Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I don't see you arguing anywhere for the more significant measures to increase women's participation in sport; that's how I know this is all just bigotry.

Start a thread on it, I'll post on it. This is the gender thread. We do need to address why girls routinely drop out of sports at age 11 upwards, but allowing males into their sports doesn't help and excluding males would be an easy and obvious thing to address. I would think many girls and women are disheartened by knowing they will never be top in their sport as they have to compete against men.

This is the report being referenced, for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.cces.ca/node/66935

Debunked here by Jon Pike:
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/transge...ng-at-best-intellectually-dishonest-at-worst/

 

[CXRAndy]

It's been clearly put before you that thousands of boys beat the womens world record for an event. These are males who have not fully grown in strength, endurance.

For you to say, that trans don't have a physical advantage over women is laughable beyond sanity.

 

[CXRAndy]

There's two names on that list I do know. Both are suspect, and brought the doping cloud into amateur sport.

So you picked two. So what are the two next best times. They will still beat the equivalent woman event time. There are many events all of which the young women are clearly slower or don't jump as far or high, don't throw as far as the young men.

It's clear as mud then men are faster, stronger

 

[monkers]

It's been clearly put before you that thousands of boys beat the womens world record for an event. These are males who have not fully grown in strength, endurance.

For you to say, that trans don't have a physical advantage over women is laughable beyond sanity.

Except that I didn't say that you tool. Now go away and consider why you keep feeling the need to invent my opinions for me, and see if this due to some other reason your own mental shortcomings before replying further.

 

[CXRAndy]

You keep saying that trans don't have an advantage, but they do have an advantage over women. Then you go off on some tangent trying to justify it

 

[monkers]

You keep saying that trans don't have an advantage, but they do have an advantage over women. Then you go off on some tangent trying to justify it

Quote me.

 

[monkers]

Start a thread on it, I'll post on it. This is the gender thread. We do need to address why girls routinely drop out of sports at age 11 upwards, but allowing males into their sports doesn't help and excluding males would be an easy and obvious thing to address. I would think many girls and women are disheartened by knowing they will never be top in their sport as they have to compete against men.

This is the report being referenced, for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.cces.ca/node/66935

Debunked here by Jon Pike:
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/transge...ng-at-best-intellectually-dishonest-at-worst/

As soon as you rely on philosophers writing to say that their opinions take preponderance over what actual scientists who conducted the research say, you are no longer interested in biological reality, be the Stock, Pike, or Ali. Philosophers all rely on reduction techniques in some attempt to clarify, which can be useful, but fails at the point where they try to reduce complex scientific research that they are not trained to understand.

When you throw in any lack of objectiveness through an interest in proving the opposite and you just read reflected bigotry. After all, isn't this what caused Stock to lie to the all party parliamentary committee?

As Stock found out to her call to arms letter to the academic community, they thoroughly disparaged her for lack of rigour and for bigotry.

 

[classic33]

You can address both things at once: cheating men and better opportunities for women and girls. In fact, rectifying the first helps address the second.

Are you trying to say that women don't cheat?
Rosie M. Vivas.
Diana Kipyokei.

In the case of Vivas, her entire "running career" appears to have been built on lies, and cheating.

Better chances for women and girls, won't happen as there isn't the following for their sports as there is men's. Meaning the prize money will never be as high. One reason for more women not wanting to play in the women's side.

Darts and snooker, two highly televised sports had lower prize money for the women, also it wasn't televised. Leading women to want to play in the more televised, higher prize staked side.

Motor sport, women aren't strong enough, according to one poster* on here, to take part. He were wrong about that, lack of sponsorship was and is the bigger issue. They created the W- Series, which folded due to lack of funding. Susie Wolff was an F1 test driver, often doing the long runs in preseason testing.

Currently the interest in women's football is almost back to where it was a 100 years ago. Ahead of the men's, again.


*I posted about one woman in Indy Car, and was told she's not won much in what is her rookie season in the series. The fact she got there was overlooked.

 

[classic33]

So you picked two. So what are the two next best times. They will still beat the equivalent woman event time. There are many events all of which the young women are clearly slower or don't jump as far or high, don't throw as far as the young men.

It's clear as mud then men are faster, stronger

I didn't "pick two names", I said I know two names on that list. There's a difference between what you quoted and what you think was said in that quote.

