My friend did co-ed bathing in France and Spain. He said 75% of the those who bath and walk around in thong are men.
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Oh, Dear Lord
I agree "clarity" is an important consideration of the rules. I think you do correctly analyze the approach. I prefer a balancing act (which gets us to the same place in a lot of instances, provided that we take money from existing pots to make accommodations such as separate leagues where possible) while veritas prefers a simple rule. As I've argued, a simple rule doesn't solve the problem because it shafts some people without compensating them. Simple rules like "let's cap grocery store prices" rarely work in the real world without collateral damage.
One nit: we do know the boxers have conditions...they've been monitored by the boxing federation before...we do not know what that condition is.
Apologies for all the philosophical references but here's the cliff notes. In most cultures, sports were not a celebration of the merit of the individual but of the gods, or a social event like gambling or mahjong. Aristotle's philosophy taught the Greeks a new way of celebrating sport, as the celebration of merit and the striving of humanity for virtue. Rome collapses...St Augustine seeks to replace Aristotle's virtue ethics with the concept of original sin...Europe sinks into medievalism where the prevailing thought is people deserve the bad things that happen to them because God is punishing their wickedness. A lot of Greek philosophy is lost in the dark ages. Islamic caliphate...the Muslims preserve the knowledge in their libraries. Crusades, Reconquista, Venetian trade network, Mongol's and the Silk Road....Europeans rediscover Aristotle. Renaissance and Enlightenment, virtue ethics come back into vogue. Virtue ethics forms the basis for classical liberalism which is rooted in individuals and the rights of individuals against the leviathan, government. Most of organized games are created in the West for this reason (some created by Christian organizations), whether soccer, basketball or gridiron football, which celebrate physical and individual achievement. The Olympic games are revived and seek to expand this spirit worldwide through athletics. Pax Britannica and Pax Americana spread these sports throughout the world. The 1970s, however, John Rawls publishes "The Theory of Justice". Rawls attacks both classical liberalism and virtue ethics on the grounds that a lot of what we call "virtue" or "merit" is just an accident of birth...even "hard work" is a genetic factor...Rawls uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain...Rawls provides a theory for mainstream left leaning liberals to redistribute wealth while still holding onto the social contract of classical liberalism...Rawls forms the philosophical basis for mainstream left leaning parties like the Democrats. In the 90s communitarians like Michael Sandel or contractualists like Scanlon (who's work BTW forms the basis for the TV show "The Goodplace") step away from the social contract and say we owe each other these things by virtue of being in a shared community. Postmodernism, however, whose thread starts with the Jacobins in the French revolution, runs through existentialists like Nietzsche, detours into Marx, and comes back with social justice in the 21st century, challenge the ideas of individualism and the social contract entirely, or the communities and contracts of Sandel and Scanlon....they are concerned with equity, and view things through the dynamic of power between the oppressed and oppressor. A postmodernist would, for example, say of this issue that transgendered people should be included in women's sports, because they are oppressed, and it is the job of oppressors (whether men and women) to bear the burden for the sake of equity...hence full inclusion since ideas such as fairness, clarity or efficiency, come second. Philosophy and sports in a nutshell.
I'm not sure I understood any of that, but that's me not you. Regardless, its all just subjective, theoretical meanderings that have very little to do with athletic competition. You either draw a line in athletic competitions or you don't. Drawing the line at biological men and women has the fewest variables and the most notable disparity in baseline performance. No athletic system can possibly account for all variables. While Wilt was gifted with genetically superior size, Mugsy Bogues was still competitive at a very short stature. There was a place for both in the same sport. If you let post-puberty biological males compete in women's athletics there would be no place for biological women (assuming there were enough biological men that would participate, which is not the case now) effectively ending women's sports as a category of competition. As I mentioned before, I don't have much fear that transgender women are going to take over women's sports because most people recognize when we're on a bridge too far. Common sense and reality eventually overcome the utopian concepts of those insulated from the effects of their own nonsense.
