There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example). Where they can't, basically womens' sport is watching a group of people who are second-rate and I've no more interest in that than I am watching second-rate males doing sport (unless I have some personal connection).
I think this is it in a nutshell. I don't even think we should have gender segregated sports anymore. Who knows, a few of the top performing people in the female leagues might make the grade for the male teams if given a chance but there is no reason to force it either.
I think this is it in a nutshell. I don't even think we should have gender segregated sports anymore. Who knows, a few of the top performing people in the female leagues might make the grade for the male teams if given a chance but there is no reason to force it either.
No. No they wouldn't. You don't get it do you? Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
Chess? Sure.. That's mental. The female has no disadvantage. But if the sport requires speed, strength, or endurance, no woman is ever going to make the grade. End of story.
If you want females to have sports, then they must remain gender-segregated. There is no debate here from a scientific/biological perspective.
And only an idiot would even suggest that a woman wouldn't be killed (literally) if she attempted to play US Football. There isn't a female walking the planet who could survive some of the harder tackles. Their spines would snap.
You are 100% incorrect according to the science, but SJW are anti-Science so you will be modded up. My proof: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Summary of the study: "To summarize, the fastest men were ~17%–20% faster than the fastest women for all distances from 50 miles to 3,100 miles."
But in SJW world, science/facts don't matter and feelings do. What a world we live in.
We still need to see who lasts longer, in total, to get a full picture.
Also, while I would like to agree, your triggered absolutism there makes me not want to. And it's my own damn argument too thst you are so overly sure about here. Nobody who actually has a clue, say something like "100% FACT ABSOLUTE PROOF". One can only end up at that view from being ignorant even of one's own ignorance. (So "Unknown unknowns" are actually a thing.)
I don't know if you are right or not but I do know nothing could be more fair than completely disregarding all concepts of gender and just letting people run the marathon and let the stopwatch judge them. Maybe he is right, maybe you are right, maybe it'll be all over the place.
Personally, I don't see the obsession with what junk the winners are packing (physical or mental) or any correlation to it. The idea is to measure how long/fast they can run not which bits flop while they do it.
Your counter-argument to women being destroyed in US Football is their superior endurance ability as demonstrated in ultramarathons? Seriously? Few things are less interesting to watch on television than a marathon, I can only imagine how mind-numbingly boring an ULTRAmarathon would be.
Your counter-argument to women being destroyed in US Football is their superior endurance ability as demonstrated in ultramarathons? Seriously? Few things are less interesting to watch on television than a marathon, I can only imagine how mind-numbingly boring an ULTRAmarathon would be.
Well, it's worse than that. He lied. Women do not have greater endurance in running. I checked about 50 distance/time records ranging from the 100m dash to a lunatic 1000 km (that's not a typo) and not a single one had a faster time or longer distance for a woman. Not one. Jesus, in the last Boston Marathon, the first woman to cross the finish line did so after 150 males had already crossed (I tried to verify my memory, but the Boston Marathon database is having issues right now - If the 150 isn't correct
You may not be wrong, but you definitely didn't ever check 50 records for this. Stop lying or bring evidence. (Again: I don't even disagree. You are most likely right. But you're the type who hurts my side by arguing for my side.)
You may not be wrong, but you definitely didn't ever check 50 records for this. Stop lying or bring evidence. (Again: I don't even disagree. You are most likely right. But you're the type who hurts my side by arguing for my side.)
First off. The fuck I didn't.
I already gave several examples in another thread that the OP was following. Granted, you may not have been reading it, but he was. So, for your benefit, here are a handful:
Here are the current world record times [wikipedia.org] for various forms of ultramarathons. In every case, the male is considerably faster than the female.
You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't. Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for. Or have some categories as does boxing. I get annoyed that I have no chance in competitive volleyball because I'm only average height, and those people who are at the top level are there primarily due to their height, which is of no credit to them at all...they're just freaks of nature.... Or change the ga
What you are saying makes sense for Childrens and recreational sports where the object is to be fun for the participant and fitness but not for competitive pro/Olympic sports where the object is to determine the best. In boxing it really only makes sense because you see different styles in different weight classes. That is more akin to different games played in dart and pool tournaments. "Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't w
Essentially millennial children were often raised under the idea that everyone who participates should get a trophy instead of just the winners. Even kids who walked every step of the mile "run" would have a trophy wall at home. Essentially the pseudo science psychology was succeeding in its mission to combine sufficiently complicated math, complex simulations which typically begin by begging the question, real neuroscience, and its own nonsense that didn't start with objective measurement and creating the i
In order for sport to be interesting it has to be competitive and fast.
