The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[ScottPuss20]

Transitioning isn't going to overcome physical height advantages. Why you picked basketball is interesting b/c I don't think any transgender athletes have attempted basketball.

However, in the sport Scott decided to pick, being born a man has not allowed any competitive advantage to Lia Thomas b/c the most she accomplished was 1-win that wasn't record breaking. So, her situation the right-wing media made a frenzy over didn't actually mean much to their argument that biological men will beat up on women.

She was ranked 44th amongst female swimmers in the US in 2022 despite born a male.

USA - Top Swimmers 2021-2022

USA | Top Swimmers 2021-2022

www.swimcloud.com

Here's more info:

Despite winning the 2022 500-yard freestyle that burst her into stardom, Thomas broke no records. Kate Douglass on the other hand, who was ranked 2nd in 2022, broke 18 NCAA records that year. Kate would go on to be ranked #1 the following season & #6 this season.

Why the data shows trans swimming champion Lia Thomas didn’t have an unfair advantage

The NCAA champion has sparked controversy and become a hate figure among conservatives, but statistics show little evidence that she performed any differently to other women, Io Dodds reports

www.independent.co.uk

If she's got such a big advantage, why did she get beat easily by other women in the sport? Why wasn't she smashing records left & right?

Well, because referring back to what I said:


Quit buying into Conservative culture war nonsense. You're clearly not actually looking into this topic which makes it incredibly easy to disprove your vague & blunt responses.

Guess it was all a lie then. To be honest I'm too lazy to look into it so thank goodness you do. Helps me out a lot.

 

[Danoff]

Transitioning isn't going to overcome physical height advantages. Why you picked basketball is interesting b/c I don't think any transgender athletes have attempted basketball.

I picked basketball because the advantage is most obvious. If there were a sport I could have thought of that had a more obvious and less refutable advantage, I'd have picked that one. Strongest case to make the point up front so that we can establish common ground and work from there. The idea is to get agreement on the premise so we can hash out the details.

However, in the sport Scott decided to pick, being born a man has not allowed any competitive advantage to Lia Thomas b/c the most she accomplished was 1-win that wasn't record breaking. So, her situation the right-wing media made a frenzy over didn't actually mean much to their argument that biological men will beat up on women.

She was ranked 44th amongst female swimmers in the US in 2022 despite born a male.

USA - Top Swimmers 2021-2022

USA | Top Swimmers 2021-2022

www.swimcloud.com

Here's more info:

Despite winning the 2022 500-yard freestyle that burst her into stardom, Thomas broke no records. Kate Douglass on the other hand, who was ranked 2nd in 2022, broke 18 NCAA records that year. Kate would go on to be ranked #1 the following season & #6 this season.

Why the data shows trans swimming champion Lia Thomas didn’t have an unfair advantage

The NCAA champion has sparked controversy and become a hate figure among conservatives, but statistics show little evidence that she performed any differently to other women, Io Dodds reports

www.independent.co.uk

If she's got such a big advantage, why did she get beat easily by other women in the sport? Why wasn't she smashing records left & right?

Well, because referring back to what I said:


Quit buying into Conservative culture war nonsense. You're clearly not actually looking into this topic which makes it incredibly easy to disprove your vague & blunt responses.

You're not asking the right question. I'm sure it's clear to you that just establishing that she can't beat every woman in the world isn't enough to figure out whether she has a competitive advantage. If I, with no training whatsoever, and flat feet, at age 43, joined a female marathon with Olympic runners, I would get crushed. This does not establish that me being born male isn't a competitive advantage. It just establishes that the advantage didn't make me the best runner among all females in the world.

What you'd need to do is establish her ranking among male athletes, and the establish her ranking among female athletes, adjust for population, and try to determine whether she sits at a similar number of standard deviations from the average. Or something like that. This, of course, would only be possible if the athletic distribution between men and women were identical for the sport. But for swimmers, they're not.

The women's world record for 400m freestyle is currently 3:55.38. That would have ranked 30th at the Tokyo Olympics among men. It's important to stress that this doesn't represent 30th in the world, because individual teams may have had additional competitors that could have beaten that time. It's 30th among nations (give or take, it's more like 28th among nations because Australia and the US had two finishers).

