5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season

Grace T. said:
Nope. It’s a common technique in Socratic methodology such as we use to teach law school. Drawing a logical extension of the principles drawn up and applying them to new situations.

Translator help me out

Translator: “I don’t like it when my own principles are used against me.”

Me: “oh”
Click to expand...

It's just rude. And it was rude when Socrates did it.

Typical Platonic dialogue, with minor modifications:

Athenian: So you see you're being an asshole and ducking the argument?

Socrates: Why yes, I'm being an asshole and ducking the argument.

Athenian: And you understand that the only possible remedy is for you to drink hemlock.

Socrates: Why yes, the only possible remedy is for me to drink hemlock.


Other people can speak for themselves. If you can't defeat their argument on the merits, you just lose. You don't get to reinterpret their argument to some weaker version that you can defeat.
 
watfly said:
Is this "right" or "fair" to require someone to take a serious biology changing medication to compete? Did you know that in international track and field that the IAAF testosterone test only applies to women athletes with a DSD condition? Non-DSD women with excessive levels of T are not required to reduce their T with T suppressants. If high T is a performance enhancer than its seems arbitrary to apply the rule to only certain woman. This is not to mention that the level of T that disqualifies someone from competition is subjective. Who gets to decide how masculine is too masculine?

Also the IAAF rules on high T only applies to certain events. For instance it applies to the 400m but not the 200m. For setting rules of competition this just seem far too arbitrary and why I favor a simple X and Y test.
Click to expand...
To be honest, @watfly, I wasn’t fully aware of all these nuances, and they definitely add layers of complexity to this issue. But when it comes down to fairness in sports and leveling the playing field, I believe it ultimately becomes a personal choice. Do you want to take the necessary measures to step into the arena?

Rules are rules, and I believe they should remain objective and decisive. I also support giving people options like the choice to take certain drugs to suppress T levels so they can compete but it’s up to each individual to decide whether to take on that risk. It’s similar to how we approach any medication: when you go to the pharmacy, they inform you of all the potential complications, and then you make your choice.

In the end, it’s about weighing the options and deciding what’s right for you, all while understanding the rules that govern the competition.
 
Grace T. said:
Not what I’m doing. I’m testing propositions by expanding the principles to new circumstances. If “having a place to play” even if you can’t realistically compete is fine for one group why isn’t it fine for another. If a marriage contract should not be held up unless it’s in writing why not a real estate contract. If free speech is ok for this one group why isn’t it ok when you disagree with it. I’m not saying you literally think girls should be thrown into the men’s division. I’m point out that’s where the rule you articulated leads to. Because otherwise you are forced to distinguish it

My translator is sad btw: “I miss when you agreed with me”. I miss that too, but unlike some people (ahem), I respect your reasoning
Click to expand...
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with our disagreement, you believe your approach is more comprehensive. I can appreciate that ideal, but what I can't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. It's irrelevant that you attempt to use philosophers to justify do so. Philosophy isn't an objective "right/wrong", "true/false", it's wholly subjective. In fact, philosophy is primarily political opinion with a more palatable name. You might as well reference JFK or Reagan in your opinion.
 
dad4 said:
It's just rude. And it was rude when Socrates did it.

Typical Platonic dialogue, with minor modifications:

Athenian: So you see you're being an asshole and ducking the argument?

Socrates: Why yes, I'm being an asshole and ducking the argument.

Athenian: And you understand that the only possible remedy is for you to drink hemlock.

Socrates: Why yes, the only possible remedy is for me to drink hemlock.


Other people can speak for themselves. If you can't defeat their argument on the merits, you just lose. You don't get to reinterpret their argument to some weaker version that you can defeat.
Click to expand...

Wow Socrates turning in his grave now. I think it's funny you've aligned yourself as Phaedr. Hint: If you are sympathizing with the villain of the piece, it might be you.
Veritas said:
To be honest, @watfly, I wasn’t fully aware of all these nuances, and they definitely add layers of complexity to this issue. But when it comes down to fairness in sports and leveling the playing field, I believe it ultimately becomes a personal choice. Do you want to take the necessary measures to step into the arena?

Rules are rules, and I believe they should remain objective and decisive. I also support giving people options like the choice to take certain drugs to suppress T levels so they can compete but it’s up to each individual to decide whether to take on that risk. It’s similar to how we approach any medication: when you go to the pharmacy, they inform you of all the potential complications, and then you make your choice.

