Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:As any any NFL scout will tell you, benchmark numbers are not a perfect indicator of athletic success (which is what we're concerned about). Ever hear of Justin Ernest? Probably not, because he was a gakky football player, but he did put up 51 repetitions while running a 4.8.

Any NFL scout will also tell you that failure in benchmark numbers will absolutely lead to failure as a football player. Obviously, what numbers are necessary vary by position; you wouldn't discount an otherwise exceptional guard for a poor 40 time. But while you don't need record-setting speed to be a great receiver, you can't even be a good receiver if you're slow.

A little off-topic, but...

http://www.jetnation.com/2013/04/03/are-nfl-prospects-40-yard-dash-times-overvalued/

Anquan Boldin ran a 4.8 second 40 yard dash, Jerry Rice ran a 4.7, and even Larry Fitzgerald, arguably the best WR in the game today ran a 4.63 on his 40 yard dash. All three have been pretty solid professional receivers and no one would argue that. Keyshawn Johnson (who ran a 4.47 40 yard dash) had a great quote about speed and the 40 yard dash results. He said “It’s not how fast a player is going forward, it’s how fast they can stop, change direction, and create space.” All the more proof that there’s too much overhype on the results of a 40 yard dash pre-draft.

This comes to mind because I love Anquan Boldin, and he ran nearly a 4.8 in the 40-yard dash... nearly unheard of slow for a receiver, and yet he's freaking awesome . Helped my Ravens win the Super Bowl last year, and nearly helped the 49ers get there this year (throw it to him at the last second against the Seahawks, and maybe he fights and hauls it in, rather than the interception that ended that game).

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Does anyone else find Betty Bowers really hot? I dunno why but I really do.

Deven Green's a stone cold fox. When she does Betty Bowers she also taps into that weird thing I also have for Megyn Kelly. So I totally understand.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Does anyone else find Betty Bowers really hot? I dunno why but I really do.

Deven Green's a stone cold fox. When she does Betty Bowers she also taps into that weird thing I also have for Megyn Kelly. So I totally understand.

Something about WASPish brunettes. It's like a classy Michelle Bachmann. Whom I also think is strangely hot. Repugnant in very many other ways, but yet I still find her alluring.

Naw, Bachman is rancid.

Here's what Betty Bowers looks like when she's let out of the twinset and pearls...

Text removed.


Reds8n

Wow 6 posts on this board and you're already on an ignore list

 Redbeard wrote:

Any NFL scout will also tell you that failure in benchmark numbers will absolutely lead to failure as a football player. Obviously, what numbers are necessary vary by position; you wouldn't discount an otherwise exceptional guard for a poor 40 time. But while you don't need record-setting speed to be a great receiver, you can't even be a good receiver if you're slow.

Tell that to Keyshawn Johnson at the end of his career, or any possession receiver (Larry Fitzgerald especially).

Either way, you're moving away from the point. Benchmark statistics are not a perfect indicator of athletic success and, since what we are concerned about is athletic success, a study based on them would not be conclusive.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.

Similar arguments have been used in the past to quite unpleasant ends.

I think the simple question here is what is the harm in allowing vs what is the harm in discriminating?

Could you give an example of your initial claim?

As for your second question, I think the best answer is that it is harmful to throw biology out the window and permit people to be 'whatever they feel they are.' That sets a harmful precedent for society, and reads to me like some kind of anti-intellectualism, i.e. scientific analysis claims you're male but you "feel" female so science must be wrong.

Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.

But it isn't a scientific truth. Binary sex/gender is a social construct in the first place, one that exists because for many purposes it's convenient to deal with the most common situations and ignore the rare cases that break the general rule. But there's nothing inherent in the universe that defines "male" or "female", or says that "what's between your legs" or "what chromosomes you have" is the appropriate defining characteristic instead of "how your brain works". All you're doing is making the unjustified assumption that the social "truth" that you happen to prefer is actually the scientific "truth", and somehow superior to all others.

