And yet, here we are, with no public restrooms for trans people and no categories in sports.

When a trans person stands up and injects themself into that public space with pride and outrage at the need for them to do so, where do you stand?
Do you support them for crying foul at the hypocrisy of a society that doesn't accommodate them?
Or do you tell them to sit down and shut up and wait their turn?

[Poopadoop]

I'm glad you agree separate categories are a good idea.

But, you're accusing me of holding positions I simply don't hold. Nowhere have I argued anything like "they (trans people) should shut up and wait for someone to hand them their rights," or "they shouldn't demand their rights." I was simply pointing out, as I've done repeatedly now, that the rights they are asking for can, and sometimes do, conflict with the rights of others who aren't trans.

I'm not sure how you make the leap from my stated position to what you say it "sounds like" I'm saying. It's almost as if you didn't properly try to understand my argument, but just saw something about non-trans people also having rights and decided that makes me anti-trans. That's false. Rights aren't a zero-sum game. We can protect and promote everyone's rights in a fair and balanced way.

Since my suggestion is to have separate categories, and you agree that is a good idea, then there's nothing left to argue about imo.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I never said separate categories are good.
I'm not saying they're good.

I'm saying your argument that trans people shouldn't participate in sports or use the restroom because there aren't categories is stupid.

[Poopadoop]

There should be categories. This has been fact for decades and really, always.

I never said separate categories are good.

...

I'm saying your argument that trans people shouldn't participate in sports or use the restroom because there aren't categories is stupid.

That's not my argument.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There's a difference between me making your own argument to show it's got a gaping blind spot in it and me making a personal moral assessment.

Your argument is that trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete in the existing categories, because it's unfair to women.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Poopadoop]

There's a difference between me making your own argument to show it's got a gaping blind spot in it and me making a personal moral assessment.

So which one is this?

There should be categories. This has been fact for decades and really, always. And yet, here we are, with no public restrooms for trans people and no categories in sports.

If the supposed "gaping blind spot" is that the idea hasn't been taken up yet, that's not much of a point.

Your argument is that trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete in the existing categories, because it's unfair to women.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Make a separate category for trans in sport.

2. Have unisex public bathrooms with private stalls.


So, you're not wrong this time but that's different from the argument you attributed to me earlier

trans people shouldn't participate in sports or use the restroom

.

[Poopadoop]

1. Make a separate category for trans in sport.

I think the problem here is that you're assuming that the logical continuation of this argument is that because this separate category doesn't presently exist, then trans people should not presently be allowed to compete at all. That's not what I've said anywhere at anytime. I've said it's a bad idea not to have separate categories, and there should be a separate category.

Until there is, however, trans people should be allowed to compete in whichever category (male or female) they are judged to best fit into. That's absolutely fine, with the caveat that it be up to a governing body of a sport, not the individual athlete, to decide whether they compete as a male or female.

For example, I don't think it would be ok for Floyd Mayweather to change his name to Martha Mayweather and go around kicking the shit out of women boxers, because that would not be fair to women boxers. It would not matter to me whether he changed his name because of a legitimate sense of wanting to change his own gender identity, or because he thought it was a good way to make some money and notoriety. Even if they are pure, his personal feelings around his gender identity do not trump the rights of other athletes to fair competition.

[CoccoBill]

Do you think trans women and trans men should compete in the same category?

[Poopadoop]

If they're judged to be in the same third category by the criteria used by sport's governing body, yes.

The criteria would have to be set up such that there are clear boundaries between the three categories. A situation such as the following should not arise:

https://thehill.com/changing-america...lympics-events

Here, several women failed to meet the testosterone limits set by the OC. So they're out, can't compete as men or women. If there were a third category, they could compete there. That's the idea anyways.

[Poopadoop]

Here's an example of what's wrong with the current system:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46453958

...where a trans women won a cycling competition.

And, a competitor feels put out by this.

Jen Wagner-Assali, who finished third, called it "unfair" and wants cycling's international governing body to change its rules.

Now, imho you can't fairly say Wagner-Assali should just fuck off because we want trans people to be able to participate in sports. But you could say, let's have a third category where people who do not fit into the male or female category due to hormone levels or bone density or whatever other criteria the governing body decides to use to limit participation to those groups have their own group against which they can compete.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've said many times that when you push me to offer my opinion on what is best, I will give it, but I do not have any expertise in understanding humans or what will make them not hate. I've repeatedly said I am not claiming to have any answers, and I'm not suggesting anyone here should.

I've also said I don't see the point in having categories at all. Someone runs as fast as they run. Who they're running next to shouldn't matter how fast they are. So it shouldn't matter to have women and men run in the same race. Even if they finish in different times, they finished in their time. The records are already divided into women and men. I don't see why that needs to extend to the actual competitions.