In the end, it’s about weighing the options and deciding what’s right for you, all while understanding the rules that govern the competition.
Click to expand...
It's why "fairness" is sometimes a function of the rules. It's a good point.
 
Veritas said:
To be honest, @watfly, I wasn’t fully aware of all these nuances, and they definitely add layers of complexity to this issue. But when it comes down to fairness in sports and leveling the playing field, I believe it ultimately becomes a personal choice. Do you want to take the necessary measures to step into the arena?

Rules are rules, and I believe they should remain objective and decisive. I also support giving people options like the choice to take certain drugs to suppress T levels so they can compete but it’s up to each individual to decide whether to take on that risk. It’s similar to how we approach any medication: when you go to the pharmacy, they inform you of all the potential complications, and then you make your choice.

In the end, it’s about weighing the options and deciding what’s right for you, all while understanding the rules that govern the competition.
Click to expand...
T suppressants don't level the playing field.

If you grew in a high T environment, you have advantages from that. You are taller, your hips are narrower, your chest cavity is larger, and your muscles are larger with more nuclei per cell. Those advantages remain even if you reduce T at a later time.
 
watfly said:
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with our disagreement, you believe your approach is more comprehensive. I can appreciate that ideal, but what I can't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. It's irrelevant that you attempt to use philosophers to justify do so. Philosophy isn't an objective "right/wrong", "true/false", it's wholly subjective. In fact, philosophy is primarily political opinion with a more palatable name. You might as well reference JFK or Reagan in your opinion.
Click to expand...
The dif is JFK or Reagan don't use original principles.

Again, it's not putting words in your mouth. Neither I nor anyone believes that you really believe that women should be dumped into the male category. But I'm pointing out to you that's where the rule or principle you articulated leads you to. You also when it came to women articulated a principle that they should have a place where they could compete on a level playing field. I just pointed out that you were extending that to women, but not to the trans individuals. Only you can determine whether you are comfortable with the dissonance that has been pointed out to you. I submit to you you aren't, which is why it's bugging you.
 
dad4 said:
T suppressants don't level the playing field.

If you grew in a high T environment, you have advantages from that. You are taller, your hips are narrower, your chest cavity is larger, and your muscles are larger with more nuclei per cell. Those advantages remain even if you reduce T at a later time.
Click to expand...
You’re describing the effects of male puberty, and that’s definitely a game changer when it comes to MTF transitions, so its a NO NO. But in the situation where a woman has naturally high T levels within the male range, I believe she should be given the choice to step into the arena by having the option of leveling her levels to the playing field. It’s about fairness, and that includes making sure everyone has the opportunity to compete on equal terms, with the options available to them. Not leveling the playing field here opens the argument for another woman to say then why can I take T and get to her level to equalize the playing field? Because that's called Doping... Doh
 
Last edited:
Veritas said:
Good points, Grace Added time in sports is a bit like that extra scoop of ice cream, some think it’s a sweet deal, others cry foul over the extra calories. But here’s the thing... it’s a rule applied across the board, so everyone’s still playing the same game, just with a little extra time on the clock.

Now, about those musical awards, I agree we recognize talent across different instruments. But that’s exactly why we don’t have a flutist and a pianist battling it out for the same trophy right? Imagine the confusion if we did... 🤣 We keep them in their own categories because even in music, fairness matters.

So when it comes to sports, it’s the same principle. We need to keep the lanes clear don’t mix up the sprint with the marathon. And if someone’s bringing a whole new game to the field, maybe it’s time to create a new category, like the ‘other et al’ division. After all, just like we wouldn’t judge a pianist on their flute skills, we shouldn’t throw everyone into the same competition and call it fair. Let’s celebrate everyone’s unique talents just without asking the flutist to win a piano contest you think?
Click to expand...
One nit: we do sometimes judge pianists against flute players (well not literally but we do things similar)....it's called "America's Got Talent"

My guess is given your desire from bright line rules, you probably have an objection to the subjective sports as "lesser"....gymnastics, ice skating, diving, breakdancing where the East German Judge is free to award a 0.1.

In any case, I admire your propensity to keep your logic when your principles are challenged in other circumstances like the high t. You'd do well as a lawyer or philosopher. I disagree with your assessment of the telos of sport, or of this condition, but admire the consistency and resilience in the logic. Kuddos.
 