So clearly had she competed in the male bracket she'd have done worse. That is the competitive advantage. The next thing to do is to consider mitigating factors. That's a whole science of its own, and there is a lot of research in that area. But it takes a lot of effort to show that an athlete has undergone sufficient mitigating factors to remove this advantage.

TL;DR There is a clear advantage for being male in this sport. Whether a particular athlete has lost that advantage is a complex question. There are sports (like basketball) where there are no apparent mitigations that would appear to remove the advantage.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[McLaren]

I picked basketball because the advantage is most obvious. If there were a sport I could have thought of that had a more obvious and less refutable advantage, I'd have picked that one. Strongest case to make the point up front so that we can establish common ground and work from there. The idea is to get agreement on the premise so we can hash out the details.

It's a sport no transgender athletes are competing in (afaik), & not all sports are the same. There's nothing to hash out details on by bringing up the most extreme scenario that doesn't even currently exist.

It's very close to teetering on the Conservative approach of, "Bring up a situation that doesn't exist & then get mad about it".

You're not asking the right question. I'm sure it's clear to you that just establishing that she can't beat every woman in the world isn't enough to figure out whether she has a competitive advantage. If I, with no training whatsoever, and flat feet, at age 43, joined a female marathon with Olympic runners, I would get crushed. This does not establish that me being born male isn't a competitive advantage. It just establishes that the advantage didn't make me the best runner among all females in the world.

What you'd need to do is establish her ranking among male athletes, and the establish her ranking among female athletes, adjust for population, and try to determine whether she sits at a similar number of standard deviations from the average. Or something like that. This, of course, would only be possible if the athletic distribution between men and women were identical for the sport. But for swimmers, they're not.

The women's world record for 400m freestyle is currently 3:55.38. That would have ranked 30th at the Tokyo Olympics among men. It's important to stress that this doesn't represent 30th in the world, because individual teams may have had additional competitors that could have beaten that time. It's 30th among nations (give or take, it's more like 28th among nations because Australia and the US had two finishers).

So clearly had she competed in the male bracket she'd have done worse. That is the competitive advantage. The next thing to do is to consider mitigating factors. That's a whole science of its own, and there is a lot of research in that area. But it takes a lot of effort to show that an athlete has undergone sufficient mitigating factors to remove this advantage.

TL;DR There is a clear advantage for being male in this sport. Whether a particular athlete has lost that advantage is a complex question. There are sports (like basketball) where there are no apparent mitigations that would appear to remove the advantage.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the argument originally made, the argument Conservatives repeatedly make about MtF transgenders in Female sports. It is the very point Babylon Bee thinks it is clever with by showcasing a motorcycle claiming it's a bicycle & wiping the competing because, "Haha, motorized engine vs human legs". The argument being that, if we allow MtF athletes in Women's sports, they will use their biological advantage from being a man to beat all the female athletes. Here is that very point:

Oh, I'm a not a good athlete as a man but as a woman I can be the best athlete.

Lia Thomas ended up not being the best athlete in women's swimming. She was barely in the Top 50 nationally ranked. She won 1 event. She broke no female-created records. The same gathering she "created" national news in, another biological girl broke multiple all-time records & is amongst Top 6 in the country. The fact she ranked even lower in men's means nothing; ranked 44th or ranked 300th, she's still getting beaten by other swimmers & nowhere close to being the best in her competition. Anyone arguing she's still got an advantage should ask themselves, "Ok, & what advantage did the other 43 women have over her?"

their genetic advantages, metabolic differences, physical characteristics, height, for example, and all the socioeconomic access to better nutrition, better coaching, better training equipment

Trying to bring up where she would compete if she was still a male has ultimately no stake here b/c it's not the argument brought forth by far right media/outlets or in the last page. I'm not going to entertain this discussion anymore b/c my counter-point & evidence has already been made; MtF do not get to be "the best athlete" after transitioning. Carry on at your own.

 

[TheCracker]

From what i've seen and heard, and i'm not talking about comments on here, but there appears to be more people getting worked up about trans women in sport then there are people who actually watch and follow women's sports.

 

[McLaren]

From what i've seen and heard, and i'm not talking about comments on here, but there appears to be more people getting worked up about trans women in sport then there are people who actually watch and follow women's sports.

Exactly.