I don't agree. Binary sex/gender is a result of biological evolution, one that exists because it is good way to ensure that the offspring of a species are a good mix of genes rather than clones of the mother. There are even male and female fish, or male and female flowers (though I am aware there are also hermaphroditic flowers), and they don't have 'social constructs.'

And there is something in the universe that defines "male" and "female," and it's called the dictionary, and it's where I go to get all of my definitions. To call the English dictionary wrong seems to me to be a form of anti-intellectualism as I mention above; you're throwing out falsifiable theories as to the nature of the distinction between genders because someone feels as though that distinction should not apply to them.

Lastly, I absolutely think that scientific truths are superior to many (though I wouldn't go so far as to say all, because I also hold mathematical and logical truths to a similar standard) truths. I also believe I am justified in doing so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for your second question, I think the best answer is that it is harmful to throw biology out the window and permit people to be 'whatever they feel they are.' That sets a harmful precedent for society, and reads to me like some kind of anti-intellectualism, i.e. scientific analysis claims you're male but you "feel" female so science must be wrong.

Please stop using "science" to justify bigotry. The entire classification of male/female is an arbitrary system developed for convenience, there's no inherent truth behind it in the way that, say, laws of physics are objectively true. The only thing I'm throwing out is a anti-intellectual decision to declare that being a "real woman" can only be decided based on the characteristics that you personally find most important.

I don't agree. Binary sex/gender is a result of biological evolution, one that exists because it is good way to ensure that the offspring of a species are a good mix of genes rather than clones of the mother. There are even male and female fish, or male and female flowers (though I am aware there are also hermaphroditic flowers), and they don't have 'social constructs.'

This is completely false. There is no objective "male" or "female" label on a flower, we simply find it convenient to apply those labels. We simplify the situation into two distinct categories of "male" and "female" because for many purposes those categories give useful insight into a particular aspect of biology without unnecessarily complicating things by introducing other categories that aren't directly relevant at that moment. But those are nothing more than useful approximations, just like we make every time we use Newtonian mechanics to solve a problem even though we know about relativity. In reality there are just organisms with particular traits, and nature doesn't care about how humans decide to group them.

And there is something in the universe that defines "male" and "female," and it's called the dictionary, and it's where I go to get all of my definitions.

Lol? What happened to science? I thought we were talking about objective truth and not just what a majority of society has decided to label something?

To call the English dictionary wrong seems to me to be a form of anti-intellectualism as I mention above; you're throwing out falsifiable theories as to the nature of the distinction between genders because someone feels as though that distinction should not apply to them.

Since when was the dictionary a source of objective truth instead of just a statement about how words are commonly used? Objecting to the dictionary definition isn't anti-intellectual, it's a criticism of the dictionary.

And no, I'm not throwing out falsifiable theories, I'm throwing out arbitrary declarations that what defines a "real" man/woman is what's between their legs, not what's going on in their brain.

Lastly, I absolutely think that scientific truths are superior to many (though I wouldn't go so far as to say all, because I also hold mathematical and logical truths to a similar standard) truths. I also believe I am justified in doing so.

Yes, but what you're talking about isn't scientific truth, it's personal opinion. You're like the people claiming that it was "scientific truth" that black people are inferior to white people, and we all know how that ended.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for your second question, I think the best answer is that it is harmful to throw biology out the window and permit people to be 'whatever they feel they are.' That sets a harmful precedent for society, and reads to me like some kind of anti-intellectualism, i.e. scientific analysis claims you're male but you "feel" female so science must be wrong.

Please stop using "science" to justify bigotry. The entire classification of male/female is an arbitrary system developed for convenience, there's no inherent truth behind it in the way that, say, laws of physics are objectively true. The only thing I'm throwing out is a anti-intellectual decision to declare that being a "real woman" can only be decided based on the characteristics that you personally find most important.