So take the whole story into account. I think categories is a bad solution to appease stupid haters. I do not think there's a moral reason to have them. I think the reason to have categories is to assuage irrational haters from getting their undies in a bind, I do not think it has anything to do with fair competition.


From the article you posted:
"People can say that cis gender [people whose gender matches that of their birth sex] men are 8-12% stronger than cis gender women, and I'm willing to accept that figure for the sake of argument.

"But we have to recognize that the average difference between men and women is far smaller than between the weakest and strongest woman, or the shortest and tallest woman.

"We permit very tall women to compete against short women in sports that select for tallness like basketball, volleyball or rowing, and we consider that fair. So we permit very large competitive advantages through natural characteristics."


IMO, this is indication that the categories are stupid. I think that having categories will perhaps help get trans people to want to be included in sport, and to participate in other public events where facilities and accommodations are currently lacking. I don't think categories is morally right. It stinks of the "separate but equal" crap in the US's civil rights history of black rights in the south. If it's a stopgap in the short term, then fine. I do not think it's the moral long-term answer to empowering humans to excellence.

[Poopadoop]

I've said many times that when you push me to offer my opinion on what is best, I will give it,

It's up to you to offer a solution if you have one, don't act like you're just waiting for us to ask you. If you did offer a solution, it would certainly add a lot more value to your contributions than just saying "your idea is stupid and/or bigoted" over and over.

I've also said I don't see the point in having categories at all. Someone runs as fast as they run. Who they're running next to shouldn't matter how fast they are. So it shouldn't matter to have women and men run in the same race. Even if they finish in different times, they finished in their time. The records are already divided into women and men. I don't see why that needs to extend to the actual competitions.

It matters if they are giving rewards based on where you finish in the race. Hence why the woman who finished third in the cycling race linked to above claimed it was unfair.

I think categories is a bad solution to appease stupid haters. I do not think there's a moral reason to have them. I think the reason to have categories is to assuage irrational haters from getting their undies in a bind, I do not think it has anything to do with fair competition.

The real haters aren't the people saying "give them their own category, so they can compete", they're the ones saying "don't let them compete at all." And the present system, which draws clear boundaries around male and female, and excludes everyone in-between, is what's giving the haters what they want. cf. the women excluded from the Olympics because their testosterone levels were too high, also linked above.

"We permit very tall women to compete against short women in sports that select for tallness like basketball, volleyball or rowing, and we consider that fair. So we permit very large competitive advantages through natural characteristics."

IOW, "If we apply this solution to situations where it isn't needed or asked for, it will cause problems." Slippery slope arguments like this are worthless.

I don't think categories is morally right. It stinks of the "separate but equal" crap in the US's civil rights history of black rights in the south. If it's a stopgap in the short term, then fine. I do not think it's the moral long-term answer to empowering humans to excellence.

"Separate but equal" in the context of US history was, as you rightly imply, a euphimism for "separate and unequal." That's not the case here. No-one is saying don't give them a medal or give them a smaller medal. They're saying don't let them compete for the same medal when they have a sex-based advantage.

No-one complains that having separate events for men and women in sports is treating them as "separate and unequal." Or if they do, they are in a very tiny minority.

[MadMojoMonkey]

My solution is to support and be inspired by the few trans people who will not sit down and wait for someone else to do the right thing.
My solution is we should be mad at the lack of accommodations and facilities, and not blaming the people victimized by this lack when they stand up for their rights.


We can still award medals based on categories, even if people compete in a mixed field. There are multiple ways to do categories. People collect statistics on just about everything imaginable when it comes to sports. It's already choosing 1st and 2nd places for all sorts of things that people aren't directly competing on.


The woman claiming her 3rd place was unfair is not a physician. Losers love to cry the winner cheated, whether or not the winner is trans. This person is not qualified to be the final arbiter on this assertion.

IOW, "If we apply this solution to situations where it isn't needed or asked for, it will cause problems." Slippery slope arguments like this are worthless.

Bad faith. The point is if we applied this "unfair advantage" standard to all competitors, then many more would be excluded. Ergo, the standard is not being fairly applied.


Until and unless there even are categories, we can't know if they are equal.
I'm wary of suggesting either that I know what's best for trans people or that something will be equal before it's happened.

1. Make a separate category for trans in sport.

2. Have unisex public bathrooms with private stalls.

So... you didn't even answer the question.

What are trans people to do in the meantime while everyone else keeps not providing these accommodations you champion?

[Poopadoop]

We can still award medals based on categories, even if people compete in a mixed field. There are multiple ways to do categories. People collect statistics on just about everything imaginable when it comes to sports. It's already choosing 1st and 2nd places for all sorts of things that people aren't directly competing on.