No one is gonna watch as people compete in swimming over 30 miles of water body. It's plain fucking boring watching someone swimming for over an hour.
So it has to be fast and or strong and or competitive.
Otherwise no one will watch it. Wish ladies good luck finding such sport.
That's fair. But to be honest, I like watching baseball. Mainly because you don't have to pay attention to it, you can turn it on while you're doing something else and peek at the TV when you hear the announcers getting excited. I never really got into it until I went to a live game, where you can appreciate the intricacies of the game that you just can't pick up on through a TV broadcast. As with everything, to each their own.
Having been to live baseball and live football (in the skyboxes so you can spend a lot of time not looking at the game), the style is very different. Baseball always has something happening, even if it's slow, walking from the dugout, walking to the dugout, spitting on the ground, taking a practice swing, etc.. Football was often faster when they played but they had long breaks which seemed unusual and it was nothing like high school football. Then I realized that the breaks were for the television commer
In order for sport to be interesting it has to be competitive and fast.
No one is gonna watch as people compete in swimming over 30 miles of water body. It's plain fucking boring watching someone swimming for over an hour.
Said sport would still be won by a man. That kind of swimming requires speed and endurance. No woman will win. If you can't accept that, then you don't accept biology and reality.
Surely there are sports that have those qualities but don't simply favour physical advantages. It seems we've been conditioned to think that freaks of nature are worth watching.
You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't.
Bullshit. I qualified my statement by saying sports that require "speed, strength, and stamina.
Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for.
And there we have it... The lefty argument.. We don't need to have a sport that measures speed because it's? What? Sexist? Not inclusive enough? For fuck's sake... You folks have lost your grip on reality.
Boxing categories are a great example. And nobody cares in the slightest about anything but the heavyweight category. The other categories are just crap to sit through waiting for the last match which is the only thing anyone cares about. If the heavyweight match wasn't last, everyone would turn off the TV after the heavyweight fight anyway.
Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for.
That really wouldn't matter. You could use power lifting or something like that, but because testosterone is a steroid produced in male bodies in greater quantity they're just going to win at practically anything where muscular strength confers a competitive advantage. Almost all of the most popular sports require some kind of physical abilities.
If you picked some competition where a female body confers an advantage for whatever reason, then you'll wind up with the top competitors being women. Right now
Right now the best athletes in ultra-marathons are women and it's entirely possible that females have a biological advantage that gives them a competitive edge.
I don't get why you are repeating this lie. Saying it 50 times doesn't result in it becoming true. Everyone here has access to Wikipedia. You are lying or stupid. I'm going to extend the courtesy of assuming the former. Women SUCK at ultra-marathons when you compare them to men. For fuck's sake, the fastest woman in the 1000 km race came in two fucking days after the male crossed the finish line.
Yes. I'm 6'5" and a mesomorph. I was never going to excel at Ultimate (even tho I loved the game). It's a game for 6' to 6'4" endomorphs who run marathons for fun.
They really need different classes for sports like they have for Boxing. They would never dream of putting a welterweight up against a heavyweight.
Well, compared to other apes, we're all just freaks of nature.
We literally look like movie aliens with no fur and overly large veiny heads to them. Think how weird it is to them that we wear clothes. Or walk on two legs with a "disfigured" straight back.
I'm all for "Who's the biggest freak of nature?" contests for any conceivable category.:) Octomom deserves an Olympic medal, for sure!
"If you want females to have sports, then they must remain gender-segregated."
I don't see the point in forcing this beyond elementary/high school sports which are really just about active play and fitness. In that arena it makes sense to encourage maximum enjoyment levels for everyone.
In pro and Olympic level sports where sports are about being the best of the best it doesn't make sense to do anything for the purpose of artificially enabling a variety of genitals in the arena.