Well, there is a biological distinction between "the type of entity that can bear young or lay eggs" and "the type of entity who cannot." This distinction is not arbitrary, and there's definitely truth there. And it isn't the characteristics I find most important, it's the characteristic that science itself uses to make the distinction. I don't give a rat's ass what's under a fish's body or between a human's legs. I care whether or not the given creature within a species can bear young or lay eggs. If so, then it is female, if not, then it is male.

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't agree. Binary sex/gender is a result of biological evolution, one that exists because it is good way to ensure that the offspring of a species are a good mix of genes rather than clones of the mother. There are even male and female fish, or male and female flowers (though I am aware there are also hermaphroditic flowers), and they don't have 'social constructs.'

This is completely false. There is no objective "male" or "female" label on a flower,

Yes, there is. Flowers have stamens, which according to biology, contain male gametophytes. Other flowers have carpules, which produce female gametophytes (called 'ovules,' i.e. eggs). These are objectively true, and while some flowers produce both (and are therefore hermaphroditic), the distinction between individual structures with the flower is still the "male" structure and the "female" structure, because one structure does not house the eggs ('ovules') while the other does.

 Peregrine wrote:

we simply find it convenient to apply those labels. We simplify the situation into two distinct categories of "male" and "female" because for many purposes those categories give useful insight into a particular aspect of biology without unnecessarily complicating things by introducing other categories that aren't directly relevant at that moment. But those are nothing more than useful approximations, just like we make every time we use Newtonian mechanics to solve a problem even though we know about relativity. In reality there are just organisms with particular traits, and nature doesn't care about how humans decide to group them.

Nature may not care what we call the differences, but the distinction is there regardless. We could call the non-ovule sexual organ on a flower the 'chair' reproductive organ, and we could call the ovule-producing organ the 'kezzozle,' but they are still distinct, and I would still be concerned with a person claiming that they should be a kezzozle because they feel that their chair is inadequate to their needs, when they quite clearly cannot produce ovules.

 Peregrine wrote:

And there is something in the universe that defines "male" and "female," and it's called the dictionary, and it's where I go to get all of my definitions.

Lol? What happened to science? I thought we were talking about objective truth and not just what a majority of society has decided to label something?

The dictionary tries to label things the way science does. If you'd prefer, you can strikethrough Dictionary and write "Biology textbook."

 Peregrine wrote:

To call the English dictionary wrong seems to me to be a form of anti-intellectualism as I mention above; you're throwing out falsifiable theories as to the nature of the distinction between genders because someone feels as though that distinction should not apply to them.

Since when was the dictionary a source of objective truth instead of just a statement about how words are commonly used? Objecting to the dictionary definition isn't anti-intellectual, it's a criticism of the dictionary.

And no, I'm not throwing out falsifiable theories, I'm throwing out arbitrary declarations that what defines a "real" man/woman is what's between their legs, not what's going on in their brain.

Why are you defining what a male and female is by what is going on inside their brains, when it's distinguished by whether or not they can lay eggs or bear young? That's drastically trying to alter the dictionary biology textbook's definition.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely think that scientific truths are superior to many (though I wouldn't go so far as to say all, because I also hold mathematical and logical truths to a similar standard) truths. I also believe I am justified in doing so.

Yes, but what you're talking about isn't scientific truth, it's personal opinion. You're like the people claiming that it was "scientific truth" that black people are inferior to white people, and we all know how that ended.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, there is a biological distinction between "the type of entity that can bear young or lay eggs" and "the type of entity who cannot."

Sure, but the latter category also includes infertile women. So now you have to resort to talking about arbitrary "types" where what defines a "type" is your chosen attributes that do not include "how a person sees their own gender identity", and without any justification for that omission.

And it isn't the characteristics I find most important, it's the characteristic that science itself uses to make the distinction. I don't give a rat's ass what's under a fish's body or between a human's legs.

Sigh. Once again, science only makes that distinction as a rough approximation. You're completely ignoring all of the science that deals with gray areas in sex/gender in favor of pretending that the simplest model is the only relevant one as justification for your ideology.

I care whether or not the given creature within a species can bear young or lay eggs. If so, then it is female, if not, then it is male.