Sure ok. Let's have everyone compete together at the Olympics. Men, women, trans, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, etc. And then at the end we sort out who gets the medals.

And not just for races, but also for combat sports like boxing, wrestling, etc. Because we don't want anyone to feel like they don't belong to the same class as athletes as the very best ones, we'll let men fight mentally disabled kids, and the last mentally disabled kid to be left conscious gets the gold medal in the mentally disabled category.

That's not practical. It's cloud cuckoo hippie love land shit. It's also dangerous.

The woman claiming her 3rd place was unfair is not a physician. Losers love to cry the winner cheated, whether or not the winner is trans. This person is not qualified to be the final arbiter on this assertion.

Neither is the person who wrote the article from which you quoted.

And, the person who finished third is not claiming to be a physician or the final arbiter. She's looking at a woman with the physique of a man and arguing that isn't fair competition. And I for one think she has a point.

Bad faith. The point is if we applied this "unfair advantage" standard to all competitors, then many more would be excluded. Ergo, the standard is not being fairly applied.

Bad faith yourself. You've just explained in the bolded here why it's a slippery slope argument and not worthy of serious consideration, and then concluded that it's a good argument.

We accept there are inequities in sport that have nothing to do with the athlete's effort level or human spirit or whatever other personal qualities of character it takes to be a champion. They have different coaches, different levels of funding, different support networks, different nutrition, different education, etc.. We accept those inequities because there is nothing that can be done about them, no objective way to measure their effects on performance.

What we don't accept is that adding more inequities to this tally, ones we can measure and therefore avoid, is better than not doing so.

What are trans people to do in the meantime while everyone else keeps not providing these accommodations you champion?

The same thing any oppressed group should do: Campaign intelligently and peacefully and vocally for the changes they deserve.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sure ok. Let's have everyone compete together at the Olympics. Men, women, trans, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, etc. And then at the end we sort out who gets the medals.

And not just for races, but also for combat sports like boxing, wrestling, etc. Because we don't want anyone to feel like they don't belong to the same class as athletes as the very best ones, we'll let men fight mentally disabled kids, and the last mentally disabled kid to be left conscious gets the gold medal in the mentally disabled category.

That's not practical. It's cloud cuckoo hippie love land shit. It's also dangerous.

I guess you're really proud of yourself for inventing a point no one made and then showing how wrong your fantasy point is?

I don't see how there's any logic to be had in that digression.

Neither is the person who wrote the article from which you quoted.

The person who wrote the article didn't claim anyone did or did not have an unfair advantage, so I don't see how this is relevant, either.

Are you even paying any attention to this conversation?

And, the person who finished third is not claiming to be a physician or the final arbiter. She's looking at a woman with the physique of a man and arguing that isn't fair competition. And I for one think she has a point.

You've expressed this opinion you have no medical foundation for believing about this trans athlete's physiology and you're using as a reason to argue in favor of oppressing 1% of all humans.

Surely there's a better use of your brain power than that.

Bad faith yourself. You've just explained in the bolded here why it's a slippery slope argument and not worthy of serious consideration, and then concluded that it's a good argument.

C'mon, man. That's not even my argument. It was an argument from an article you linked to make some point about unfair advantages against women in sports.

The trans athlete made the quote, and I've put it up to show the hypocrisy in this kind of physiology restrictions.

It's not a slippery slope... it's a reverse slippery slope. To wit:
Tall women compete against short women in basketball. Those tall women have an unfair physiological advantage over the shorter women. If you care so much about unfair physiological advantages in women's sport, then why have these kinds of physiological advantages never mattered in sports until a trans person wanted to compete?

We accept there are inequities in sport that have nothing to do with the athlete's effort level or human spirit or whatever other personal qualities of character it takes to be a champion. They have different coaches, different levels of funding, different support networks, different nutrition, different education, etc.. We accept those inequities because there is nothing that can be done about them, no objective way to measure their effects on performance.

What we don't accept is that adding more inequities to this tally, ones we can measure and therefore avoid, is better than not doing so.

I'm not sure who this "we" is you're talking about. Is it bigots?

Weren't you the one who said, correctly I add, that human rights is not a 0-sum game? But now all the sudden when it comes to the equal rights of trans athletes to compete, you say it can't be done without taking something away from women.

What about what is being taken away from trans people? What about their rights? What makes anyone else's rights matter more than theirs?

The same thing any oppressed group should do: Campaign intelligently and peacefully and vocally for the changes they deserve.

Right... so you mean they should just not "need" to use public restrooms, and if they do happen to need a public restroom and there isn't one around, they should hold their piss and politely explain that science has known for 30 goddamn years that human biological sex is a bimodal distribution - i.e. a continuous spectrum with a couple of peaks?