It is akin to the Utah House & Senate who pushed forth HB11 - a bill that bans transgender students from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity. The Governor initially vetoed b/c it only affected 4 kids. 4 kids in the entire state of Utah & only 1 was actually active in female sports.

“Four kids who aren’t dominating or winning trophies or taking scholarships. Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day,” Gov. Cox wrote in the letter.

BREAKING: Utah Legislature Overrides Gov. Cox’s Veto of Anti-Trans…

Governor's Veto Noted Only Four Transgender Athletes Playing High School Sports in Utah

www.hrc.org

 

[Danoff]

It's a sport no transgender athletes are competing in (afaik), & not all sports are the same.

I'm not sure what the WNBA rules are, or the Olympic committee rules are, but you won't be surprised to find out that this is an area where there are people pushing for trans women to compete. It's not as though basketball is a non-issue.

There's nothing to hash out details on by bringing up the most extreme scenario that doesn't even currently exist.

It does exist since there are currently people actively trying to do this. But beyond that, it does help demonstrate the point. Looking away from it is not helping the discussion.

It's very close to teetering on the Conservative approach of, "Bring up a situation that doesn't exist & then get mad about it".

That's absurd.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the argument originally made, the argument Conservatives repeatedly make about MtF transgenders in Female sports. It is the very point Babylon Bee thinks it is clever with by showcasing a motorcycle claiming it's a bicycle & wiping the competing because, "Haha, motorized engine vs human legs". The argument being that, if we allow MtF athletes in Women's sports, they will use their biological advantage from being a man to beat all the female athletes. Here is that very point:



Lia Thomas ended up not being the best athlete in women's swimming. She was barely in the Top 50 nationally ranked. She won 1 event. She broke no female-created records. The same gathering she "created" national news in, another biological girl broke multiple all-time records & is amongst Top 6 in the country. The fact she ranked even lower in men's means nothing; ranked 44th or ranked 300th, she's still getting beaten by other swimmers & nowhere close to being the best in her competition. Anyone arguing she's still got an advantage should ask themselves, "Ok, & what advantage did the other 43 women have over her?"

They're better athletes, so much better that it makes up for the advantage in the sport of having male characteristics for a worse athlete, including having gone through puberty as a male.

Trying to bring up where she would compete if she was still a male has ultimately no stake here b/c it's not the argument brought forth by far right media/outlets or in the last page. I'm not going to entertain this discussion anymore b/c my counter-point & evidence has already been made; MtF do not get to be "the best athlete" after transitioning. Carry on at your own.

In many sports there is a competitive advantage. In some sports, mitigations can nullify most, possibly even all of that competitive advantage. In other sports, not so much. Trying to make this about whether we have a trans woman athlete breaking world records or being #1 is something of a strawman. The discussion is about whether there is an advantage. And there are trans women that are out there breaking records, and that's to be expected if there is an advantage.

From what i've seen and heard, and i'm not talking about comments on here, but there appears to be more people getting worked up about trans women in sport then there are people who actually watch and follow women's sports.

I'm planning on watching lots of women compete in the Olympics quite soon. This is also a logical fallacy, that you need to watch women's sports to weigh in on what rules are fair. It's also something of a farce of an argument given that the women's college basketball championship got better ratings than the men's.


Let's look at the counterpoints here:
1) Not that many trans women play basketball... yet.
2) Lia Thomas didn't break any records or win that much
3) Some people don't watch women's sports

These are not strong.

 

[TheCracker]

Exactly.

It is akin to the Utah House & Senate who pushed forth HB11 - a bill that bans transgender students from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity. The Governor initially vetoed b/c it only affected 4 kids. 4 kids in the entire state of Utah & only 1 was actually active in female sports.

The way i see it, the right has been losing the support of women voters over their anti-abortion stance, so they're trying to gain favor back by blowing up the issue of trans women in female sport. Trying to sprinkle some of that magic TERF dust around.

*slight edit added

 

[Danoff]

The way i see it, the right has been losing support over their anti-abortion stance so they're trying to gain favor back by blowing up the issue of trans women in female sport. Trying to sprinkle some of that magic TERF dust around.

You can try to look at it that way, but you're confusing two different issues. Ask yourself why. Why is it necessary to label the people arguing one issue based on how they (presumably) feel about a different issue that you feel more comfortable with.

