Same logic
-
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It's a bad faith argument that can only be accepted/made by the dishonest who desperately want it to be true and kind-hearted fools. But the demographics of Lemmy mean OP could only be praised and upvoted.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I see this argument made about transgender athletes so frequently and yet...
It's crazy, because professional athletics is absolutely rife with outright doping and edge-case medicalization. If you're a 12-year-old on a regiment of HGH, there's nothing that's going to separate you from a "naturally" big guy like André the Giant or Yao Ming in another ten years. You don't have to change your sex in order to enjoy a performance benefit from modern medicine. And, as the '00s-era of baseball demonstrates, nobody really cares so long as they get to see you pitch no-hitters or hit lots of home runs. So the idea that "changing your gender" is cheating runs afoul of all the folks who ahem stayed in their lane and still cheated and will most likely run circles around you in any competitive athletic setting.
Further, changing your gender either sets you out the gate as being at a disadvantage or sticks you with an enormous handicap relative to people who aren't in transition. Gender transition never actually improves your ability to compete in a sport. That's why you never actually saw the "team of T-girls" cleaning up at softball or dominating the WNBA. You weren't seeing T-boys burst onto the scene in high school men's athletics as UIL champions. It was always some white boy comedy fantasy or cartoon show punchline.
Finally, the very idea of "fairness" in professional athletics, from a physical individual perspective is absurd. People aren't the same. Nobody is expecting them to be the same. We aren't demanding people under 5' to play professional basketball or people coming in under 100 lbs to compete as linemen in the NFL.
It's always been bullshit, top to bottom. Just something for people to scream at, because Cracker Barrel hadn't changed their logo yet.
-
And even then they don't watch it.
Let the people who play the sports decide the rules. What kind of moron thinks governments should be deciding sports?
The party of âsmall governmentâ.
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
Id agree. I grew up poor and we definitely do fast food or tv dinners. Beans and rice. Saving fat from meats. Sleep for dinner. Cabbage and rice or sometimes if youre lucky, cabbage and sausage.
Made me real good with seasonings though.
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
Do you mean something like this?
wiki: International Workers' Olympiads -
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
Do you mean something like this?
wiki: International Workers' Olympiads -
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There's no research that proves AGAB has anything to do with athletic advantages
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
They didnât specify poverty, you can be malnourished without being in poverty. Especially on a typical American diet.
-
Tbh, top-level sports is unfair to the end. To get into it you need to have a combination of money and perfect genetics next to your training.
99+% of people could never compete in a given sport on top-level, no matter how much they train, because they just don't have the perfect body for the sport.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
So to make women's sports at all possible, that protected category of women's sports was created. As a protected category, there needs to be some kind of cut-off, and that cut-off is arbitrary and sucks. If you are 10 grams overweight in a weight limited category, your are also out. (Though it's easier to do something against 10g than against genetics and hormones, but you get my point.)
We need to stop viewing women's sports as some kind of "natural category", but as the protected category it is.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
Pump the brakes, because you are making a lot of assumptions that make sports worse for women. Including:
- that male and female are perfectly distinct categories that everyone fits into
- that everyone can be categorized into male or female based on their gender history or a âsex testâ
- that everyone put in the male category has an advantage over everyone in the female category
- that everyone sorted as female needs to be protected from intrusion of everyone sorted as male
- that hormones have no effect on performance of people in either category
These arenât based in anything but anxieties and hearsay, and trying to enforce them will inherently affect far more cis women than trans women, because cis women outnumber trans women by an absolute fuckton.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I am not literate enough to understand what the study is saying so I am ready for all ELI5 but I am a 20 year old Cis guy, 183cm and 85kgs. Say I start taking estrogen for 5 years. I will still retain my height and weight, maybe the muscle density would decrease but my bone density wouldn't? isn't there a bone and muscle density difference between male and female, and I have heard athletes say that sometimes strength boils down to the ligaments and tendons rather than muscles. I'd still say I'd be stronger than 90%+ of women when now I am sure I am stronger than 95%+, without any extreme fitness training.