They should just accept that they are excluded from public sporting events on the world stage?

That's your message? Oppressed people should just sit down and shut up and wait for some privileged group to finally notice them and in their beneficence dole out some rights? Has that worked historically? For who? For how many others did they have to stand up and take their goddamn rights from a crying crowd of bigots? How did the women you are suddenly the spokesperson for earn their rights?

[Poopadoop]

The slippery slope bit of that editorial you quoted is the argument that if you take the idea of categories to its absurdly extreme conclusion, that you would need to have a separate category for every single different physiological characteristic that people who play sports have. That's retarded. But, you seemed to be arguing that it's a valid rebuttal of the idea of having any categories at all.

And when I turned that tactic around on you and said if you don't want a separate trans category, then we should have no categories at all, and showed how retarded that was, you suddenly were able to grasp how useless slippery slope arguments are. Ironic.

Then you tried to call me a bigot, which is out of bounds and I'm not having it. It's especially obnoxious since you just finished having a meltdown about how you felt you were being mistreated here and threatened to leave forever, which frankly, no-one even understood what the fuck you were talking about. And then you refused to accept anyone's apologies, and then you came back anyways. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? 'Cause it doesn't seem like it.

Finally, I said it several times now that I think trans people should be allowed to compete in whatever category they want to be in, the way things are organised now. I also think they should be allowed to use a public toilet because they don't have their own and/or there aren't currently unisex toilets everywhere. I also pointed out that the current system does exclude people in sports who shouldn't be excluded (trans or not), and added that there's a need to consider the rights of non-trans people in all of these issues as well. I then suggested solutions to these problems.

If you don't like those solutions, then fine, don't agree with them. But don't try to act like you know what's right and everyone else should just take their morality from you, and if they don't, it's because they're a bigot. I'm not taking that shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have a consistent message. My message is that oppressing 1% of people for being normal is pure asshattery. My message is that when someone tells you who they are, whether or not you like it couldn't matter less. My message is that when an awesome, different, empowered person stands up and demands equal rights, that's party time.

What's your message in this conversation?

***
I didn't say that since there's inequality we can't get rid of, the fact that trans people don't have equality is fine. That's a thing you said. You made an argument to not provide equal rights to normal people. That's bigotry. If you didn't mean to make that bigoted argument, then walk it back. Own what you said.

I never called you a bigot. I asked if that perspective you offered was bigoted. Your internalizing of that question to react offended at what you perceive as an accusation is all you. I didn't accuse you. If you stand accused, you did that.

***
You made a snide comment about a trans person's pronouns that kicked all this off. Then you walked it back 'cause you only said it because you didn't think any trans people were in FTR. Then you later walked it back as inappropriate in the first place. Nice progress, IMO.

If you're walking back your earlier concern for the integrity of women's sport at the total disregard for the absence of trans sport, then again, nice progress, IMO


And if you still think that trans people are some threat solely based on their being trans, then own it.

***
There is only 1 person who offered me an apology, as there is only one person (a friend) I called out, and what is between us is none of your business.

If you're apologizing for something, I've missed it.

***
I've repeatedly made it clear I'm not claiming to know what is right or best, and that I'm not expecting anyone here to know what is right or best. I don't care whether or not you're a bigot. If you are, you are. Just keep it off FTR.

[Jack Sawyer]

So how many of those times are set by trans people, since they're allowed to compete?

I gave a very detailed and nuanced example as to what exactly it was that I meant. Also, Caster Semenya. Naturally elevated test levels compared to other women, and through no fault of her own guess what happened.

Here is the relevant snippet from my long post above.

Of course, Fred Kerley can not just enter the women's race. But, I believe that what you are saying is that if Fred Kerley goes to the process of declaring himself a woman, changing pronouns, maybe change his first name legally to Frieda, and whatever other way he/she/they would decide to come out as being transgender, he/she/they then should be allowed to compete in the women's pool as a woman. At the moment the process is wide ranging, going from just "name changing" all the way to the more permanent snippy snip. Therefore, olympically, it would be a nightmare to revise this logistically, yo know, making sure the competition is clean and fair etc. How can you ensure the inherent test(osterone) advantage is fully neutralized (without allowing the women, or rather, those with lower natural test, to dope and we would have the russia in the 80s scandals all over again)? The size advantage (longer athletes with a longer gait can tend to be intrinsically faster and have that last second emergency lunge, see 6'5" Usain bolt) will forever be there, you can't shrink someone's frame (at least not with our current tech, who knows in the future).

[CoccoBill]

If they're judged to be in the same third category by the criteria used by sport's governing body, yes.

The criteria would have to be set up such that there are clear boundaries between the three categories.