Ok, so infertile women are actually men. Makes perfect "scientific" sense to me.

Yes, there is. Flowers have stamens, which according to biology, contain male gametophytes. Other flowers have carpules, which produce female gametophytes (called 'ovules,' i.e. eggs). These are objectively true, and while some flowers produce both (and are therefore hermaphroditic), the distinction between individual structures with the flower is still the "male" structure and the "female" structure, because one structure does not house the eggs ('ovules') while the other does.

Sigh. The point is that it was a human choice to label those things as "male" and "female". Nature doesn't care about those labels. If you instead choose to label red flowers "male" and blue flowers "female" nature will go on not caring about those labels. There is absolutely nothing inherently correct about our choice of labels, they are nothing more than a useful approximation.

Nature may not care what we call the differences, but the distinction is there regardless. We could call the non-ovule sexual organ on a flower the 'chair' reproductive organ, and we could call the ovule-producing organ the 'kezzozle,' but they are still distinct, and I would still be concerned with a person claiming that they should be a kezzozle because they feel that their chair is inadequate to their needs, when they quite clearly cannot produce ovules.

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not just the name that's arbitrary, it's the choice of attribute that is arbitrary? For many purposes it's convenient to define "male" and "female" based entirely on sex organs, but that doesn't mean that there's some kind of inherent "maleness" or "femaleness" to them. They're just body parts, how we categorize them is purely a human invention.

The dictionary tries to label things the way science does. If you'd prefer, you can strikethrough Dictionary and write "Biology textbook."

Not really, because a biology textbook that actually talks about sex and gender in any detail would include way more than just your over-simplified definitions.

Why are you defining what a male and female is by what is going on inside their brains, when it's distinguished by whether or not they can lay eggs or bear young?

Because it's the attribute that has the most to do with how a given person fits into society. Being able to have children is much less important for their social role than whether their gender identity is female. I don't really see why this is so hard to understand.

I'm still waiting for the scientific claim "females bear young or lay eggs, and males cannot" to be disproven.

Two words: infertile women.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, there is a biological distinction between "the type of entity that can bear young or lay eggs" and "the type of entity who cannot."

Sure, but the latter category also includes infertile women. So now you have to resort to talking about arbitrary "types" where what defines a "type" is your chosen attributes that do not include "how a person sees their own gender identity", and without any justification for that omission.

No, one could just say that infertile women are scientifically indistinguishable from men. I choose to omit gender identity, or identity at all, because identity is an infirm thing. There's no way to test it, no way to verify it, no way even to ensure that it doesn't change from day-to-day (some philosophies argue that it does).

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Once again, science only makes that distinction as a rough approximation. You're completely ignoring all of the science that deals with gray areas in sex/gender in favor of pretending that the simplest model is the only relevant one as justification for your ideology.

What other models are there? I don't remember seeing terribly much that was aside from those models, but I also haven't had a biology course that addressed sex since the sophmore year of college. Please elaborate.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ok, so infertile women are actually men. Makes perfect "scientific" sense to me.

Yes, they are indistinguishable from men, in the scientific sense.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sigh. The point is that it was a human choice to label those things as "male" and "female". Nature doesn't care about those labels. If you instead choose to label red flowers "male" and blue flowers "female" nature will go on not caring about those labels. There is absolutely nothing inherently correct about our choice of labels, they are nothing more than a useful approximation.

Right, the labels don't matter. You could change the labels, say, to "egg-having" and "not-egg having", but that still doesn't make the "not-egg-having" entities able to decide to be "egg-having" unless they actually find a way to have eggs! Hell, you could not label them at all (which would make communication difficult, but whatever), and still the not-egg-havers could not have eggs!

 Peregrine wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not just the name that's arbitrary, it's the choice of attribute that is arbitrary? For many purposes it's convenient to define "male" and "female" based entirely on sex organs, but that doesn't mean that there's some kind of inherent "maleness" or "femaleness" to them. They're just body parts, how we categorize them is purely a human invention.

