Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

The biggest determinant in sporting performance is sex. It far outweighs the influence of genetics in individuals of the same sex, nutrition, sports funding, poverty, or anything else. The advantage begins before puberty. Pretending otherwise in order to get men into women's sports is disingenuous and would sway only the most ignorant.

Michael Phelps with his 'genetic advantage' is only fractions of a second in front of his male competitors; he's half a length in front of his female equivalent.

African male runners with a fraction of the funding of female athletes from the US and China can beat women's world records.

The male advantage varies in degree but it's nonsense to say that sex isn't far and away the largest determiner of who will win.

 

[CXRAndy]

What you seem to be saying is that because men get 99% of the funds, that must be the fault of all trans women because a handful of trans women are successful in women's sport. The insult is not what you think it is.

No, that's just how it is, men's sports attracts for more viewing and associated money.

Taking away trophies, prize winnings, knock on deals, scholarships from an already tiny piece of the pie is a further insult to those women and girls who work so hard.

Hard data in actual performance figures confirms the male advantage. No point in further diminishing women's achievements by allowing males into their sport

 

[CXRAndy]

The biggest determinant in sporting performance is sex. It far outweighs the influence of genetics in individuals of the same sex, nutrition, sports funding, poverty, or anything else. The advantage begins before puberty. Pretending otherwise in order to get men into women's sports is disingenuous and would sway only the most ignorant.

Michael Phelps with his 'genetic advantage' is only fractions of a second in front of his male competitors; he's half a length in front of his female equivalent.

African male runners with a fraction of the funding of female athletes from the US and China can beat women's world records.

The male advantage varies in degree but it's nonsense to say that sex isn't far and away the largest determiner of who will win.

View attachment 8773

And the difference in results will be just as significant between the sexes in junior rankings. Once puberty kicks in the difference increasing

 

[monkers]

No, that's just how it is, men's sports attracts for more viewing and associated money.

Taking away trophies, prize winnings, knock on deals, scholarships from an already tiny piece of the pie is a further insult to those women and girls who work so hard.

Hard data in actual performance figures confirms the male advantage. No point in further diminishing women's achievements by allowing males into their sport

That's a weak defence of a weak argument. The reason that 99% of the money going to men is not because of trans women or cis women; it is because of men. It demonstrates that male privilege that men have but trans women do not.

If you want a better argument about trans women in sport you'll need a better one.

 

[monkers]

The biggest determinant in sporting performance is sex.

Actually it is age - even in sports like snooker which are less sex affected.

 

[CXRAndy]

I never said trans were the reason of the massive payouts in the men's arena. I said it's already difficult in the women's sport already without having TiMs steal their glory

 

[monkers]

I never said trans were the reason of the massive payouts in the men's arena. I said it's already difficult in the women's sport already without having TiMs steal their glory

You didn't express it that way - that much is true. However to follow the line of your thought it became clear.

What you are saying is that it is bad enough that men dominate the glory and the funding, but then feel women are hard done by due to trans women.

Really you just need to read what you wrote and then reflect on it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Actually it is age - even in sports like snooker which are less sex affected.

Well that's not quite true, a boys youth football team, absolutely thrashed the women's USA best squad.

There is a window of age in every sport where competitors are in their peak years.

You pit similar age, similar training between men and women and men almost win every time

 

[monkers]

Michael Phelps with his 'genetic advantage' is only fractions of a second in front of his male competitors; he's half a length in front of his female equivalent.

The biggest advantage a swimmer can have is height. I have no expertise but that it the claim made by those that profess to know. Perhaps just as boxers have to fight in weight categories, perhaps swimmers should compete in height categories. That would keep Lia Thomas a class competing with just a very few other swimmers. I put the question to AI.

Yes, it’s quite true—height is generally considered an advantage in elite-level swimming. Most top swimmers are noticeably taller than average, and this isn’t just coincidence—it’s physics and physiology at play.

Taller swimmers tend to have:

• Longer limbs and wingspans, which allow for greater reach and longer strokes, meaning they can cover more distance with each movement.
• Larger hands and feet, acting like natural paddles and fins to generate more propulsion.
• Greater body surface area, which can enhance buoyancy and streamline their position in the water, reducing drag.
• Longer torsos, which help with balance and hydrodynamics, especially in strokes like freestyle and backstroke.

In fact, the average height of male Olympic swimming finalists in 2016 was around 6'2" (188 cm), and for women, about 5'9" (175 cm)—both well above global averages.

That said, while height helps, it’s not the only factor. Technique, mental toughness, training, and body proportions (like arm span relative to height) also play crucial roles. Some shorter swimmers have excelled by maximizing efficiency and power.