 

[classic33]

Start a thread on it, I'll post on it. This is the gender thread. We do need to address why girls routinely drop out of sports at age 11 upwards, but allowing males into their sports doesn't help and excluding males would be an easy and obvious thing to address. I would think many girls and women are disheartened by knowing they will never be top in their sport as they have to compete against men.

This is the report being referenced, for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.cces.ca/node/66935

Debunked here by Jon Pike:
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/transge...ng-at-best-intellectually-dishonest-at-worst/

Speaking as someone who has worked with kids, aged ten and up, you'll find that many simply lose interest when they get to secondary school, purely and simply because they never had any real interest in it in the first place. On top of that, school sports are done whatever the weather, and many simply don't like going out and getting wet and cold "for no good reason".
First place in the egg and spoon race suddenly becomes something you don't talk about. Peer pressure comes into play, in a big way in the move to secondary education. The need to "fit in" or be seen as some sort of freak. Often leading to bullying, moreso amongst the girls.

You've to try and capture their interest, and get them to realise that just because you like doing something healthy, doesn't mean you're a freak.
The bigger the gap between them losing interest in taking an active part in any activity and being able to reanimate that interest in them, the harder it will be to get them going again.

Applies to both boys and girls.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As soon as you rely on philosophers writing to say that their opinions take preponderance over what actual scientists who conducted the research say, you are no longer interested in biological reality, be the Stock, Pike, or Ali.

The actual scientists agree with him, which is why sports are increasing moving to protect the Women's category. I think trying to question his academic or intellectual abilities is grasping at straws.

When you throw in any lack of objectiveness through an interest in proving the opposite and you just read reflected bigotry. After all, isn't this what caused Stock to lie to the all party parliamentary committee?

Lack of objectiveness? Every peer reviewed study going that is academically rigorous has shown male advantage exists in most sports.
Even Joanne Harper has given up denying it exists and has moved their position to one of 'meaningful competition' despite advantage.

As Stock found out to her call to arms letter to the academic community, they thoroughly disparaged her for lack of rigour and for bigotry.

Kathleen Stock, actual woman, actual lesbian, really gets your goat for some reason. You post these allegations about her and hope people believe you. What letter did she write? Let's see for ourselves.

 

[qigong chimp]

Local, anecdotal evidence suggests there's no male advantage when it comes to farming.

 

[qigong chimp]

Whereas aurora demonstrates - 675 pages and a year and a half in - that in ultra-endurance events any gender specific physiological advantage is secondary to unwavering psychological tenacity.

 

[CXRAndy]

Local, anecdotal evidence suggests there's no male advantage when it comes to farming.

Very true, I read the other day more than 25000 women are coming in the field

 

[monkers]

The actual scientists agree with him, which is why sports are increasing moving to protect the Women's category. I think trying to question his academic or intellectual abilities is grasping at straws.


Lack of objectiveness? Every peer reviewed study going that is academically rigorous has shown male advantage exists in most sports.
Even Joanne Harper has given up denying it exists and has moved their position to one of 'meaningful competition' despite advantage.



Kathleen Stock, actual woman, actual lesbian, really gets your goat for some reason. You post these allegations about her and hope people believe you. What letter did she write? Let's see for ourselves.

Stock is an academic philosopher. She is one among a small number of them that seem to have lost their minds over the human rights of trans people.

They seem to have this common trait of attempting to make conclusions of the available scientific research with a non-scientific approach, instead using a reductionist philosophical approach which infuriates the authors of the actual research. As you and I know, Stock presented to the all party parliamentary committee and lied to them but giving a false account of the evidence. The author of the evidence later called her out for it.

Stock has attempted to use her position to hive off lesbians to her cause with the frankly absurd notion that we do not consider them to be women and are angry if they call themselves lesbians. The truth is that we are in the main trans positive, encourage trans women to say they are women, and really aren't so precious about the word 'lesbian' that we feel that we have ownership - it already means any inhabitant of the island of Lesbos.

Stock tried a call of arms letter to the wider academic community. I actually received it myself, though I chose not to respond, as I'm sure was the case for many others.

Here is the response from the academic community including scientists and other academic philosophers. They headed their collective response thusly ...

Open Letter Concerning Transphobia in Philosophy​

Stock responded by doubling down and criticised the academic community. We tend to think she's a needy bigot demanding attention.

https://sites.google.com/view/trans-phil-letter/

You remain a committed fan.