"Then we are all fine that most purely physical Olympic sports will have only male winners? That seems very regressive to me." We will have only winners. I fail to see what difference it makes what distribution of sex organs they have. In what way is it regressive for everyone to have the opportunity to qualify and play and the winners win? There are women who are biologically male now no matter which of your sexist leagues you toss them in it would discrimination against someone. Just let the people who are
"Then we are all fine that most purely physical Olympic sports will have only male winners? That seems very regressive to me."
We will have only winners. I fail to see what difference it makes what distribution of sex organs they have. In what way is it regressive for everyone to have the opportunity to qualify and play and the winners win? There are women who are biologically male now no matter which of your sexist leagues you toss them in it would discrimination against someone. Just let the people who are best win and the people who aren't good enough to win not win.
What is so hard about this concept?
It's a concept I find abhorrent. I don't have a problem with gender segregation in sports. I actually champion it. By the way, there are no women who are biological males. There are only faux men/women or parodies of men/women. (As you might have guessed I don't subscribe to the trans-gender bullshit that has infected our society).
Then you should go to intersex site (https://isna.org/faq/conditions/) and read up on how 1 in 2000 people have ambiguous gender in a way that can be verified by testing.
Such as... 5-alpha reductase deficiency Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) Aphallia Clitoromegaly (large clitoris) Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete) hypospadias I have a line along the underside of my penis Klinefelter Syndrome micropenis mosaicism involving "sex" chromosomes MRKH (Mullerian agenesis; v
And it looks like it is more common than it was the last time I read the site.
Hereâ(TM)s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. Bu
It's not as clear as you imply. many people feel trans and intersex overlap. Trans is intersex.. sometimes. And intersex is trans.. sometimes. And trans may also be intersex in cases where we simply haven't identified yet the reason why the person has gender dysphoria.
Then you should go to intersex site (https://isna.org/faq/conditions/) and read up on how 1 in 2000 people have ambiguous gender in a way that can be verified by testing.
Such as...
I actually don't dispute any of that. But your 1 in 2000 is 0.05% of the population. Or, to put it another way, 99.95% of the population is NOT that. I'm not willing to radically redesign society to accommodate 1 person in 2000. If that makes me a dick, so be it. I wish zero harm on those people, for the record. I do not hate them, but I will not partake in their delusions.
What I do dispute is the Kaitlyn Jenners of the world. He is not a woman. He's got a cock and balls and male DNA and was, in fact,
Please change the rules so that I can get to win Olympics too. I'm lazy. There will always be someone better than me. Always. That doesn't mean I should never win a gold medal. That's not fair.
I went to Olympic committee of my country and they laughed at my paunch, wheeze, receding hairline, thick eye glasses. I told them off for body shaming.
"No. No they wouldn't. You don't get it do you?" I get it. You have some obsession with assuming the outcome... I'm content to remove the artificial barrier and if you are right and there is a reality barrier I see no reason to do anything about it.
I neither support someone like you who feels some need to beat in the idea someone can't succeed based on their identity NOR support those who demand equity of outcome. My solution of dropping all segregation and a harsh meritocracy in the game with no regard to e
"are you of the understanding that the strength and speed (and raw power) of a top male athlete is so far beyond that of a comparable female that she does not have any chance of winning?" I'm of the understanding that I don't need to have an understanding on the topic. It doesn't matter. If it is the case you'll see all males in competitive sports just like you mostly see all dark skinned people in basketball. So what? The winners are the winners.
"Women should have a chance to win against other people (in th
Nope. Leave the door open, especially in the modern world of trans women there will be "female" athletes who can compete eventually or there will be an exceptional woman born. I oppose a glass ceiling but there is no reason to install a glass elevator.
No there won't. A trans-woman who is actually doing the medical side of it (and not just pretending) will lose enough muscle mass and bone density to no longer be able to compete against real men (and yeah, I said REAL MEN) but will retain enough to still outclass real women.
Men and women are different. Jesus.. We have different chromosomes for fuck's sake.... Anyway.. It's patently obvious (to me at least) that you folks either don't subscribe to science or you don't give a shit about women.
And in the line you are quoting what I'm saying has little to do with your comment. What I'm saying is that part of game is mental and my best time will be realized by trying my hardest to scale the mountain, not thinking that success is impossible. It may indeed be impossible but I'll get closer to the peak or having a better chance of doing the impossible if I don't have that outlook.