You're right, I agree. I'm not really that worried about the labels - call them whatever, switch them around if you must. But whatever you call them, the words have definitions, and something that does not have eggs cannot suddenly have eggs, no matter how much it identifies itself as a type of entity that should be able to have eggs.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not really, because a biology textbook that actually talks about sex and gender in any detail would include way more than just your over-simplified definitions.

Care to elaborate? I don't remember this from my biology courses, but I am a philosophy major, so I've taken like, two since the start of college.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because it's the attribute that has the most to do with how a given person fits into society. Being able to have children is much less important for their social role than whether their gender identity is female. I don't really see why this is so hard to understand.

It isn't hard to understand - I just disagree that it is a basis to change what someone is called. I think that social roles should not be determined by whether or not you can have eggs, and so the fact that they are defined in that manner should be addressed. Trying to make a not-egg-haver into an egg-haver is dodging the real problem - they should be permitted to be whomever they want to be in society because society should not care whether or not you have eggs. They should be alright with being called "male" because they cannot have eggs, and male is the adjective applied to an entity that cannot have eggs. To take offense at this very simple distinction is to take offense at the very definition of the word, which I think is flawed.

 Peregrine wrote:
Two words: infertile women.

You mean, women who are functionally indistinguishable from men, and are only called women because of some other arbitrary definition of what makes a woman?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, one could just say that infertile women are scientifically indistinguishable from men.

Well, you could if your "science" is on the same level as flat-earth theory.

There's no way to test it, no way to verify it, no way even to ensure that it doesn't change from day-to-day (some philosophies argue that it does).

This is only a problem if you insist that "male" and "female" are absolutely black and white categories with no gray areas, and every person can fit indisputably into one of them. Fortunately this is just a problem you've invented for yourself, science and the rest of us can do more useful things.

Yes, they are indistinguishable from men, in the scientific sense.

I see. So, let's say you're researching a potential difference in cancer rates between men and women. Would you seriously put an infertile woman in the "male" group just because she isn't capable of having babies? And does that mean that after a certain age women all magically become men?

Care to elaborate? I don't remember this from my biology courses, but I am a philosophy major, so I've taken like, two since the start of college.

Transgender people (brain/body mismatch).
People with sex chromosomes other than XX or XY.
People with bodies that do not match their sex chromosomes.
People with ambiguous or non-functional sex organs.

Even if you look at nothing more than physical bodies and ignore brain questions you find that sex and gender are not nice neat binary labels. We just choose to ignore the gray areas for many purposes and use male/female labels because in many cases the gray areas aren't directly relevant to the issue we're dealing with.

They should be alright with being called "male" because they cannot have eggs, and male is the adjective applied to an entity that cannot have eggs. To take offense at this very simple distinction is to take offense at the very definition of the word, which I think is flawed.

I see. I'm glad you've appointed yourself to make that decision for them. But, then again, you seem to think that a 70 year old woman should be re-labeled a man, so I guess you're full of weird ideas.

 dogma wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Any NFL scout will also tell you that failure in benchmark numbers will absolutely lead to failure as a football player. Obviously, what numbers are necessary vary by position; you wouldn't discount an otherwise exceptional guard for a poor 40 time. But while you don't need record-setting speed to be a great receiver, you can't even be a good receiver if you're slow.

Tell that to Keyshawn Johnson at the end of his career, or any possession receiver (Larry Fitzgerald especially).

Keyshawn Johnson, even at the end of his career, and Larry Fitzgerald are both still faster than most people. I do not doubt, for a second, that either could out-run me.

Either way, you're moving away from the point. Benchmark statistics are not a perfect indicator of athletic success and, since what we are concerned about is athletic success, a study based on them would not be conclusive.

But you're not looking for an indicator of athletic success, you're looking for an indicator of, for lack of a better term, unfair advantage. If you do these tests, and find that trans-women can, on average, lift 15% more weight than a cis-woman of the same build (height, weight), or find that they are, on average, 10% faster, then that's real conclusive data. If this were the case, then you could easily say that trans-women possess an unfair advantage over cis-women and should not be allowed to compete in the same events. By the same token, if your study showed no statistically relevant difference between the two, then you could conclude that trans-women do not possess an unfair advantage, and should be allowed to compete in the same events.