For the record, I'm pro-choice and not right wing. And I'm saying I largely agree with the satire video.

 

[McLaren]

Trying to make this about whether we have a trans woman athlete breaking world records or being #1 is something of a strawman.

Wrong. That was the very argument the Babylon Bee & Scott brought forth. "As a female, I can be the best athlete". Lia Thomas did not end up being the best athlete.

You are the one on the verge of bringing up a strawman by bringing in an entirely different sport no transgenders are actively competing in just to showcase the most extreme example of physical differences. You are the one bringing up, "Well, she still has a biological advantage"; Thomas still got beat by 43 other women. "Well, transgenders are breaking records elsewhere". And a transgender woman lost in Olympic women's weightlifting by failing to even lift, & another came dead last in Olympic women's skateboarding. It's almost like there are a multitude of factors at play....

An absolutely irrelevant & pointless discussion to what I originally debunked.

 

[Danoff]

Wrong. That was the very argument the Babylon Bee & Scott brought forth. "As a female, I can be the best athlete". Lia Thomas did not up being the best athlete.

Then you're missing the point entirely.

You are the one on the verge of bringing up a strawman by bringing in an entirely different sport no transgenders are actively competing in just to showcase the most extreme example of physical differences.

Figured you'd see the point quickly. And that is an area where trans women are making strides to compete.

You are the one bringing up, "Well, she still has a biological advantage"; Thomas still got beat by 43 other women. "Well, transgenders are breaking records elsewhere". And a transgender women lost in Olympic women's weightlifting by failing to even lift, & another came dead last in Olympic women's skateboarding.

She has a biological advantage for being male. It is a material issue. Just because one person didn't win doesn't make it not an issue. If you won't look at that, you should ask yourself why.

 

[McLaren]

Then you're missing the point entirely.

Nope. I can't help you if you repeatedly miss what Scott specifically said.

She has a biological advantage for being male. It is a material issue. Just because one person didn't win doesn't make it not an issue. If you won't look at that, you should ask yourself why.

I don't look at it because it is not the argument Conservatives bring forth regarding it. They are not arguing in the faith of an overall advantage, they argue in the vein that MtF athletes are going to automatically beat up on other female athletes & therefore, should be banned. They made this exact fuss over Thomas, herself. They are not arguing that she retained some biological advantage over the other women, they zero'd in on her 1 win (perhaps as to what Scott possibly did to even bring up her name) & ignore that she's nowhere close to posing a "threat" to other females in the sport.

Again, if Thomas beat the other women b/c of her biological advantage from being a man, what advantage did the other women have to beat her & everyone else? Again, there's quite possibly many more factors at play.

 

[Danoff]

Nope. I can't help you if you repeatedly miss what Scott specifically said.

I wouldn't even think you yourself would be comfortable with this position, because it's a position where you have to get squeamish if trans women start winning more and breaking more records. That doesn't seem like a good place to be.

You went from a very broad interpretation of the message of the video - that it was about people's preferences for what they wanted to be called, to a suddenly narrow interpretation where it's about whether one specific athlete can win all or many of her competitions. That's quite the shift. There is a nice, easy to understand position in between where the video is about unfair competitive advantage. It's not hard to see. It feels like you're trying not to.

I don't look at it because it is not the argument Conservatives bring forth regarding it. They are not arguing in the faith of an overall advantage, they argue in the vein that MtF athletes are going to automatically beat up on other female athletes & therefore, should be banned. They made this exact fuss over Thomas, herself. They are not arguing that she retained some biological advantage over the other women, they zero'd in on her 1 win (perhaps as to what Scott possibly did to even bring up her name) & ignore that she's nowhere close to posing a "threat" to other females in the sport.

First of all, you're not talking to "Conservatives", you're talking to me. So maybe don't ignore me because you think other people haven't made the same argument. Secondly, I do think that the video was making this point. Even if you don't, you can still address the point, or consider whether you agree with it.

Again, if Thomas beat the other women b/c of her biological advantage from being a man, what advantage did the other women have to beat her & everyone else? Again, there's quite possibly many more factors at play.