I'm not sure how that would make thing more fair overall. Yes, the cisgender folks would be inconvenienced by the trans people, but if the whole basis for categorization is to get rid of unfair genetic or hormonal advantages, how are trans women and trans men on an equal setting?

[CoccoBill]

I gave a very detailed and nuanced example as to what exactly it was that I meant.

Oh yeah, sure, you did. You didn't answer my question though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The issue with categories is well made by just looking at what the complaints against trans people competing and dispel them. Then look at the data and see what can be done.

I'm not against categories, but I think basing the categories on biological sex is probably not the best long-term move.

The problem with using biological sex as a category divider is that we've inadvertently chosen a system that doesn't fit human biological sex. Human biological sex is a bimodal distribution, with 2 peaks and a lot going on in between and even on the fringes. This category system is bad in that regard and others.


In the statistics Jack put up to show the disparity between the fastest men and fastest women... why the assumption that biological sex is the categorical divide? Wouldn't a divide more along the lines of boxing or MMA make sense, too? Like weight categories. Maybe height categories. Whatever fits the sport. Why is it that men and women of similar sizes aren't competing with / against each other. In some sports it exists, mixed tennis comes to mind. So it's not an unworkable idea.

Why aren't we concerned about the rights of short people to compete for gold medals in running? If you're arguing that men have an advantage for being taller... then why is it men who have the advantage, and not tall people who have the advantage?

See? I'm not saying I've got any answers, but I think these are worthy questions. The biological sex of the athlete isn't the "unfair physiological advantage," as such. It's their height or BMI or lankiness or thicc thighs or whatever for whatever sport.

[Jack Sawyer]

Oh yeah, sure, you did. You didn't answer my question though.

I gave a very detailed and nuanced example as to what exactly it was that I meant. Also, Caster Semenya. Naturally elevated test levels compared to other women, and through no fault of her own guess what happened.

Here is the relevant snippet from my long post above.

More:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSaZjFTnmPE
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/f...nder-in-sport/
https://www.womenarehuman.com/male-t...-powerlifting/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-glor...ing-up-sports/

[CoccoBill]

No my question was how many of the records are made by trans folks. The number is 0, which makes me think there is no massive widespread issue.

I think this has been said already, but is worth repeating: there are physical and mental differences between sexes yes, but they are dwarfed by the differences between individuals within sexes. The top level female MMA fighters have no chance against the top level male fighters, like it's mostly not even close, but those top females handily kick the asses of 90+% of all males.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not sure how that would make thing more fair overall. Yes, the cisgender folks would be inconvenienced by the trans people, but if the whole basis for categorization is to get rid of unfair genetic or hormonal advantages, how are trans women and trans men on an equal setting?

You have three categories: traditional male, traditional female, and whatever you want to call the in-between one. It's set up such that every single person in the world will fit into one of the three. Whatever your criteria are, that's it.

That's better than current system with male, female, and "sorry you can't play," isn't it? So women who score too high on testosterone get put in the middle one, for example, instead of being disallowed. It's not even about being trans or cis or whatever, at least not directly.

[Poopadoop]

The top level female MMA fighters have no chance against the top level male fighters, like it's mostly not even close, but those top females handily kick the asses of 90+% of all males.

Maybe, it's never been tried afaik.

Still, if you acknowledge males have an average genetic advantage over women then you can't just allow people to self-select whether they're in the male or female category. And once you accept that, then you need to have some way of determining who goes where. And since there's going to be people who fall in-between both the male and female boundaries, you either have to exclude them entirely from competing (which we all agree is shit), or let them have their own category.

Or, you have to make a male/female boundary that allows the existence of only two categories, but which specifies a category for every single person in the world. You have to decide that at some point along the continuum we put a boundary and everyone on one side is male and everyone on the other is female.

[Poopadoop]

No my question was how many of the records are made by trans folks. The number is 0, which makes me think there is no massive widespread issue.

The argument isn't worth much though if the number who've actually competed in world-class competition is also 0. Do you know how many trans people have competed at the highest level?

Also



So at least one trans person has won something. Still is meaningless without knowing how many have competed at this level.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If the worry is physiological advantages, then shouldn't we be making categories based on physiological advantages, and not on a red herring like biological sex?

I don't imagine any biological male or female being pushed out of their "correct" category based on their unadulterated biology feeling like that was a fair thing. The label on the category is wrong, if that's how we're going to handle it. Calling someone trans who isn't doesn't seem like it's really a solid solution.

[CoccoBill]

You have three categories: traditional male, traditional female, and whatever you want to call the in-between one. It's set up such that every single person in the world will fit into one of the three. Whatever your criteria are, that's it.