That's the reasonable way to approach this issue. Find tests that can measure objective data (strength, speed), and determine whether the hormone treatments that trans-women take actually reduce their physical capabilities to those of cis-women, or whether the hormones, while weakening the trans-woman, still leaves her with an inherent advantage over cis-women.

Now, whether any individual trans-woman could leverage that advantage into actual athletic success is a different question entirely, and not one that should have any bearing on whether the competition is fair or not.

I'm of the opinion that, until such conclusive testing is done, the most-fair option to all possible contestants is to keep women's athletic competitions for cis-women only. There are more individuals harmed if trans-women start winning all women's athletic events due to an unfair advantage, than there are harmed by excluding trans-women from these contests until such a time that studies can be done to ascertain that there is a level playing field.

 Redbeard wrote:
But you're not looking for an indicator of athletic success, you're looking for an indicator of, for lack of a better term, unfair advantage. If you do these tests, and find that trans-women can, on average, lift 15% more weight than a cis-woman of the same build (height, weight), or find that they are, on average, 10% faster, then that's real conclusive data. If this were the case, then you could easily say that trans-women possess an unfair advantage over cis-women and should not be allowed to compete in the same events. By the same token, if your study showed no statistically relevant difference between the two, then you could conclude that trans-women do not possess an unfair advantage, and should be allowed to compete in the same events.

That's the reasonable way to approach this issue. Find tests that can measure objective data (strength, speed), and determine whether the hormone treatments that trans-women take actually reduce their physical capabilities to those of cis-women, or whether the hormones, while weakening the trans-woman, still leaves her with an inherent advantage over cis-women.

Now, whether any individual trans-woman could leverage that advantage into actual athletic success is a different question entirely, and not one that should have any bearing on whether the competition is fair or not.

I'm of the opinion that, until such conclusive testing is done, the most-fair option to all possible contestants is to keep women's athletic competitions for cis-women only. There are more individuals harmed if trans-women start winning all women's athletic events due to an unfair advantage, than there are harmed by excluding trans-women from these contests until such a time that studies can be done to ascertain that there is a level playing field.

Well said, and I agree with this completely.

Again, it was an identical situation with Oscar Pistorius and others with running blades competing in track-and-field meets. Scientists were able to prove, at least to the governing bodies, that he did not have an inherent advantage due to his running blades, and he was thus allowed to compete- but before the studies were completed, he was not allowed to compete. A similar study would need to be done here in order to allow these athletes to compete in most professional sporting leagues.

 Redbeard wrote:

Keyshawn Johnson, even at the end of his career, and Larry Fitzgerald are both still faster than most people. I do not doubt, for a second, that either could out-run me.

Only Keyshawn could (and at the end of his career probably couldn't) outrun me, and I am an amateur, male, athlete. Having a lower 40 time than "most people" does not grant you an unfair advantage. If it did players like Randy Moss and Deion Sanders wouldn't have been allowed in the NFL.

 Redbeard wrote:

But you're not looking for an indicator of athletic success, you're looking for an indicator of, for lack of a better term, unfair advantage.

We are hypothetically looking for an unfair advantage with regard to athletic success.

 Redbeard wrote:

Find tests that can measure objective data (strength, speed)...

There is no objective measure of strength or speed.

This thread is a delicious Smörgåsbord of bigotry, prejudice, and hilariously questionable appeals to authority.

And Unit1126PLL, please stop throwing the word "science" around to support your simplistic interpretations of reality, that's not how things work. You don't just play "Science says...", you link to peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals which supports your view, then you get taken seriously. Defining gender by chromosomal-sex at-birth is so narrow and arbitrary in light of even what we do know, let alone what we don't know, about neuroscience.