I already told you, they're better enough that they overcome the advantage. In the example I gave earlier where the WR women's time would rank 30th among the men at Tokyo, you'd have to be one of the 30 people who beat it to win the women's division. There were only 30 men who beat the women's WR time (which might have been set at Tokyo). If you take the 100th place male competitor and put them straight into the women's competition in the Olympics, they wouldn't win that competition. They might win lots of others, but not that one - though their placement would be higher. But if you took one of the top 30 men from the Tokyo competition and assigned them to the women's bracket, they would win and set a WR absent any mitigations.

There are obviously infinite "factors at play", but it remains that being male is an unfair competitive advantage in women's brackets. And that's a point that should be considered seriously.

 

[McLaren]

I wouldn't even think you yourself would be comfortable with this position, because it's a position where you have to get squeamish if trans women start winning more and breaking more records. That doesn't seem like a good place to be.

That conveniently ignores all the transwomen who aren't winning & breaking records, 2 of which I brought up.

Someone coming into a sport & absolutely dominating is not some new phenomenon. All factors regarding it must be considered before we start going, "'Cause it's a dude"....

First of all, you're not talking to "Conservatives", you're talking to me.

You interjected yourself into a conversation that specifically revolved around debunking a Conservative talking point, i.e: "Men are **** at sports until they become women, then they are the best". Thomas was immediately brought up following it ignoring the entire story around her.

I already told you, they're better enough that they overcome the advantage.

So, then skill & the ability to perform is the actual key to competing to win.

There are obviously infinite "factors at play", but it remains that being male is an unfair competitive advantage in women's brackets. And that's a point that should be considered seriously.

Except there's already nothing fair about sports. Remember bringing up basketball?

Muggsy Bogues was a 5' 3" NBA player. Everyone in the NBA had an "unfair" physical advantage to him given he's also considerably shorter than the average WNBA player (6 feet). He lasted 13 years in the NBA. The average NBA career length is just under 5 years. Despite every player being taller, bigger, & likely stronger, he still had a lasting career in a sport not built for people under 6 foot.

 

[Danoff]

That conveniently ignores all the transwomen who aren't winning & breaking records, 2 of which I brought up.

No it doesn't. There is literally nothing about that which ignores this.

Someone coming into a sport & absolutely dominating is not some new phenomenon. All factors regarding it must be considered before we start going, "'Cause it's a dude"....

One factor is being male, especially having gone through puberty as a male. For some sports this is a bigger factor than for others.

You interjected yourself into a conversation that specifically revolved around debunking a Conservative talking point, i.e: "Men are **** at sports until they become women, then they are the best". Thomas was immediately brought up following it ignoring the entire story around her.

Maybe calling it a "talking point" and taking the worst example you can find is not helpful.

So, then skill & the ability to perform is the actual key to competing to win.

It's a factor. So is being male.

Except there's already nothing fair about sports. Remember bringing up basketball?

Muggsy Bogues was a 5' 3" NBA player. Everyone in the NBA had an "unfair" physical advantage to him given he's also considerably shorter than the average WNBA player (6 feet). He lasted 13 years in the NBA. The average NBA career length is just under 5 years.

In some sports, like boxing, there are more categories. If the NBA had height categories, Bogues would likely have been the Jordan of his category. Obviously an outstanding player that did much to compensate for the disadvantage of being short in the sport. In basketball, aside from the age-based categories like high school, college, professional, the only category I know of is male vs. female.

I agree that there are other factors which are "unfair" in the sport. And there could be categories for those other factors. But there aren't, there is a category for male and female though.

 

[McLaren]

One factor is being male, especially having gone through puberty as a male. For some sports this is a bigger factor than for others.

So, there's still multiple factors.

Maybe calling it a "talking point" and taking the worst example you can find is not helpful.

I didn't make that point & I didn't choose Thomas. I debunked the statement & supported athlete attributed to it that was brought up by someone else. Take it up with the other member if you don't find it helpful.

It's a factor. So is being male.

So, there's still multiple factors.

But there aren't, there is a category for male and female though.

That are still compromised of multiple factors that contribute to success in them.

Being a biological male will only get you so far. The overlapping key to winning in any sport is still skill & ability to perform to overcome others' advantages, physical or not.

 

[eran0004]

Truth is there are a group of people who game system in order to find success.

Like who?

 

[Danoff]

So, there's still multiple factors.