That's better than current system with male, female, and "sorry you can't play," isn't it? So women who score too high on testosterone get put in the middle one, for example, instead of being disallowed. It's not even about being trans or cis or whatever, at least not directly.

You do know that trans women and trans men are different right? Why should they be in the same category?

[CoccoBill]

Maybe, it's never been tried afaik.

What, have the top women fighters fight all the males on the planet? I wonder why?

Still, if you acknowledge males have an average genetic advantage over women then you can't just allow people to self-select whether they're in the male or female category. And once you accept that, then you need to have some way of determining who goes where. And since there's going to be people who fall in-between both the male and female boundaries, you either have to exclude them entirely from competing (which we all agree is shit), or let them have their own category.

Like MMM already pointed out there, and I was trying to allude to, yes, there are physiological differences between sexes, but those differences are smaller than the ones that exist between individuals within the sexes, so why should sex be the determining factor?

[Poopadoop]

You do know that trans women and trans men are different right?

lol. Yes I'm aware of that.

Why should they be in the same category?

Trans men and trans women don't automatically get put in the same category. The categories aren't male/female/trans, they're based on hormone levels and bone density measures or whatever scientists can decide makes the best system. You have one group that has levels that are associated with men, another that has levels associated with women, and a third grey area group.

A trans person born as a male would likely be put in either the male or third category. A trans person born as a female would likely be put in either the female or third category. Hermaphrodites or other ambiguous sex people who haven't had any chemical intervention probably also go into the third category.

If that doesn't work for you, then what do you think we should do?

[CoccoBill]

The argument isn't worth much though if the number who've actually competed in world-class competition is also 0. Do you know how many trans people have competed at the highest level?

If the number is 0, isn't that a pretty good argument for there not being a huge issue to fix?

Also



So at least one trans person has won something. Still is meaningless without knowing how many have competed at this level.

OMG, this can't be allowed to continue. Look how devastated her co-competitors seem after they've been unfairly cheated out of a win. :P

[Poopadoop]

What, have the top women fighters fight all the males on the planet? I wonder why?

No. Even a single top women fighter has never fought a male (club level or w/e is not "top" level) afaik. So you can make up all the numbers you want, it doesn't prove anything.

Like MMM already pointed out there, and I was trying to allude to, yes, there are physiological differences between sexes, but those differences are smaller than the ones that exist between individuals within the sexes, so why should sex be the determining factor?

1. Because at an elite level, the top end of the two curves is what counts. It doesn't matter if there is some wimpy male somewhere who can't bench press 50 kg to save his life, it matters that the strongest male can bench press a lot more than the strongest female.

2. Because there is a personal choice involved in having an operation, or even just choosing to call yourself a gender different than the one you are by medical definition. I couldn't go have an operation to make me a bionic man and then tell everyone else to just fuck off I win the Olympcs. It's not fair.

[Poopadoop]

If the number is 0, isn't that a pretty good argument for there not being a huge issue to fix?

So, they're allowed an advantage as long as it's not at the highest level? There's still capital to be made out of being a champion at other levels, no?

OMG, this can't be allowed to continue. Look how devastated her co-competitors seem after they've been unfairly cheated out of a win. :P

Bronze medal winner on the right complained it was unfair and they needed to change the rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46453958

[Poopadoop]

And fwiw, that trans MMA fighter had a pretty good run at the top level, 5-1, so I guess the answer to your other question is > 0.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news...kull-mma-fight

[MadMojoMonkey]

1. Because at an elite level, the top end of the two curves is what counts. It doesn't matter if there is some wimpy male somewhere who can't bench press 50 kg to save his life, it matters that the strongest male can bench press a lot more than the strongest female.

2. Because there is a personal choice involved in having an operation, or even just choosing to call yourself a gender different than the one you are by medical definition. I couldn't go have an operation to make me a bionic man and then tell everyone else to just fuck off I win the Olympcs. It's not fair.

1. Why doesn't it matter? Your argument is about physiological advantages. The taller, more muscular, more testerone pumped males have an unfair advantage over all the other males. If you're so concerned about physiological advantages, then why are you so quick to write off that literally everyone setting world records had a whole slew of physiological advantages?
Would Usain Bolt be as fast with slightly shorter legs? I mean... probably not. Let's not test this one.

The point is that sports is all about physiological advantages, and there are reasonable ways to differentiate various levels of sport based on things that are relevant to the sport.

Why does it matter that the strongest female isn't the strongest human? Is it because the women are not in the same physiological category as the men? Does that difference have anything to do with whether or not anyone in either category has a penis or a vagina? Or what their chromosomes are? No. It's a metric that doesn't measure what it's meant to account for.