Veritas said:
You’re describing the effects of male puberty, and that’s definitely a game changer when it comes to MTF transitions, so its a NO NO. But in the situation where a woman has naturally high T levels within the male range, I believe she should be given the choice to step into the arena by having the option of leveling her levels to the playing field. It’s about fairness, and that includes making sure everyone has the opportunity to compete on equal terms, with the options available to them. Not leveling the playing field here opens the argument for another woman to say then why can I take T and get to her level to equalize the playing field? Because that's called Doping... Doh
Click to expand...
Again my issue is that using T as a standard is arbitrary. There are a laundry list of genetic attributes that may give a woman an advantage over other women. Why just choose T. Is there any doubt that Brittany Griner has some male attributes? Her voice is almost deeper than Barry White's. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she had elevated T. I just can't see a good faith reason for her being required to take T suppressants.

I understand your point about it being a choice to take suppressants to compete, but don't you think its a coerced choice? Particularly when others with high T aren't required to take suppressants. The other issue I have is that high T isn't truly the benchmark. It's having high T and being faster or stronger than everyone else. Caster Semenya was only required to take T suppressants to compete in those events that she was faster than everyone in. For events she wasn't faster in, she wasn't required to take suppressants. The T standard is artificial and conditional.
 
dad4 said:
Been over this. Anyone with a Y chromosome would be in the men’s category. Anyone without a Y chromosome would be in the women’s.

Everyone is eligible to compete in one of the two categories. No one has been “banned from competition”.

You have no response to it, other than to create a word salad about obscure philosophers.
Click to expand...
I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
Two categories of competition: 1-XX Division: Only people with XX chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario), 2-Open Division: All/Any other combination of Chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario).
 
Code said:
I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
Two categories of competition: 1-XX Division: Only people with XX chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario), 2-Open Division: All/Any other combination of Chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario).
Click to expand...
“Regardless of current or past gonad scenario”

Well the issue here is that ftm is on testosterone which is a performance enhancing drug.

Your scenario is the opposite of what we have now in that the ftm are being forced to compete with the cis men. They used to think this was fine because testosterone would balance things out, but it turns out the scientists were wrong…it doesn’t compensate for not having gone through male puberty.

On the other hand you don’t seem to care that the mtf can not compete against cis men who are on active testosterone. We used to think that if you were post surgery long enough the playing field with cis women would be leveled but it’s turning out the scientists were wrong in at least some sports including swimming, track and the fighting sports.
 
Grace T. said:
Only you can determine whether you are comfortable with the dissonance that has been pointed out to you. I submit to you you aren't, which is why it's bugging you.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting :) ). You're going to have to try harder with your ad-hominems to support your opinions.

I'm not bugged because insults aren't a reflection of me (well unless everyone makes the same claim) but a reflection of those making the insults.
 
watfly said:
Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting :) ). You're going to have to try harder with your ad-hominems to support your opinions.

I'm not bugged because insults aren't a reflection of me (well unless everyone makes the same claim) but a reflection of those making the insults.
Click to expand...
That's not intended at all as an insult. Sorry if came off as such. I was just supposing that you might be unhappy with your dissonance. If I'm wrong and you aren't, more power to you...you do you....
 
watfly said:
Can current science tell with any reliability the difference between naturally produced T and artificially produced T?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it can but it's expensive and difficult. The bigger issue with the ftm is their testosterone levels are akin to cis males (but they didn't go through puberty which puts them at a disadvantage re cis males). Hence the veritas can of worms about women with naturally high t, including those equivalent to males. I can see if you don't have a problem with the former (because the telos of the division is just one of categories men and women), why it would be o.k. to put ftm in the cis women's division, but again the question then is why can't a woman with low t be permitted to take a PED to raise her t for purposes of competition
 
Grace T. said:
My understanding is that it can but it's expensive and difficult. The bigger issue with the ftm is their testosterone levels are akin to cis males (but they didn't go through puberty which puts them at a disadvantage re cis males). Hence the veritas can of worms about women with naturally high t, including those equivalent to males. I can see if you don't have a problem with the former (because the telos of the division is just one of categories men and women), why it would be o.k. to put ftm in the cis women's division, but again the question then is why can't a woman with low t be permitted to take a PED to raise her t for purposes of competition
Click to expand...
I not in favor of artificially enhancing or suppressing T for participation in sport. I believe in "come as you are" from a genetic standpoint. Plus I don't think T is a reliable benchmark for the reasons state before.