There are obviously infinite "factors at play", but it remains that being male is an unfair competitive advantage in women's brackets. And that's a point that should be considered seriously.

Being a biological male will only get you so far. The overlapping key to winning in any sport is still skill & ability to perform to overcome others' advantages, physical or not.

Being biologically male with get you an unfair advantage in the women's bracket. It's not deterministic, but it is an unfair advantage.

This is not difficult to understand. Steroids would be similar, and many other techniques that are banned. If you cheat, you can still lose.

 

[McLaren]

This is not difficult to understand.

Refer this back to yourself as well.

We've both already come to agreement there's a multitude of factors at play. Sports are already filled with unfair situations athletes learn to overcome, whether in physicality or upbringing. Some opponents are going to be naturally much bigger & stronger; that never stops a Point Guard taking it to straight to the basket over a much larger Center.

Being a biological male is advantage, but it's not going to automatically be a major one. You can consider it seriously all you want, so long as you consider everything else involved in each transgender athlete. Everything else that matters in professional athlete becoming successful is just as important for a transgender athlete. Every sport, athlete, & situation must be looked at individually. Political coverage refuses to do so.

 

[Danoff]

Being a biological male is advantage, but it's not going to automatically be a major one. You can consider it seriously all you want, so long as you consider everything else involved in each transgender athlete. Everything else that matters in professional athlete becoming successful is just as important for a transgender athlete. Every sport, athlete, & situation must be looked at individually. Political coverage refuses to do so.

The sports were talking about have a men's category and a women's category because of that advantage. It's the whole point of the category. What part of this is hard?

There's no "privileged" and "underprivileged" category for basketball (I mean, maybe there is somewhere, but not at the pro level). If we were talking about people breaking that rule, then whether someone were "privileged" according to the rules would suddenly be germane to the topic. If someone tries to compete in the Special Olympics but doesn't have a conforming disability, we could talk about that instead.

Right now we're talking about the men's and women's category of sport, but you seem to want to talk about everything and anything else.

 

[McLaren]

What part of this is hard?

All of it apparently. You're so intent on wanting to basically blanket all transgender athletes as needing serious consideration for them participating in female sports because of a biological advantage (like Conservatives) whilst acknowledging & ignoring that a multitude of factors can determine how each individual transgender athlete has been competing. You want to keep harping on how a man gets a unfair advantage in female brackets, but continuously gloss over everything else that has determined that athlete's success and that sports are filled with unfair advantages to begin with.

Your last sentence is just nonsense. The only thing I've been talking about specifically is transgenders in female sports. You just keep writing off anything that doesn't revolve around, "biological advantage = unfair success" even when that's been referenced 3 times to obviously not matter in real world events taken place.

What's hard for you to grasp is to judge the athlete individually & their circumstance. I'm not going to blindly seriously consider that MtF athletes should be barred from competing without taking everything else into account. For every MtF that's apparently breaking records somewhere, there's also a Lia Thomas & Laurel Hubbard who did nothing to threaten their competition.

 

[Exorcet]

Separating athletes based on biological sex differences is fair, but it's also not necessary. While it has been done for the sake of competition there are many other ways that athletes could be classified. We could even do away with classification altogether and that would still be fair since any classification is ultimately subjective and imperfect. It should be left up the people organizing an event to decide who they want to compete and how they are to be judged.

 

[Danoff]

All of it apparently. You're so intent on wanting to basically blanket all transgender athletes as needing serious consideration for them participating in female sports because of a biological advantage (like Conservatives) whilst acknowledging & ignoring that a multitude of factors can determine how each individual transgender athlete has been competing. You want to keep harping on how a man gets a unfair advantage in female brackets, but continuously gloss over everything else that has determined that athlete's success and that sports are filled with unfair advantages to begin with.

Your last sentence is just nonsense. The only thing I've been talking about specifically is transgenders in female sports. You just keep writing off anything that doesn't revolve around, "biological advantage = unfair success" even when that's been referenced 3 times to obviously not matter in real world events taken place.

What's hard for you to grasp is to judge the athlete individually & their circumstance. I'm not going to blindly seriously consider that MtF athletes should be barred from competing without taking everything else into account. For every MtF that's apparently breaking records somewhere, there's also a Lia Thomas & Laurel Hubbard who did nothing to threaten their competition.