Then we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't subscribe to your line of thinking. I'd like it if my niece actually had a chance to win in the sports she plays. If she competes against other girls there is, at least, a possibility. If she competes against boys she will never win. Period.
I get it. You have some obsession with assuming the outcome... I'm content to remove the artificial barrier and if you are right and there is a reality barrier I see no reason to do anything about it.
Obsession about assuming the outcome?
We have brains so we can assume some things. I don't have to stick my hand in every fire I see to know that fire burns. Likewise, I understand enough about biology and all the previous data we've gathered on sports to know that the gulf between male and female biology is so great that I can tell you that women can't win against men in physical sports. I also am intelligent enough to know that mixing the genders in some sports (boxing, MMA, etc) can result in the DEA
Up stepped a German known as Karsten Braasch who was ranked 203rd in the world and after first beating Serena 6-1, he then disposed of Venus 6-2. "I didn't know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women's circuit and he got to them very easily," said Serena. "They wouldn't have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun," was Braasch's assessment.
I would imagine that it would take an entirely different set of strategies simply because there's so much segregation of play and the two styles never intersect. Not to discount natural ability playing a role, but a single match is not enough to learn the comparatively different playing styles either.
Females typically have great endurance compared to men. They can run for longer periods for sure.
What? No they can't. Why are you people lying?
The Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race is one of the most extraordinary running events ever. With its 4,989 km it’s the world’s longest running route – and it leads around just one block in New York. Runners can circle the block from 6 a.m. to midnight. German extreme athlete Madhupran Wolfgang Schwerk covered the route in 41 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes and 29 seconds. During this time, he set a total of 74 new world records between 1,400 miles
Really they don't need to be gender separated-- they need to be class separated. 99.9% of men would be killed (literally) if they attempted to play US Football by current rules.
Boxing has it right. We need heavy weight football and we need lower weight classes.
Go watch some Legends football games. The women take *extremely* hard hits with a lot less armor than men get. Broken bones (without health insurance) is a thing in that league. It's fast, exciting play (when the teams are balanced). I find curr
You want an Olympic boxing match between a 175lb male and a 175lb female? Replays of that fight would be banned as s snuff film.
EXACTLY! There is so much more to it than weight. Muscle mass, bone density, etc.
I'm no athlete but I do a lot of physical labor for my career and I'd guess that I could crush the majority of women's chests in if I punched them as hard as I could. Yes, there are a LOT of women stronger than I, but I'm only average. The amount of damage a professional boxer, who actually knows how to throw very effective punches, could do is frightening.
Okay. Long distance swimming. We've found a sport that women can beat men in. I'll concede that. I'll also point out that there's almost always one exception that proves the rule, but it would appear a female's body is better suited to long distance endurance swimming. During shorter swims the males are significantly faster, however.
Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
It was early in 1998, with both Venus (then ranked No. 5) and Serena (then ranked No. 20), challenged by Karsten Braasch (ranked 203). At the time, Braasch was 30yo, Venus was 17yo, Serena 16yo. So I do not believe this event makes your point in the remotest sense, which, btw, is pretty hideous. Fwiw, in 1973, Billie Jean King soundly beat Bobby Riggs.
Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
It was early in 1998, with both Venus (then ranked No. 5) and Serena (then ranked No. 20), challenged by Karsten Braasch (ranked 203). At the time, Braasch was 30yo, Venus was 17yo, Serena 16yo. So I do not believe this event makes your point in the remotest sense, which, btw, is pretty hideous.
Okay. You got me on the "#1 bit". I fucked that up. But I was going from memory. Nevertheless, it absolutely makes my point and you simply reinforced it. You, quite clearly, pointed out that Venus was the 5th ranked woman in the world. She was smoked by the 203rd rated male. It wasn't close. He fucking dominated them. He (his own words) said: "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun" and that the big difference was that men can chase
In theory it would be a good idea, letting merit win out. The problem is that it will not end that way. In most sports women will rank poorly. Feminists will then push for changes, citing patriarchy and systemic discrimination. The rules will be changed to better suit women, typically ruining it. They will force it. Initial calls for equality soon shift to demands for equity when things donâ(TM)t work according to their social constructionist views.
