you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You keep making statements showing that you assume the current requirements are fair, and thus anyone who "meets the requirements" is participating in and advancing "fair competition."

It's like you're unaware that history is riddled with regulations that are unfair and laws that are unjust. Doing what's right isn't the same as following the rules; often doing the right thing means challenging, protesting, going beyond and defying the rules.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context? If you think the current rules aren't fair then work to get them changed and start changing them on the levels you can.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context?

Huh? I have no idea what you mean by "revolutionary thought" here.

"Fairness in competition" is the concept you keep referring to with your repeated mention of "fair competition." You keep making statements that give the impression you believe that if someone follows the current rules, then fair competition is guaranteed. Which is like saying that since laws only require that employers pay a minimum wage, adhere to certain minimum safety standards and follow X,Y and Z regulations, then paying that wage, adhering to those standards and following those regs constitutes compensating, safeguarding and treating all employees fairly. But many people would say that fairness means paying employees at least a living wage or, ideally, what they're worth, endeavoring to make employees as safe as possible, and providing a plethora of benefits and amenities.

I am working to get the rules in sports changed, BTW. But that's not the issue at hand here. This is a debate dub. The issue is whether QT can make a case that the current rules allowing males to use claims of being trans to compete in female sports are fair. You keep suggesting/insisting they are fair, but without explaining how and why - and without revealing what you mean by "fair," a word that seems to mean something different to you than to me and some other posters.

Fair in your view seems to stop at first definition given by Oxford, "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate," and not to include the additional meaning that comes next, "just or appropriate in the circumstances."

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It seems like you're misunderstanding me. I'm assuming - for the sake of the argument - that the rules are fair and that if they are not that fair rules can be found. I should have made that clearer. I honestly don't know enough to judge wether the current set of rules are fair.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The people with expertise in sports, sports medicine/science and sports regulation who've looked into this issue extensively say that there is no fair way to allow males to compete in girls' and women's sports. As Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has pointed out, the aims of fairness in sport here are in direct conflict with the aim of "inclusion" for any males in the female category. Including males in female sports automatically puts female participants at a competitive disadvantage ranging from 10-12% in running to 50% in weightlifting to 160% in events that involve throwing or punching. Including males in female sports also excludes females not just from placing, winning and entering record books - it excludes female people from trying out, qualifying and participating in the first place. Moreover, if the sport is a contact sport like rugby, wrestling, boxing, MMA, roller derby, or hockey - or it could involve contact and collisions like basketball, soccer and baseball - allowing males to play/compete against females puts the females at risk of injury and death.

Since you now admit that you "honestly don't know enough to judge whether the current set of rules are fair," I don't get why you are weighing in on this topic and this thread at all. What do you think you are bringing to the table here?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just read the article you quoted. 1st the comparisons are between males with normal hormone levels and females with normal hormone levels. 2nd I've read through the whole article and doesn't say anywhere that no fair rules could possibly exist - even if your phrasing may make that seem different.

Tucker simply argues for exclusion until such rules are found. For both safety and the sake of competition. And who would have guessed that I don't disagree.

What do I bring to the conversation. Not a lot since I don't know if the rules are fair and won't judge on that front. My objective is simply to scout out what GC thinks - one which I have achieved. But the conversation brings a lot to me. By GCs reaction to my initial answer I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh? I didn't quote an article. I made reference to the extensive, in-depth report that Ross Tucker did for World Rugby and to Tucker's many published works on this topic. These include numerous posts and blog entries on the Science of Sport website made over many years, articles in newspapers such as the Times (of London), the many media interviews he's given, his Twitter feed and, above all, his many podcasts (some of which are only accessible by subscribers).

I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

Please set forth the scenario and criteria which you think would allow "males in women's sports" whilst preserving fairness and safety for female people.

I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have little grasp of the differences in physical development of male and female humans not just during and after the puberty of adolescence, but in utero, infancy and early childhood - and all the consequences these differences have for sports performance from the get-go. I get the impression you did not participate in competitive (or other) sports as a kid (as I did), that you haven't ever taught or coached kids/young people in sports (as I have), that you've never raised or been involved in raising children (as I have), and that you don't really follow sports (as I do).

To start to get acquainted with the difference in male and female human sports performance from early childhood, I suggest you look at the different growth size and rate charts used for male and female infants; the junior sports records set by pre-adolescent children in various sports in different countries around the world; and the stats for US kids who had to undergo the annual President's Physical Fitness tests during and after the era of JFK. Also look at what's happened with Little League Baseball since it became open to both sexes in 1974.