 Redbeard wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Any NFL scout will also tell you that failure in benchmark numbers will absolutely lead to failure as a football player. Obviously, what numbers are necessary vary by position; you wouldn't discount an otherwise exceptional guard for a poor 40 time. But while you don't need record-setting speed to be a great receiver, you can't even be a good receiver if you're slow.

Tell that to Keyshawn Johnson at the end of his career, or any possession receiver (Larry Fitzgerald especially).

Keyshawn Johnson, even at the end of his career, and Larry Fitzgerald are both still faster than most people. I do not doubt, for a second, that either could out-run me.

Either way, you're moving away from the point. Benchmark statistics are not a perfect indicator of athletic success and, since what we are concerned about is athletic success, a study based on them would not be conclusive.

But you're not looking for an indicator of athletic success, you're looking for an indicator of, for lack of a better term, unfair advantage. If you do these tests, and find that trans-women can, on average, lift 15% more weight than a cis-woman of the same build (height, weight), or find that they are, on average, 10% faster, then that's real conclusive data. If this were the case, then you could easily say that trans-women possess an unfair advantage over cis-women and should not be allowed to compete in the same events. By the same token, if your study showed no statistically relevant difference between the two, then you could conclude that trans-women do not possess an unfair advantage, and should be allowed to compete in the same events.

That's the reasonable way to approach this issue. Find tests that can measure objective data (strength, speed), and determine whether the hormone treatments that trans-women take actually reduce their physical capabilities to those of cis-women, or whether the hormones, while weakening the trans-woman, still leaves her with an inherent advantage over cis-women.

Now, whether any individual trans-woman could leverage that advantage into actual athletic success is a different question entirely, and not one that should have any bearing on whether the competition is fair or not.

I'm of the opinion that, until such conclusive testing is done, the most-fair option to all possible contestants is to keep women's athletic competitions for cis-women only. There are more individuals harmed if trans-women start winning all women's athletic events due to an unfair advantage, than there are harmed by excluding trans-women from these contests until such a time that studies can be done to ascertain that there is a level playing field.

Huh, so in your view, should we fully profile the genome of every athlete before they are allowed to compete? Afterall, it can be objectively proven that some people will have a genetic predisposition to success in certain activities that would give them a measurable advantage over those without that predisposition, so shall we begin separating out male and female athletes into "male athletes with genetic suitability for distance running" and not, "female athletes with genetic suitability for weightlifting" and not, and so on for every combination of biology and sporting event? Afterall, even if the potential ceiling of ability is only a couple of percentage points higher for someone with genetic advantage in a particular sport, that's enough to ensure their success over someone without that advantage, assuming both competitors achieve the absolute maximum of their potential(which your argument seems to).

If the argument is about fairness, rather than cheating(ie taking drugs with the specific intention of enhancing athletic ability), then surely stopping at a completely arbitrary point like gender identity or chromosomal-sex at-birth is inadequate; we should set an acceptable percentage of variation between a hypothetical "normal" competitor and those with an advantage, and then use empirical research to categorise and exclude anyone who exceeds that percentage difference.

Evaluate people on a case by case basis, with an appeals process. Now everyone go watch funny cat videos, that's what the internet is for.

 Yodhrin wrote:
This thread is a delicious Smörgåsbord of bigotry, prejudice, and hilariously questionable appeals to authority.

Right, because obviously anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is a bigot? Personal attacks working out well for you?

 Redbeard wrote:

But you're not looking for an indicator of athletic success, you're looking for an indicator of, for lack of a better term, unfair advantage. If you do these tests, and find that trans-women can, on average, lift 15% more weight than a cis-woman of the same build (height, weight), or find that they are, on average, 10% faster, then that's real conclusive data. If this were the case, then you could easily say that trans-women possess an unfair advantage over cis-women and should not be allowed to compete in the same events. By the same token, if your study showed no statistically relevant difference between the two, then you could conclude that trans-women do not possess an unfair advantage, and should be allowed to compete in the same events.