 

[monkers]

Michael Phelps with his 'genetic advantage' is only fractions of a second in front of his male competitors; he's half a length in front of his female equivalent.

Reliance on an outlier case to present an argument is to present a non-argument. Only data that represents trends in a population is relevant data.

 

[monkers]

African male runners with a fraction of the funding of female athletes from the US and China can beat women's world records.

I will agree that may be the outcome. However it is non sequitur to suggest that there is one absolute causation. I asked AI, as you could have done ...

Studies and analyses of East African runners—particularly from Ethiopia and Kenya—have pointed to a combination of genetic, environmental, and cultural factors that contribute to their dominance in distance running. One anatomical trait that’s often mentioned is a higher calf-to-thigh length ratio: many elite Ethiopian runners tend to have slimmer lower legs and longer tendons, which may improve running economy by reducing the energy cost of each stride.

But it’s not just about the calves. Other contributing factors include:

• High-altitude upbringing, which enhances lung capacity and oxygen efficiency.
• Lean body composition and long limbs, aiding thermoregulation and stride efficiency.
• Cultural emphasis on running, often from a young age, including running to school and back.
• Rigorous training regimens and strong community support for athletic development.

 

[CXRAndy]

Reliance on an outlier case to present an argument is to present a non-argument. Only data that represents trends in a population a relevant data.

We've been over this time and time again

Go and look at the records for Olympics swimming results in the men's then women's.

Do the same for world championship

Do the same for junior swimming in both sexes.

Then do it in athletics.

There is no reason to allow males into women's sports other than the self satisfaction of said TiM

 

[monkers]

We've been over this time and time again

Go and look at the records for Olympics swimming results in the men's then women's.

Do the same for world championship

Do the same for junior swimming in both sexes.

Then do it in athletics.

There is no reason to allow males into women's sports other than the self satisfaction of said TiM

I'm a lawyer, as such I tend to be consistent to the principle of defending the facts.

If your argument was presented to a court it would fail on sight. In human rights law there has to be a high bar. Furthermore the question would need to be framed, ''there needs to substantial evidence to exclude a person'' from the activitiy. A blanket ban on people sharing that characteristic is not lawful.

The legal principle that prevails is ''to treat a person less favourably''.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We've been over this time and time again
Go and look at the records for Olympics swimming results in the men's then women's.
Do the same for world championship
Do the same for junior swimming in both sexes.
Then do it in athletics.

There is no reason to allow males into women's sports other than the self satisfaction of said TiM

Bingo. These are endlessly disingenuous arguments, disproved over and over by science, rejected by more and more sports organisations, and really requiring only the possession of a pair of eyes to be seen as bs.
They have one aim only: to force people to accept men into somewhere they don't belong. Ditto prisons, toilets, and every other female only space.

It's just no fun competing with the other men.

It beggars belief that there are people on here who still aren't seeing through these posts and through the poster.

It's that idiot Bach's last day as head of the IOC today. A tenure in which he oversaw and encouraged the demise of fairness for female athletes. Good riddance. Shame Coe didn't get the post. Let's hope Coventry follows the science and restores the credibility of the IOC after the embarrassing spectacle of the last few years.

 

[monkers]

Bingo. These are endlessly disingenuous arguments, disproved over and over by science, rejected by more and more sports organisations, and really requiring only the possession of a pair of eyes to be seen as bs.
They have one aim only: to force people to accept men into somewhere they don't belong. Ditto prisons, toilets, and every other female only space.

It's just no fun competing with the other men.

It beggars belief that there are people on here who still aren't seeing through these posts and through the poster.

It isn't complicated Aurora. It isn't the case that there needs to be a reason to allow. The starting point is that people have a right to be included until there is clear evidence that they should be disallowed. The question is, have you provided the evidence. It is questionable that you have.

What you have provided are outlier cases. Phelps is an outlier case. World record holders are all outlier cases by their very nature. None of this presents as solid evidence that men are always superior in sport in competition. It might be that they are; however what you provide as evidence is not, and can be explained away in other ways, therefore it remains questionable. Yes this is about the quality of the evidence to make it viable.

I'm not going to indulge you with examination of each thing you present, so I'll take one from the top - the 100m World records.

Bolt is faster than Florence Griffith Joyner by 0.9s. That's a comfortable margin in a race of that length. Bolt ran his race in 41 strides, Joyner needed 49. This is due to his height advantage of some 10 inches. This equates to Joyner needing an extra 0.1 seconds approx for each extra stride, which is certainly sufficient to explain the difference. The average difference in heights between the sexes is nothing like 10 inches, therefore an important difference between Bolt and Joyner comes not just from sex, but stride length. Joyner has a possible advantage over other women because she is approx 3 inches taller than average for a woman.

The requirement is to find the measured averages performances of male and females across a range of sports.