The physical differences are on average pretty big, on
I enjoy watching woman's sports, but this is just not true. Just look at Track & Field. The best school male athletes jump higher and run faster than the top female track and field athletes in the world. And it is not particularly close.
It ignores crap men too (Score:5, Insightful)
There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example). Where they can't, basically womens' sport is watching a group of people who are second-rate and I've no more interest in that than I am watching second-rate males doing sport (unless I have some personal connection).
Re:It ignores crap men too (Score:3)
Re:It ignores crap men too (Score:5, Informative)
I think this is it in a nutshell. I don't even think we should have gender segregated sports anymore. Who knows, a few of the top performing people in the female leagues might make the grade for the male teams if given a chance but there is no reason to force it either.
No. No they wouldn't. You don't get it do you? Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
Chess? Sure.. That's mental. The female has no disadvantage. But if the sport requires speed, strength, or endurance, no woman is ever going to make the grade. End of story.
If you want females to have sports, then they must remain gender-segregated. There is no debate here from a scientific/biological perspective.
And only an idiot would even suggest that a woman wouldn't be killed (literally) if she attempted to play US Football. There isn't a female walking the planet who could survive some of the harder tackles. Their spines would snap.
Re:It ignores crap men too (Score:5, Informative)
Summary of the study: "To summarize, the fastest men were ~17%–20% faster than the fastest women for all distances from 50 miles to 3,100 miles."
But in SJW world, science/facts don't matter and feelings do. What a world we live in.
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:1)
Faster != longer though.
We still need to see who lasts longer, in total, to get a full picture.
Also, while I would like to agree, your triggered absolutism there makes me not want to. And it's my own damn argument too thst you are so overly sure about here.
Nobody who actually has a clue, say something like "100% FACT ABSOLUTE PROOF". One can only end up at that view from being ignorant even of one's own ignorance. (So "Unknown unknowns" are actually a thing.)
So yes, men are faster even at long running thing
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't see the obsession with what junk the winners are packing (physical or mental) or any correlation to it. The idea is to measure how long/fast they can run not which bits flop while they do it.
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)
Your counter-argument to women being destroyed in US Football is their superior endurance ability as demonstrated in ultramarathons? Seriously? Few things are less interesting to watch on television than a marathon, I can only imagine how mind-numbingly boring an ULTRAmarathon would be.
Re: (Score:1)
Your counter-argument to women being destroyed in US Football is their superior endurance ability as demonstrated in ultramarathons? Seriously? Few things are less interesting to watch on television than a marathon, I can only imagine how mind-numbingly boring an ULTRAmarathon would be.
Well, it's worse than that. He lied. Women do not have greater endurance in running. I checked about 50 distance/time records ranging from the 100m dash to a lunatic 1000 km (that's not a typo) and not a single one had a faster time or longer distance for a woman. Not one. Jesus, in the last Boston Marathon, the first woman to cross the finish line did so after 150 males had already crossed (I tried to verify my memory, but the Boston Marathon database is having issues right now - If the 150 isn't correct
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:1)
You may not be wrong, but you definitely didn't ever check 50 records for this. Stop lying or bring evidence. (Again: I don't even disagree. You are most likely right. But you're the type who hurts my side by arguing for my side.)
Re: (Score:1)
You may not be wrong, but you definitely didn't ever check 50 records for this. Stop lying or bring evidence. (Again: I don't even disagree. You are most likely right. But you're the type who hurts my side by arguing for my side.)
First off. The fuck I didn't.
I already gave several examples in another thread that the OP was following. Granted, you may not have been reading it, but he was. So, for your benefit, here are a handful:
100 Meters 9.58 Man
100 Meters 10.49 Woman
200 Meters 19.19 Man
200 Meters 21.34 Woman
400 Meters 43.03 Man
400 Meters 47.60 Woman
800 Meters 1:40.91 Man
800 Meters 1:53.28 Woman
1000 Meters 2:11.96 Man
1000 Meters 2:28.98 Woman
1500 Meters 3:26.00 Man
1500 Meters 3:50.07 Woman
Mile 3:43.13 Ma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:1)
Nudist dyslexics: Are we a jock to you?
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:3, Funny)
You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't.
Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for. Or have some categories as does boxing. I get annoyed that I have no chance in competitive volleyball because I'm only average height, and those people who are at the top level are there primarily due to their height, which is of no credit to them at all...they're just freaks of nature.... Or change the ga
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't w
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)
I've no idea what that period is, so I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially the pseudo science psychology was succeeding in its mission to combine sufficiently complicated math, complex simulations which typically begin by begging the question, real neuroscience, and its own nonsense that didn't start with objective measurement and creating the i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In order for sport to be interesting it has to be competitive and fast.
This statement does not correlate to the popularity of Football (the European kind)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or baseball.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having been to live baseball and live football (in the skyboxes so you can spend a lot of time not looking at the game), the style is very different. Baseball always has something happening, even if it's slow, walking from the dugout, walking to the dugout, spitting on the ground, taking a practice swing, etc.. Football was often faster when they played but they had long breaks which seemed unusual and it was nothing like high school football. Then I realized that the breaks were for the television commer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)
Or cricket
Re: (Score:1)
In order for sport to be interesting it has to be competitive and fast. No one is gonna watch as people compete in swimming over 30 miles of water body. It's plain fucking boring watching someone swimming for over an hour.
Said sport would still be won by a man. That kind of swimming requires speed and endurance. No woman will win. If you can't accept that, then you don't accept biology and reality.
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)
Surely there are sports that have those qualities but don't simply favour physical advantages. It seems we've been conditioned to think that freaks of nature are worth watching.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't.
Bullshit. I qualified my statement by saying sports that require "speed, strength, and stamina.
Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for.
And there we have it... The lefty argument.. We don't need to have a sport that measures speed because it's? What? Sexist? Not inclusive enough? For fuck's sake... You folks have lost your grip on reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for.
That really wouldn't matter. You could use power lifting or something like that, but because testosterone is a steroid produced in male bodies in greater quantity they're just going to win at practically anything where muscular strength confers a competitive advantage. Almost all of the most popular sports require some kind of physical abilities.
If you picked some competition where a female body confers an advantage for whatever reason, then you'll wind up with the top competitors being women. Right now
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not, you've bought the news media picture. Check up-page comments providing statistics to verify. Or just go to Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:1)
Right now the best athletes in ultra-marathons are women and it's entirely possible that females have a biological advantage that gives them a competitive edge.
I don't get why you are repeating this lie. Saying it 50 times doesn't result in it becoming true. Everyone here has access to Wikipedia. You are lying or stupid. I'm going to extend the courtesy of assuming the former. Women SUCK at ultra-marathons when you compare them to men. For fuck's sake, the fastest woman in the 1000 km race came in two fucking days after the male crossed the finish line.
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)
I think I'd rather be stupid than lying.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. I'm 6'5" and a mesomorph. I was never going to excel at Ultimate (even tho I loved the game). It's a game for 6' to 6'4" endomorphs who run marathons for fun.
They really need different classes for sports like they have for Boxing. They would never dream of putting a welterweight up against a heavyweight.
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:1)
Well, compared to other apes, we're all just freaks of nature.
We literally look like movie aliens with no fur and overly large veiny heads to them. Think how weird it is to them that we wear clothes. Or walk on two legs with a "disfigured" straight back.
I'm all for "Who's the biggest freak of nature?" contests for any conceivable category. :)
Octomom deserves an Olympic medal, for sure!
Then again, regarding medals: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the point in forcing this beyond elementary/high school sports which are really just about active play and fitness. In that arena it makes sense to encourage maximum enjoyment levels for everyone.
In pro and Olympic level sports where sports are about being the best of the best it doesn't make sense to do anything for the purpose of artificially enabling a variety of genitals in the arena.
Re: (Score:2)
We will have only winners. I fail to see what difference it makes what distribution of sex organs they have. In what way is it regressive for everyone to have the opportunity to qualify and play and the winners win? There are women who are biologically male now no matter which of your sexist leagues you toss them in it would discrimination against someone. Just let the people who are
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Then we are all fine that most purely physical Olympic sports will have only male winners? That seems very regressive to me." We will have only winners. I fail to see what difference it makes what distribution of sex organs they have. In what way is it regressive for everyone to have the opportunity to qualify and play and the winners win? There are women who are biologically male now no matter which of your sexist leagues you toss them in it would discrimination against someone. Just let the people who are best win and the people who aren't good enough to win not win. What is so hard about this concept?