That's the reasonable way to approach this issue. Find tests that can measure objective data (strength, speed), and determine whether the hormone treatments that trans-women take actually reduce their physical capabilities to those of cis-women, or whether the hormones, while weakening the trans-woman, still leaves her with an inherent advantage over cis-women.

Now, whether any individual trans-woman could leverage that advantage into actual athletic success is a different question entirely, and not one that should have any bearing on whether the competition is fair or not.

I'm of the opinion that, until such conclusive testing is done, the most-fair option to all possible contestants is to keep women's athletic competitions for cis-women only. There are more individuals harmed if trans-women start winning all women's athletic events due to an unfair advantage, than there are harmed by excluding trans-women from these contests until such a time that studies can be done to ascertain that there is a level playing field.

Huh, so in your view, should we fully profile the genome of every athlete before they are allowed to compete?

How would that possibly help?

If the argument is about fairness, rather than cheating(ie taking drugs with the specific intention of enhancing athletic ability), then surely stopping at a completely arbitrary point like gender identity or chromosomal-sex at-birth is inadequate

But it's not completely arbitrary. As far as I'm aware, there aren't a lot of sports that actually require male or female bits to participate in. Men can run, women can run. Men can hit, kick, throw and catch things, so can women. So why do we divide sports into men's and women's categories in the first place?

It's because it is well accepted that men are stronger than women (on average), and that if you don't create a women's-only competition, then women don't get to compete at all - men will tend to dominate. Now, obviously, when you look at specific individuals, you'll always find examples of a woman who is better than a man in just about anything: Anika Sorenstam can out-golf me, Natalie Coughlin can out-swim me, and Ronda Rousey could kick my ass. But, when put in a field of men who have specialized in the same disciplines, these women are at a disadvantage, and that's why we have women's sports.

If trans-women still have an advantage over cis-women, even if they're at a disadvantage compared to cis-men, then allowing them to compete on even footing with cis-women pretty much invalidates the whole reason that we have women's sports at all. You'd be placing a huge majority of cis-women in a disadvantaged position, removing their opportunity to compete fairly, for the gain of a tiny minority of trans-women. I find that unreasonable.

This isn't a bigoted opinion, as I have nothing against trans-women. It's an opinion based in understanding why we have women's athletics. Why we have title-9 (at least in the US). And, if they ever do conclusive testing that shows that trans-women have no inherent advantage over cis-women, I'd be open to having them participate in the same events. However, until that testing is done, I don't think it's right to jeopardize the nature of women's athletics. Otherwise, we might as well just get rid of all gender categories in sports and let everyone just compete as humans.

Once you accept that we separate sports into men's and women's categories for a reason, then it's not arbitrary to draw your lines with the expectation of preserving that reason.

The reason for sexual segregation in athletics is to create a venue for women to compete with one another in a fair and level field. Allowing men (regardless of ho they hyphenate their sexuality) to compete against women is unfair to those women and I oppose it for that reason alone.

It seems odd to think someone would get gender reassignment surgery just to do better in sports.

 Ahtman wrote:
It seems odd to think someone would get gender reassignment surgery just to do better in sports.

It seems odd to think the former couldn't lead to the latter.

I highly doubt anyone is changing their genitals to win at a CrossFit competition meant to increase membership. Olympics? Even then I don't see it. But since neither side has conclusive evidence that MTF athletes might or might not have an advantage, shouldn't we just leave the decision to the private organization to impose their rules on their competition?

So I'll ask again what is this woman losing by not competing? Oh yeah, 2.5 million dollars.

 Breotan wrote:
The reason for sexual segregation in athletics is to create a venue for women to compete with one another in a fair and level field. Allowing men (regardless of ho they hyphenate their sexuality) to compete against women is unfair to those women and I oppose it for that reason alone.

Could at least try to use the correct terminology?
Sexuality is the spectrum of homosexual - heterosexual
It is completely independent of Gender.

Throughout the entire thread you've insisted on referring to transgender females as men, and now you're using the wrong terms again.