I will say this in terms of my "philosophy", which may be why you're confused on my positions (which I'm still really not clear on), but I believe in a some cases consistency maybe more important than accuracy. I'm also a big proponent of K.I.S.S. principle. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of potential variables and exceptions, but to design a system for a .016% probability is often inefficient, cumbersome and often has a significantly larger impact on the other 99.84%.
 
watfly said:
I not in favor of artificially enhancing or suppressing T for participation in sport. I believe in "come as you are" from a genetic standpoint. Plus I don't think T is a reliable benchmark for the reasons state before.

I will say this in terms of my "philosophy", which may be why you're confused on my positions (which I'm still really not clear on), but I believe in a some cases consistency maybe more important than accuracy. I'm also a big proponent of K.I.S.S. principle. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of potential variables and exceptions, but to design a system for a .016% probability is often inefficient, cumbersome and often has a significantly larger impact on the other 99.84%.
Click to expand...
We've treaded on this before. My objection to this is that while "clarity" is sometimes a valid principle, it's a poor one when it comes to rights (such as the right of a cis woman to participate on a level playing field, or the same right of the ftm or mtf transgender). Rights are concerned with those little remainders, and if we have to accommodate and bend, sometimes we accommodate. The clearest example is the disability laws and all those accessible bathrooms that go unused....we do it, even though the cost is wasteful for something infrequently used, because they have a right to go to the bathroom. Moreover, clarity is not one of the purposes of sports. Indeed, one of the problems with sports is that it is arbitrary....one tweak of the rule and a handball becomes not a handball....lower the hoop and suddenly short people get an advantage in basketball....sports is somewhat of an artificiality even the race sports like track and swimming (what distance...what start). as to "come as you are", what about glasses on a near sighted person, a kid taking hgh, an adhd kid on a stimulant, or an athlete to have a particular expensive shoe or set of golf clubs to give them an edge....all accommodations we allow. As to the t, it renders it all an arbitrary exercises...if a woman wins the race simply because she was born with an unnaturally high testosterone count, there is no virtue in that....it's why the Algerian boxer caused such consternation....it conflicts with the notion of sports being something we should strive to achieve by being the best.....it renders "being the best" without meaning.
 
Grace T. said:
We've treaded on this before. My objection to this is that while "clarity" is sometimes a valid principle, it's a poor one when it comes to rights (such as the right of a cis woman to participate on a level playing field, or the same right of the ftm or mtf transgender). Rights are concerned with those little remainders, and if we have to accommodate and bend, sometimes we accommodate. The clearest example is the disability laws and all those accessible bathrooms that go unused....we do it, even though the cost is wasteful for something infrequently used, because they have a right to go to the bathroom. Moreover, clarity is not one of the purposes of sports. Indeed, one of the problems with sports is that it is arbitrary....one tweak of the rule and a handball becomes not a handball....lower the hoop and suddenly short people get an advantage in basketball....sports is somewhat of an artificiality even the race sports like track and swimming (what distance...what start). as to "come as you are", what about glasses on a near sighted person, a kid taking hgh, an adhd kid on a stimulant, or an athlete to have a particular expensive shoe or set of golf clubs to give them an edge....all accommodations we allow. As to the t, it renders it all an arbitrary exercises...if a woman wins the race simply because she was born with an unnaturally high testosterone count, there is no virtue in that....it's why the Algerian boxer caused such consternation....it conflicts with the notion of sports being something we should strive to achieve by being the best.....it renders "being the best" without meaning.
Click to expand...
Participation in sports is not a right. Also one person's right is sometimes an infringement of someone else's right. At the end of the day we just have a "philosophical" disagreement. I don't believe in artificial interference in sport and you do. But you're right that sports are always being artificially tinkered with, but rarely does it result in an improvement in sport. Bringing this full circle, what is the last change in the soccer rules that improved the game? I'd argue it was the change to the back pass to the keeper rule which was over 30 years ago. The continual change to the handling rules since has been a complete cluster F which has now resulted in defenders playing with there arms behind their back. The new kickoff rules in football, WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top