2. Again with the assumption that trans people are charlatans, or somehow a threat based solely on their existence? I thought you'd walked this back and said kumbayah was your message all along? Now you're back to arguing that maybe there will be cheats and charlatans that would ruin everyone's fun, so we better keep oppressing 1% of all humans?

And you wonder why I have asked if you find these positions ... let's say problematic?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Bronze medal winner on the right complained it was unfair and they needed to change the rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46453958

... and isn't trained to make any assessment to the veracity of their own claim

... and knowing nothing about this person in particular, it's not uncommon for anyone who didn't win to cry there was cheating.

Do you have anything to add to this? Or is repeating to post anecdotal nonsense you agree is anecdotal just a thing you're into now?

[MadMojoMonkey]

And fwiw, that trans MMA fighter had a pretty good run at the top level, 5-1, so I guess the answer to your other question is > 0.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news...kull-mma-fight

Sorry... I missed the part where it talked about Fallon's record, and only saw a hysterical article talking about one of the most common injuries in MMA bouts as though it was an unusual event.

Cherry picking articles that are clearly pushing a bigoted agenda is also... problematic.

[oskar]

One ancient account of the death of Chrysippus, a third-century BC Greek Stoic philosopher, tells that he died of laughter after he saw a donkey eating his figs; he told a slave to give the donkey neat wine to drink to wash them down with, and then, "...having laughed too much, he died" (Diogenes Laërtius 7.185).[40]

Byzantine Emperor, assassinated with a bucket according to Theophilus of Edessa.[52]

Martin of Aragon died from a combination of indigestion and uncontrollable laughing. According to tradition, Martin was suffering from indigestion on account of eating an entire goose when his favorite jester, Borra, entered the king's bedroom. When Martin asked Borra where he had been, the jester replied with: "Out of the next vineyard, where I saw a young deer hanging by his tail from a tree, as if someone had so punished him for stealing figs." This joke caused the king to die from laughter.[72][73]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths

History and politics is why comedy is dead to me.

[oskar]

I'm sitting at home with a sprained ankle. Apparently some guy living across the street has decided to spend his entire sunday afternoon looking out his window and it's getting awkward. People who look out windows as a hobby have always freaked me out. What are you doing with your life?

[Poopadoop]

I'm sitting at home with a sprained ankle. Apparently some guy living across the street has decided to spend his entire sunday afternoon looking out his window and it's getting awkward. People who look out windows as a hobby have always freaked me out. What are you doing with your life?

lol, my grandfather used to do that. In his defense though, he was in his 80s and 90s and really didn't have a lot else to do with his life. He also couldn't see into other people's houses the way the street was laid out.

But yeah, if it's a younger guy and/or he's got a view of other's living rooms, that's fucking weird.

[Poopadoop]

Damn...that rock hitting the bridge.

https://twitter.com/DDNewslive/statu...38629423992833

[Poopadoop]

This is Frank Slide, that happened in 1905, about an hour from where I grew up. It just flattened a mining town at the bottom. The rocks cover about half a mile along the highway as you drive through. Some of the bigger boulders are the size of a house.

[OngBonga]

How does Oskar know his neighbour is spending the day looking out of his window? My best guess is Oskar is spending his day looking out of the window.

[Poopadoop]

That's what's making it awkward.

[OngBonga]

This is Frank Slide, that happened in 1905, about an hour from where I grew up. It just flattened a mining town at the bottom. The rocks cover about half a mile along the highway as you drive through. Some of the bigger boulders are the size of a house.

*1903

It's a bit rude building a highway over what's essentially a mass grave.

[Poopadoop]

It's a bit rude building a highway over what's essentially a mass grave.

Yeah, 1903.

The town was between the railroad and the mountain, and most of it was beyond the fork in the river (to the left of the picture). It only actually flattened about 1/6 of the town itself. 90/600 people died. Highway is well away from the (original) townsite.

Edit: that's a bit misleading because the slide diverted the river. So more of the town was in the picture than my above description suggests, but you get the idea.

[Poopadoop]

Though I guess they did originally build that smaller road closer to the mountain before building the highway. There's probably a few dead bodies buried under that. I suppose they thought the dead people were past caring at that point, and weren't prepared to spend years digging them out.

[OngBonga]

I think leaving the bodies there is appropriate, but idk, I kind of feel like it's still an important site. I get there's probably nobody left alive who was in any way directly impacted by this, but it still feel a bit wrong.

Then again if you go round it you're destroying pristine forest. And it's cheap, the aggregate is already laid.

[Poopadoop]

"Neighbors" (a neighborhood web forum) is so hilarious.

Yesterday, someone posted a picture of their child with a sunburn on their back and shoulders and ranted about how it was due to mosquito bites, because the local council stopped spraying insecticides. They attached a petition to demand the council go back to spraying. Several people commented that the child clearly had a sunburn and not mosquito bites, but a greater number of people signed the petition, cause, you know, apparently mosquitos cause sunburn now. lolz.

