webadict

joined 2 years ago
[–] webadict@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fascists don't consider all white people to be white.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

All the people on Epstein's client list

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Then get a picture of a tattoo, and whenever you ask someone if they want to see your tattoo, just show them that picture. Way less commitment.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But, I think you don't want sports segregated by sex assigned at birth, either. If you did, you would have trans men competing against women. And again, trans men still compete and win at sports while competing against other men just like any other masc athlete, and if your argument is that men, as a category, are better than women at sports, then you won't accept trans men competing against women, either.

The thing is, there's not much point debating you. It feels like you would probably be okay with excluding trans people from sports, and that feels more and more like the point with these types of debates. And if you are okay with trans men competing against men, then is it not kinda bigoted to not also be okay with trans women competing against women? Why exclude them for doing everything they can to make it fair? Even the Olympics had a plan for trans athletes that was statistically shown to be fair for competitors based on medical experts.

Like, in a perfect world, there would be better sports categorization, but until that point, we see trans women perform like women and trans men perform like men, so that is where we should allow them to compete. And if there is some sort of issue where someone (male or female, trans or cis) dramatically over performs, that would be a better time to deal with that particular one-off.

Anyway, feel free to look into long- and ultra-distance running for instances of women getting closer to men's times, but, heck, women are closing the gap in shorter running competitions as well, even if at a slower rate. As for the 7% to -13% advantage, trans athletes were compared against cis athletes in a variety of activities, testing things from jump height to grip strength to wingspan, and the advantages in most categories ranged from a 7% advantage to a 13% disadvantage for the trans athlete on average. The biggest issue is that there just aren't enough trans athletes to know how much of an advantage or disadvantage being trans gives you, but, on average, it is likely to be pretty minimal if there even is one.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Apologies. That was meant to be sarcastic, and not a blame on Democrats. I was mostly making fun of the extreme lengths people are going to to say that the Republicans are somehow not to blame for this.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Keep on trying. One of these days, those Democrats will turn around and say not to reveal this info, and then that'll vindicate the child-loving Republicans.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Hey, where's all those losers that kept saying the Dems didn't actually want it released? Come on out of the woodwork, ya fucking losers.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then... Why is there even a problem?

These aren't inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn't true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.

Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don't. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.

Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

See, the thing is, I disagree. No one would take the years it takes to transition for the unknown potential advantage. We do not know what amount of advantage or disadvantage transitioning would give, and the evidence we currently have says that there isn't a statistical advantage.

These policies don't even protect cis-women. Women born with hormonal abnormalities or genetic advantages are directly impacted. These are seen as beneficial in male competitors (Michael Phelps is a genetic lottery winner and should probably be in his own league), but if a woman happened to benefit by having naturally higher testosterone production, height, or skeletal structure, should she be excluded from competing against women? Then the only difference between that hypothetical trans athlete and cis athlete is... That they are trans.

Most of this issue is really due to how we segregate sports. We arbitrarily use gender/sex because there are genetic and cultural differences that mostly correlate to difference in outcomes. There are better ways to segregate sports (ala weight classes in boxing) that would more fairly match opponents, but we don't do these. Why? Mostly laziness, somewhat historical systems of oppression.

So, no, I don't agree. When you can find a trans athlete that transitioned for am advantage, I will acknowledge your point.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Do you not think a cis-female 52-year old former athlete and ex-Navy could play college basketball as well or better than Gabrielle Ludwig? Mission College didn't go to playoffs the one year that Gabrielle Ludwig played 30 minutes a game.

Do you... Do you think older women are shit at basketball?

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Name one transfem Olympian that this ruling protects against. Which of those girls are out there stealing medals?

Like, imagine an athlete so dedicated to trying to win that they spend years paying stupid amounts of money to go to a psychologist, go on HRT, get surgery, and deal with unbelievable amounts of stigma on top of the training you also would need to do in order to get almost no advantage (or possibly negative advantage) instead of just buying steroids.

Imagine being stupid enough to believe that.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

... That makes sense. Whoops!

view more: next ›