Once again I am only asking because I don't know and I am not transphobe or someone with rigid opinions
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
You mean the Olympics? It used to exclude professional athletes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_professionalism
-
It's a bad faith argument that can only be accepted/made by the dishonest who desperately want it to be true and kind-hearted fools. But the demographics of Lemmy mean OP could only be praised and upvoted.
I too also think that a person with uterus wouldn't be able to compete with a person with scrotum, especially if the transition happened after puberty, men by default are stronger than women, if you include training the gap only widens if you factor in muscle decomposition from estrogen, it would still be unfair
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
I'm an American, so yes I am privileged and yes that is poverty food in the United States.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I'm still up for that random internet user's idea of an olympics with randomly selected people from each country, to give a fair representation of its people. It would be so fun to watch, or even to participate!
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I'm under opinion that we take sports wayyyy to seriously. It's just entertainment and should be treated as such. It's absolutely bonkers that we let shit like running slightly fast and jumping slightly high become so important - isn't that just crazy?
-
You mean the Olympics? It used to exclude professional athletes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_professionalism
The problem with that is state sponsored athletes counted as amateur even though they were doing it for a living just as much as the pros. Plus, in order to compete, you basically had to beg for a sponsor in order to be able to both train enough and afford to eat or have a home.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
Some people are born more capable of learning in school, creating an unfair disadvantage, therefore, we should ban smart kids from school.
-
The argument isn't about kids of rich parents not having to work for a position in F1 or other sports, but about even getting the chance to be there.
If you are poor, there's no way to ever get into F1, even if you have perfect natural talent. You just won't be able to afford the training.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Here is the comment I was replying to which was calling out the natural talent portion stating its only about their money and training to get in and max just isnt the one to try and prove that with:
Try watching F1 and hearing "natural talent" in the context of men who had done 30,000 hours of karting before they could walk. Max Verstappen was built from the ground up to be a racer. I don't think these people are bad, but they definitely have it easy going up against one of the smallest playing fields in all of sports.
They were specifically calling out max stating he doesnt have natural talent besides his parents money. Max is not a great example from the grid for that, he won the natural talent lottery and rich parents lottery that allowed him the ability to compete and use that natural talent. Almost every single person on the grid has had the same training and time to practice as max has had yet no one really can drive like he can.
Like the last portion of my comment stated f1 is obviously a rich man's sport, there isnt any denying that but you can have an easier time demonstrating that by calling out anyone but the generational talent that made it in, like idk cough cough lance stroll. If money wasnt a factor you would get more talent like max in the sport but we can acknowledge that max has the talent to back his position even if in that sport money is what will be the ultimate deciding factor on whether you can even sit at the table to prove it.
-
Some people are born more capable of learning in school, creating an unfair disadvantage, therefore, we should ban smart kids from school.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yeah if a kid's too smart you gotta hit em with a brick a few times. If you look at history it would have prevented a few genocides. I read about in history clas- *thunk*
-
I am not literate enough to understand what the study is saying so I am ready for all ELI5 but I am a 20 year old Cis guy, 183cm and 85kgs. Say I start taking estrogen for 5 years. I will still retain my height and weight, maybe the muscle density would decrease but my bone density wouldn't? isn't there a bone and muscle density difference between male and female, and I have heard athletes say that sometimes strength boils down to the ligaments and tendons rather than muscles. I'd still say I'd be stronger than 90%+ of women when now I am sure I am stronger than 95%+, without any extreme fitness training.
Once again I am only asking because I don't know and I am not transphobe or someone with rigid opinions
I will still retain my height and weight
Why do you assume that both of those things are true? Trans people taking estrogen donât typically shrink drastically, but a small amount of height loss (less than 1â) isnât unheard of, along with a slight decrease in shoe size. The age you start and your own genetics also play a role, of course.
For weight, itâs pretty uncontroversial that for people taking estrogen, you will lose some muscle mass and have to work harder to build/maintain more.
This also assumes that your bone density is identical to a pre-HRT trans womanâs bone density, when actually trans women tend to have lower bone density than cis men prior to HRT.
TL;DR: hormones and personal/medical history play a much larger role in sexual characteristic expression than whether you have XX or XY genes.