It's a concept I find abhorrent. I don't have a problem with gender segregation in sports. I actually champion it. By the way, there are no women who are biological males. There are only faux men/women or parodies of men/women. (As you might have guessed I don't subscribe to the trans-gender bullshit that has infected our society).
Re: (Score:1)
Then you should go to intersex site (https://isna.org/faq/conditions/) and read up on how 1 in 2000 people have ambiguous gender in a way that can be verified by testing.
Such as...
5-alpha reductase deficiency
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)
Aphallia
Clitoromegaly (large clitoris)
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete)
hypospadias
I have a line along the underside of my penis
Klinefelter Syndrome
micropenis
mosaicism involving "sex" chromosomes
MRKH (Mullerian agenesis; v
Re: (Score:1)
It's right off the main page. You shouldn't say "nowhere" when you clearly didn't even click the obvious top level links off the main menu.
https://isna.org/faq/frequency... [isna.org]
And it looks like it is more common than it was the last time I read the site.
Hereâ(TM)s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Trans is not intersex. You guys aren't disagreeing.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not as clear as you imply. many people feel trans and intersex overlap.
Trans is intersex.. sometimes. And intersex is trans.. sometimes.
And trans may also be intersex in cases where we simply haven't identified yet the reason why the person has gender dysphoria.
Re: (Score:1)
Then you should go to intersex site (https://isna.org/faq/conditions/) and read up on how 1 in 2000 people have ambiguous gender in a way that can be verified by testing.
Such as...
I actually don't dispute any of that. But your 1 in 2000 is 0.05% of the population. Or, to put it another way, 99.95% of the population is NOT that. I'm not willing to radically redesign society to accommodate 1 person in 2000. If that makes me a dick, so be it. I wish zero harm on those people, for the record. I do not hate them, but I will not partake in their delusions.
What I do dispute is the Kaitlyn Jenners of the world. He is not a woman. He's got a cock and balls and male DNA and was, in fact,
how am I going to win ? (Score:2)
Please change the rules so that I can get to win Olympics too. I'm lazy. There will always be someone better than me. Always. That doesn't mean I should never win a gold medal. That's not fair.
I went to Olympic committee of my country and they laughed at my paunch, wheeze, receding hairline, thick eye glasses. I told them off for body shaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get it. You have some obsession with assuming the outcome... I'm content to remove the artificial barrier and if you are right and there is a reality barrier I see no reason to do anything about it.
I neither support someone like you who feels some need to beat in the idea someone can't succeed based on their identity NOR support those who demand equity of outcome. My solution of dropping all segregation and a harsh meritocracy in the game with no regard to e
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the understanding that I don't need to have an understanding on the topic. It doesn't matter. If it is the case you'll see all males in competitive sports just like you mostly see all dark skinned people in basketball. So what? The winners are the winners.
"Women should have a chance to win against other people (in th
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. Leave the door open, especially in the modern world of trans women there will be "female" athletes who can compete eventually or there will be an exceptional woman born. I oppose a glass ceiling but there is no reason to install a glass elevator.
No there won't. A trans-woman who is actually doing the medical side of it (and not just pretending) will lose enough muscle mass and bone density to no longer be able to compete against real men (and yeah, I said REAL MEN) but will retain enough to still outclass real women.
Men and women are different. Jesus.. We have different chromosomes for fuck's sake.... Anyway.. It's patently obvious (to me at least) that you folks either don't subscribe to science or you don't give a shit about women.
Re:It ignores crap men too (Score:4, Insightful)
Truer words....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I get it. You have some obsession with assuming the outcome... I'm content to remove the artificial barrier and if you are right and there is a reality barrier I see no reason to do anything about it.
Obsession about assuming the outcome?
We have brains so we can assume some things. I don't have to stick my hand in every fire I see to know that fire burns. Likewise, I understand enough about biology and all the previous data we've gathered on sports to know that the gulf between male and female biology is so great that I can tell you that women can't win against men in physical sports. I also am intelligent enough to know that mixing the genders in some sports (boxing, MMA, etc) can result in the DEA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently not content to simply compare the stats we already have that prove the point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th
He was 203rd and beat both of them
https://www.marca.com/en/more-... [marca.com]
Up stepped a German known as Karsten Braasch who was ranked 203rd in the world and after first beating Serena 6-1, he then disposed of Venus 6-2.
