Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
monkers
Squire
It isn't once you and other readers realise that you've just shifted from your earlier position that it's all about sex to something else - ''natural talent'' you recognised later, and now this.
To become an outstanding athlete one needs a sponsor, a sports physician, a dietician, a carefully managed diet, an elite level coach, physiotherapists, psychotherapists and who knows what else.
And all of this hinges on whether that person when a child lived in a household where they could flourish - most don't, and surprise, surprise when it comes to opportunities for sport, the boys get the lion's share.
Last edited:
monkers
Squire
Thanks I read that.
Now in return I ask you to read this ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/o...nee-protest-transgender-Redmond-Sullivan.html
CXRAndy
Veteran
So let's further piss on girls chances and let boys destroy what little chance they have in sport.
Btw you don't need to stay up all night posting. We can wait till morning for your drivelling
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Never claimed that sex is the only factor in sports performance. It's the biggest determinant though. We know this because in countries where male and female athletes receive the same funding, nutrition, support, training facilities - male performance (ie records, times) still outstrips female performance.
True that funding is often unequal, at grass roots anyway, but it's not as big a factor as sex - which accounts for a performance difference of 10 to 40% depending on the sport.
Your increasingly ridiculous arguments require us to pretend we are blind. It's not poor nutrition, lack of support, or low funding that's the biggest factor in Usain Bolt running faster than the amazing Allyson Felix ...
Stevo 666
Regular
Not sure I see a big problem here. Most places have disabled toilets which rarely get used: just put an extra sticker on the door of those to indicate who else should use them and job done.
Stevo 666
Regular
It's pretty obvious, isn't it.
monkers
Squire
You've been forced you to into admitting that all other factors have to matched before a comparison between sexes can be made, which is tantamount to admitting you were wrong.
I've never said that biological sex is not an important factor, I've said that it is not the only important factor, but it has been your emphasis that it is. Neither have I said that any one other factor is a bigger factor than sex; but the sum of the other factors contained within the set are bigger than sex alone.
The VTTA data is not just a limited randomised trial, or an opinion, it uses the competition times of every rider who enters a time trial event in the UK, separating cohorts not just by sex but also the kind of machine they ride. So I'll say again from those standards that a 40 year old woman will beat a 66 year old man on average, but of course trawling through their data outliers will be found where say, the fastest 80 man set a faster time than the slowest 40 year old woman.
With all of your careful selecting and cherry-picking, this is how you personally sift data, you trawl away to find the one instance where the best of one group beat the worst the other in a perverse way.
The other thing we can learn from the standardised sets that include every athlete in that set, is that the much bigger majority of participants in sport are male, as has always been the case.
Where the pool of talent is smaller, ie women in time-trialling, their results will rarely match the results of the bigger pool. The bigots went on endlessly about Laurel Hubbard in the weightlifting events in the Olympics. New Zealand is a small country with a small population, just 5 million. Laurel failed to lift a weight but managed somehow to maintain her dignity. The winner came from a country (China) with a population 280 times bigger than NZ. Laurel was 43 years old competing against younger athletes.
In the case of nutrition in children, you are using the 30p Lee argument - it's just that feeding the nations kids on the cheapest available foods ultra-processed food to fill bellies, is not the same as providing nutritious meals for their bodily development. Children from the poorest families will be affected - affected for life, not just for Christmas. Why this doesn't seem to bother you - demonstrated by your willingness to simply ignore it is beyond belief.
One minute you are sobbing it's all about those poor kids at the Tavistock Centre, and in the next minute it becomes 'let's ignore the malnourished kids and their futures, because the biological sex of trans people playing a game of chess is paramount'. In raising this, I'm not raising some side issue.
Those of us who have worked in education tend to know, that it is boys that are raised to be participants in after school sport so much more frequently (but not exclusively) than girls, that the families with resources do better than poorer families, that kids from homes with trauma or strife and those malnourished kids are the ones that never flourish in sport or education, and finally that inter-school competition generally tends to favour larger schools over smaller schools.
We also know that state sponsorship of sport makes a big difference to outcomes.
There is never going to be such a thing as a level playing field. It is unachievable.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
I've always acknowledged a range of factors contribute to athletic performance. It's obvious they do. The biggest determinant (in most sports) is the sex of those taking part.
We have thousands of sports records and plenty of sports science research that shows male body advantage. Even the time trials you linked show men perform better.
No 43 year old woman has ever made it to the Olympics in weightlifting. Average age of Olympic weightlifters is 23. Hubbard's male advantage overcame his age disadvantage. He took a place that would have gone to a woman. He took world records from women. There's no dignity in cheating
This is the usual irrelevant rant, a whataboutery to distract from what we all know about innate male advantage.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
No, better to have a 3rd unisex space. The men who identify as women don't want this sensible solution though. They want to be where women are.
CXRAndy
Veteran
3 fitness ladies V 3 average blokes
Guess who wins ?
View: https://youtu.be/7LJlKAy2pT8?si=vPNWZv8ophCneHhX
Guess who wins ?
View: https://youtu.be/7LJlKAy2pT8?si=vPNWZv8ophCneHhX
