Same logic
-
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.
I think Lance Stroll is a bad example for the point at hand. In most cases you need talent plus a boatload of cash to compete at high level in any sports.
F1 is a special kind of circus, since there it's primarily teams competing, not the drivers. If you have enough money to buy a team you can put a blind dog into the driver's seat and nobody can object. That's Lance Stroll or Nikita Mazepin. For F1 you really don't need to have talent if you have enough cash.
In most other sports you need both. No matter how much money you have, if you are competing in a sport with leagues and world leader boards / world ranking, having money without talent means you will not make it to top level because the leader board sorts you away. That's automatic mechanisms that can't be just circumvented using money.
Max Verstappen is more one of the classic examples of what OOP was talking about. He's got talent, no discussion about that. But if he didn't have money, he never would have had the chance to get where he is. There are most likely hundreds of people who have the same potential talent as Verstappen, but who don't have the money, thus never had the chance to get the training and the attention and so on.
In most sports you need Money + Talent. If you lack one, you are gone.
-
Kids who grow up in homes with proper nutrition run faster, jump higher, and hit harder. Their bones have never been sapped of calcium, their teeth never threatened with scurvy. It's not fair or safe to have them compete with malnourished kids who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners.
Is it? Idn man, the somalians own the marathons and not all of them are rich, some came from dificult backgrounds and started running in the sand and dirt
-
I will still retain my height and weight
Why do you assume that both of those things are true? Trans people taking estrogen don’t typically shrink drastically, but a small amount of height loss (less than 1”) isn’t 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, it’s 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 woman’s 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.
okay I understand hormones can affect bone and muscle densities but the problem still persists, if I enter in a ring with 2 months of estrogen against a cis woman, it's not going to be fair in any ways. Thus I question what would be the objective parameter for declaring a person eligible for the said gender. If it's not clear than the easiest thing would be to start a new category
-
ban all the rich people
We could bracket them, like in boxing. Anyone who gets more than $1M in training goes into the B-tier. $10M goes to C-tier. Etc.
That said, back in the Soviet Era, you had a lot more money in public sports clubs, particularly internationally. The US, Canada, the UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany all had state sponsored athletics programs that sought out young athletes and bankrolled them. Only post-Soviet collapse have we seen western states turn the recruitment and training over to the private sector.
The neoliberalization of professional sports isn't the norm. It's a direct consequence of the 90s-era commercialization of athletics. Putting Tony Hawk on the box cover of Wheaties was the beginning of the end for any kind of public athletics program.
AFAIK Germany still has some sort of state sponsored athletics program. Its some sort of collaboration with the military, but I dont really know how it works.
Source: I know someone who is responsible for working with athletes at the military.
-
women's height for tennis: 5'8"
any competitors not at that height are unable to compete because of unfair advantage. there is no deviation; height must be exactly 5'8" to the micrometer. thanks republicans! you saved women's tennis!
1,72 meters
-
Mother fuckers won't give a shit about women's sports unless it's to police who participates
Argument goes both ways
-
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
This is the conclusion section in its entirety (this section is not that technical, but my commentary is afterwards):
CONCLUSIONS
This research compares transgender male and transgender female athletes to their cisgender counterparts. Compared with cisgender women, transgender women have decreased lung function, increasing their work in breathing. Regardless of fat-free mass distribution, transgender women performed worse on the countermovement jump than cisgender women and CM. Although transgender women have comparable absolute V̇ O2max values to cisgender women, when normalised for body
weight, transgender women’s cardiovascular fitness is lower than CM and women. Therefore, this research shows the potential complexity of transgender athlete physiology and its effects on
the laboratory measures of physical performance. A long- term longitudinal study is needed to confirm whether these findings are directly related to gender- affirming hormone therapy owing to the study’s shortcomings, particularly its cross- sectional design and limited sample size, which make confirming the causal effect of gender- affirmative care on sports performance problematic.
I was in the sciences, though not anywhere near sports medicine, but the study seems sound. I have to mention that I have no idea how important cardiovascular fitness is for any individual sport, but that really doesn't matter.
Before being trans became politicized, individual sports organizations had been making their own rules just fine. This does not need to be controversial or decided by a bunch of people who have no idea how it affects the sports. A national law makes no sense in this context. They are difficult to change and do not have the flexibility needed to account for variations or updates in sports. Pool (as in billiards) is a sport. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I don't think people recognize how much the word "sport" encompasses. If individual sports organizations start enacting transphobic restrictions, that's a problem, but there have been plenty of sports with tests in place and they have not, to my knowledge, been considered transphobic so long as they protected the integrity of the sport and treated all athletes, cis and trans, with respect.
I'm generally happy to defer decisions to the people affected by them, and in this case that's the athletes who I imagine are better able to influence their athletic organization than the entire government.
-
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 ‘sex test’
- 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 aren’t 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.
I think my point didn't come across.
Most mens sports are actually not limited to men. They are the "open" category. Women just hardly ever have a chance to compete there. There are examples of women competing in mens divisions, but it is super rare and even rarer for her to succeed.
Women's sports are a protected category, invented so that women can do professional sports as well. But the category is super hard to define (as anyone with even a cursory knowledge about the topic knows), so the category limit is arbitrary and thus often wrong. Like any randomly drawn line in the sand.
- that everyone sorted as female needs to be protected from intrusion of everyone sorted as male
This is something you just invented that I never said or alluded to. What I said was that the top men have an advantage over the top women. We are talking about top level sport here, not little league.
Here you need to tick all the boxes to compete, and not having a single one means you are out.
There are certainly many men (in most sports the large majority of the male population) that cannot compete with a female top athlet, again no question. But it is also true that top female athletes in most sports cannot compete with top male athletes in the same sport.
Elaine Thompson-Hera runs 100m in 10.54s. Doesn't even make sense to compare an average man (or even a really good male sprinter) with that time. But Usain Bolt is almost a whole second faster. And while she set her record in 2021, her time was already beat by Charley Paddock in 1921. So it took women 100 years to beat Charley Paddocks record.
If you'd allow anyone to run in the women's category, you can effectively just shut it down completely, because then Usain Bolt would just run there too and that's it with women in the women's category.
So if not everyone is allowed into the women's category, some borders need to be put up, and since it's close to impossible to make a hard-but-completely-fair border between these two categories, this border will be unfair to people, no question there.
That's why it would make sense to decouple the understanding of the category from the sex. Make it clear that this is a category where not all women will be allowed to run in and that not everyone who is able to run there is a woman. But it's a protection category (similar to weight classes in boxing) that allows most women to compete on a somewhat fair level.
Same as weight classes exist so that there can be someone else than heavyweight boxers, who would otherwise just dominate the whole sport.
-
football
wrote on last edited by [email protected]just to be clear
american football or rest of the world football (i.e. american soccer) -
ban all the rich people
We could bracket them, like in boxing. Anyone who gets more than $1M in training goes into the B-tier. $10M goes to C-tier. Etc.
That said, back in the Soviet Era, you had a lot more money in public sports clubs, particularly internationally. The US, Canada, the UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany all had state sponsored athletics programs that sought out young athletes and bankrolled them. Only post-Soviet collapse have we seen western states turn the recruitment and training over to the private sector.
The neoliberalization of professional sports isn't the norm. It's a direct consequence of the 90s-era commercialization of athletics. Putting Tony Hawk on the box cover of Wheaties was the beginning of the end for any kind of public athletics program.
soviet collapse fucked humanity as a whole