[OngBonga]

I came close to heatstroke last week, had a 20 mile walk in 30+ degrees heat. That was because of Brexit.

[Poopadoop]

I have a sore toe. Pretty sure it's Starmer's fault.

[OngBonga]

I actually did have to walk 20-odd miles in peak summer heat. Someone decided they wanted to jump off a railway bridge just as I was due to get a train back home. I didn't know why the trains were cancelled at the time but decided to walk it rather than hang around, underestimating the distance on the winding B-road. I had to have a cold shower when I got back home. Neighbour probably thought I was having great sex.

[OngBonga]

That guy might have killed himself because of Brexit, so it's not out of the question that my silly comment is actually true.

If I was unlucky enough to already be on a train, apparently they had a FIVE HOUR wait, trapped on a hot train. I'd definitely rather do the 3 and a half hour walk.

[Poopadoop]

Too good to restrict to the MEGA thread.

https://twitter.com/davemacladd/stat...90902347046912

[OngBonga]

Boris struggling with an umbrella? Holy fucking shit, stop the presses.

[Poopadoop]

lolz

https://twitter.com/eliistender10/st...30861744427016

[Poopadoop]

Boris struggling with an umbrella? Holy fucking shit, stop the presses.

It's being at a memorial for dead policemen and women that makes it extra special.

[Poopadoop]

Oh and here he is the day before getting soaked - under an umbrella.

[Poopadoop]

Britain Trump.

[OngBonga]

It's being at a memorial for dead policemen and women that makes it extra special.

What a stupid time to have an umbrella malfunction. We need a leader that is more considerate and would have such an issue at a more appropriate time, such as when he's walking the dog.

[Poopadoop]

What a stupid time to have an umbrella malfunction. We need a leader that is more considerate and would have such an issue at a more appropriate time, such as when he's walking the dog.

Or how about one who doesn't have a big laugh about it at a somber occasion.

Fuck it's hard to believe you're serious sometimes.

[OngBonga]

I'd laugh if my umbrella turned inside out, even if I was at my Nan's funeral.

[Poopadoop]

I mean it's one step above making a clown of yourself at a funeral. Do you really need that explained to you?

[Poopadoop]

I'd laugh if my umbrella turned inside out, even if I was at my Nan's funeral.

Well in that case ur an idiot.

[OngBonga]

It's not like laughing at a fart, is it?

You might be the kind of person that's all serious, but me, I like laughter and smiles. So did my Nan.

[Poopadoop]

Funerals aren't for the dead person, they're for their loved ones to mourn them. Only a dickhead does clown shit at a funeral. That's just my opinion.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think the families at the memorial for dead policemen and women appreciated Boris yucking it up with Charles fucking around with his umbrella? I'm guessing not myself. But hey, maybe they went there thinking "This will be a good chance to remember our son, and I sure hope Boris makes a fool of himself and has a good laugh while we do that."

[OngBonga]

Funerals aren't for the dead person, they're for their loved ones to mourn them. Only a dickhead does clown shit at a funeral. That's just my opinion.

What if I'm a loved one?

Do you think the families at the memorial for dead policemen and women appreciated Boris yucking it up with Charles fucking around with his umbrella?

Do you think he was goofing around deliberately? I don't. If he was, well then I'd be inclined to agree he deserves criticism. However, laughing at inside out umbrella is kinda instinctive.

[Poopadoop]

However, laughing at inside out umbrella is kinda instinctive.

The context is kinda important though isn't it. If you're at a memorial service the expectation is that you at least pretend to give a shit.

[Poopadoop]

What if I'm a loved one?

If you're alone at your nan's funeral, go ahead and laugh your ass off. If there's other people who loved her there who expect you to behave like a decent human being, well you've got a choice to make I guess.

[Poopadoop]

Holy fuck houses in Spain are cheap. I think I know where I'm going to live when I retire.

[OngBonga]

I just watched the umbrella scandal footage again as it pooped up in my timeline. Astonishingly, Charles and the woman (Patel?) were smiling at Boris struggling with the umbrella. Fucking outrageous.

I assume you missed these smiles poop, since you only seem to be bothered about one person.

[OngBonga]

lol "pooped up in my timeline" that's an awesome typo, not fixing it.

[Poopadoop]

I assume you missed these smiles poop, since you only seem to be bothered about one person.

No I didn't miss them egging him on, and yeah I think they were being disrespectful too. Just not as much as Bozo.

[OngBonga]

lol "egging him on".

Laughing at this kind of thing is an entirely natural thing to do. It's not even worth talking about, other than to mock your relentless obsession with the life of Boris.