"I didn't know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women's circuit and he got to them very easily," said Serena.
"They wouldn't have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun," was Braasch's assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that it would take an entirely different set of strategies simply because there's so much segregation of play and the two styles never intersect. Not to discount natural ability playing a role, but a single match is not enough to learn the comparatively different playing styles either.
Re: (Score:2)
Females typically have great endurance compared to men. They can run for longer periods for sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Females typically have great endurance compared to men. They can run for longer periods for sure.
What? No they can't. Why are you people lying?
The Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race is one of the most extraordinary running events ever. With its 4,989 km it’s the world’s longest running route – and it leads around just one block in New York. Runners can circle the block from 6 a.m. to midnight. German extreme athlete Madhupran Wolfgang Schwerk covered the route in 41 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes and 29 seconds. During this time, he set a total of 74 new world records between 1,400 miles
Re: (Score:2)
They completely missed an opportunity there. Just add 11km to the distance would've let them name it 'The 5KK'.
Very marketable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Really they don't need to be gender separated-- they need to be class separated. 99.9% of men would be killed (literally) if they attempted to play US Football by current rules.
Boxing has it right. We need heavy weight football and we need lower weight classes.
Go watch some Legends football games. The women take *extremely* hard hits with a lot less armor than men get. Broken bones (without health insurance) is a thing in that league. It's fast, exciting play (when the teams are balanced). I find curr
Re: (Score:1)
You want an Olympic boxing match between a 175lb male and a 175lb female? Replays of that fight would be banned as s snuff film.
EXACTLY! There is so much more to it than weight. Muscle mass, bone density, etc.
I'm no athlete but I do a lot of physical labor for my career and I'd guess that I could crush the majority of women's chests in if I punched them as hard as I could. Yes, there are a LOT of women stronger than I, but I'm only average. The amount of damage a professional boxer, who actually knows how to throw very effective punches, could do is frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the records for endurance swimming are held by women.
Probably because the additional body fat percentage makes women more buoyant.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay. Long distance swimming. We've found a sport that women can beat men in. I'll concede that. I'll also point out that there's almost always one exception that proves the rule, but it would appear a female's body is better suited to long distance endurance swimming. During shorter swims the males are significantly faster, however.
50m freestyle 20.91 man --- 12% faster.
50m freestyle 23.67 woman
100m freestyle 46.91 man --- 10% faster.
100m freestyle 51.71 woman
4×200m freestyle relay 6:58.55 man
Re: (Score:2)
Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
It was early in 1998, with both Venus (then ranked No. 5) and Serena (then ranked No. 20), challenged by Karsten Braasch (ranked 203). At the time, Braasch was 30yo, Venus was 17yo, Serena 16yo. So I do not believe this event makes your point in the remotest sense, which, btw, is pretty hideous. Fwiw, in 1973, Billie Jean King soundly beat Bobby Riggs.
"And only an idiot would even suggest that a woman [bbc.com]"
Re: (Score:1)
Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.
It was early in 1998, with both Venus (then ranked No. 5) and Serena (then ranked No. 20), challenged by Karsten Braasch (ranked 203). At the time, Braasch was 30yo, Venus was 17yo, Serena 16yo. So I do not believe this event makes your point in the remotest sense, which, btw, is pretty hideous.
Okay. You got me on the "#1 bit". I fucked that up. But I was going from memory. Nevertheless, it absolutely makes my point and you simply reinforced it. You, quite clearly, pointed out that Venus was the 5th ranked woman in the world. She was smoked by the 203rd rated male. It wasn't close. He fucking dominated them. He (his own words) said: "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun" and that the big difference was that men can chase
Re: (Score:2)
In theory it would be a good idea, letting merit win out. The problem is that it will not end that way. In most sports women will rank poorly. Feminists will then push for changes, citing patriarchy and systemic discrimination. The rules will be changed to better suit women, typically ruining it. They will force it. Initial calls for equality soon shift to demands for equity when things donâ(TM)t work according to their social constructionist views.
The physical differences are on average pretty big, on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It ignores crap men too (Score:2)