Two problems with your bright line rule. 1. you have to define what you mean by "biological"...again there's a small portion (higher in female athletes than the regular pop) with some weird conditions you have to account for. Yes, it's still a small number, but those cases (as in the case of the boxers) WILL come up so you need to decide what to do with them and those cases are not going to be clear but messy since life isn't that simple. 2. your bright line rule leaves them without ANY place to play since play with the "biological" males leaves them unable to compete with any meaning....that just fails the Rawls test...you have to come up with an alternative....which complicates things rather than makes them simple....it's only simple if you come down on "no, I don't care what happens to them" (which fails most ethics tests).
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.
Hi Dad
Yes I do. It's the same two objections as to watfly:
1. You still have the problem of the boxers. There are some individuals even with a chromosome test you would find objectionable and not all chromosomes are xx and xy....small problem but one you'll need to address which doesn't make it simple.
2. "Ban from competition" is ridiculous. If women were forced to play in the same league as men they would not be "banned from competition". What would be the effect? There wouldn't be many women playing competitively because all the slots would go to the men. So why do even have a women's league if women's sports are worse than men's sports (at least from a spectating perspective)? Participation.
3. The reality is the MTF, because estrogen and testosterone blockers are performance suppressants and they lose their natural testosterone after surgery, is they also cannot compete with the men. It's the same concern if you believe women are entitled to a league for participatory reason. So it's up to you to set up separate but equal situations where they can in fact participate (which is not the men's league) and to fund it from money taken from both the men and women.
Hence my test for adults:
Question 1: Do we care about the result and/or are there safety concerns? If yes go to 2. If no, inclusion.
Question 2: Is the sport one where someone having gone through male puberty has an advantage over women? If yes, go to 3. If no, inclusion
Question 3: Does the MTF transgendered individual have such an advantage by having gone through male puberty that it cannot be corrected by testosterone blockers and/or by a sufficient time post surgery? If yes, go to 4. If no inclusion.
Question 4: Is there a separate forum established (it's not the men's) where such MTF individual can participate without someone else having an undue advantage. If yes, separate. If no, inclusion. (It will be easy to do for running and swimming, which are the sports with the greatest impact anyways, and hardest for large team sports like soccer, rugby and baseball).
You can have your separate but equal but it will cost you some money and scholarships (and from the boys).
What Dad4 said. Philosophy is just the opinions of self important people. It's great for cocktail party conversation, but it has no dispositive value, particularly for sport. Some Polynesian countries have a formally recognized "3rd gender", a biological male that takes on the role and identity of a woman, i.e. a transgender woman. The American Samoa men's "World Cup" team in fact had one of these individuals compete and captain their team. Having men's and women's teams excludes no one. The exclusion is in the mind of the individual.
Ok just have one division…everyone in the pool everyone plays together, men and women. It “excludes no one”. Since I have a boy, no doubt I’d be foolish to pass up the opportunity. Cool right?
Ok. Suppose someone manages to jump through all four of your hoops.
Who is allowed on the women's teams? All humans? If only some humans, then which ones?
You still haven't answered the question.
Are you suggesting that Slobo is a "tranny"?
The questions apply only to mtf adults seeking to play on adults womens teams. The 4th question gives a definitive answer or inclusion or not. They are self evident, self explanatory.
You know that's not remotely what I suggested.
Just FYI I could consider possibly consider participation for pre-puberty transition, although that's a whole other can-of-worms for medical ethics.
Yes.
It’s the logical test that flies from your conclusion. If the only thing that matters is that it “excludes no one”, women can play with the men in 1 division. Your terms are acceptable. Otherwise, what’s the problem with that? Please articulate.
Its not logic, its your attempt to mischaracterize my position to make your position sound more credible. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I said. Of the many possible, distinctions the most obvious/logical/common (however you want to characterize it) is to divide sport along the lines of biological sex. Is it perfect? no, but its far and away the least imperfect solution. Trying to design a system that incorporates rare exceptions is unproductive, ineffective and creates ambiguity that opens the door for abuse regardless of whether it violates some philosophical norm.
I’m not mischaracterizing anything. I used your words that what mattered is just they are allowed to play…”excludes no one”. You are avoiding the answer because it would show you have a problem you’d have to address. An equally consistent and simple solution is to include the set of all humans…don’t make any distinctions…full equality women’s lib style….everyone plays together…no exceptions.
Pardon me, Fudd. I prefer "senora sans minora".