Ultimately the competition itself does judge each athlete individually. If the sport doesn't consider privilege, or loving parents, or nutrition, or specialized coaching, to be an unfair advantage that is against the rules - so be it. I'm not going to sit here and talk about whether something qualified as specialized coaching.

But these sports DO categorize male and female competitors, and they do it for real reasons of advantage (and for safety). And so it makes sense to discuss the advantages of a male puberty on a competitor in various sports. If the sport allows testosterone and steroids for all competitors, for example, then all of them can get that specific advantage. But it doesn't, and that's why we end up in this particular discussion - because it doesn't.

We can get into those other areas as well. We can talk about whether Reggie Bush should have a Heisman, or whether someone really is a college athlete after they've "red shirted". There are other regulations people try to skirt.

Edit:

Why do you keep wanting to compare me to conservatives? I don't do guilt by association.

Separating athletes based on biological sex differences is fair, but it's also not necessary. While it has been done for the sake of competition there are many other ways that athletes could be classified. We could even do away with classification altogether and that would still be fair since any classification is ultimately subjective and imperfect. It should be left up the people organizing an event to decide who they want to compete and how they are to be judged.

Obviously I agree with this. But I will say that there are real reasons why sports ultimately are compelled to offer male and female brackets. I think it's dismissive of the popularity of women's sports to suggest that we should just do away with it because some people are uncomfortable talking about the competitive advantage of being male (for some sports).

 

[Spacegoat]

View attachment 1355411

 

[ScottPuss20]

All of this is completely irrelevant to the argument originally made, the argument Conservatives repeatedly make about MtF transgenders in Female sports. It is the very point Babylon Bee thinks it is clever with by showcasing a motorcycle claiming it's a bicycle & wiping the competing because, "Haha, motorized engine vs human legs". The argument being that, if we allow MtF athletes in Women's sports, they will use their biological advantage from being a man to beat all the female athletes. Here is that very point:

Lia Thomas ended up not being the best athlete in women's swimming. She was barely in the Top 50 nationally ranked. She won 1 event. She broke no female-created records. The same gathering she "created" national news in, another biological girl broke multiple all-time records & is amongst Top 6 in the country. The fact she ranked even lower in men's means nothing; ranked 44th or ranked 300th, she's still getting beaten by other swimmers & nowhere close to being the best in her competition. Anyone arguing she's still got an advantage should ask themselves, "Ok, & what advantage did the other 43 women have over her?"

Trying to bring up where she would compete if she was still a male has ultimately no stake here b/c it's not the argument brought forth by far right media/outlets or in the last page. I'm not going to entertain this discussion anymore b/c my counter-point & evidence has already been made; MtF do not get to be "the best athlete" after transitioning. Carry on at your own.

Wrong. That was the very argument the Babylon Bee & Scott brought forth. "As a female, I can be the best athlete". Lia Thomas did not end up being the best athlete.

Nope. I can't help you if you repeatedly miss what Scott specifically said.

I don't look at it because it is not the argument Conservatives bring forth regarding it. They are not arguing in the faith of an overall advantage, they argue in the vein that MtF athletes are going to automatically beat up on other female athletes & therefore, should be banned. They made this exact fuss over Thomas, herself. They are not arguing that she retained some biological advantage over the other women, they zero'd in on her 1 win (perhaps as to what Scott possibly did to even bring up her name) & ignore that she's nowhere close to posing a "threat" to other females in the sport.

Again, if Thomas beat the other women b/c of her biological advantage from being a man, what advantage did the other women have to beat her & everyone else? Again, there's quite possibly many more factors at play.

I don't know why you're still going after me. I admitted that I was wrong.

Like who?

 

[eran0004]

@ScottPuss20 So as far as truths go, that one was of the kind that’s… well… not supported by empirical evidence?

 

[ScottPuss20]

@ScottPuss20 So as far as truths go, that one was of the kind that’s… well… not supported by empirical evidence?

Yeah I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know why you're still going after me. I admitted that I was wrong.

It was me referencing the statement that kicked off this last page & where it originated from.

It wasn't my intent for it to come across as still picking at you, & I apologize for that.

 

[Liquid]

 

[UKMikey]

View attachment 1356161

Check, and mate.