Intergender MMA fight

If anyone is in any doubt about the differences between males and females in sport (he says, hoping that a certain poster is still around), then take a look at this. The race starts around 5:00 in.

Hang on.... HRT has a strengthening effect on bones. Doesn't it?

Or are we talking about CSH and not replacing the hormones that a female loses due to menopause or medical conditions....

Ah, do you mean this, re bone structure?

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S875632820300098X

That's in women.

You'd be surprised what HRT can do if given time... It actually does subtly alter bone structure and tendans.

HRT alters bone structure? Good god. Have you any evidence of this?

Now I'm not saying it's not justified (I mean, I don't think it's justified but I guess some people genuinely do)

To do this, you have to fundamentally believe that male people are just of higher priority and importance than female people. It's strictly binary, sex based thinking.

It can only be justified, if you accept that the rights of some male athletes to validate their feminine gender identity is more important than all female athletes' rights to fair and safe sporting competition. Only if the male athletes are more important than the female athletes, sounds like the patriarchy to me with all its male privilege.

You are ok with taking away from female people to benefit male.

And actively doing it.

Thing is, dress it up however you like, but right now we have one group of people (female) competing in women's sports.

If we decide to redefine woman to include male-bodied people, it makes the members of the original group less likely to win. Meanwhile, the new additions are more likely to win than members of the original group.

Sure, only a few female people in the old group actually won, but all the ones who did were female.

Sure you can cut the names of the groups differently and justify the change by saying "oh but they are all women", but at the individual level, those female individuals who would have won, and now will not, undeniably lose out by the change regardless of what label it happens to be under.

That is literally taking away from female people to give to male people.

Now I'm not saying it's not justified (I mean, I don't think it's justified but I guess some people genuinely do), but if you do think it's justified at least be honest and clear about it. You are ok with taking away from female people to benefit male.

:It is crazy how this myth has taken off. The idea of equality is surely that women have equality of worth.

That women have the same intrinsic value as human beings as men, regardless of physical differences (and ignoring the many unscientific prejudices that men made up to discredit women)."

I think that previously, women's weaker physical strength was equated to a lower intrinsic worth, as well as being used to argue that other features thought to be "masculine" were also lower in women, such as maturity, wisdom, self-control, and intelligence.

I'm not sure much has changed. When men recognize that women are physically weaker, I don't think they think, "oh, well they are still of equal intrinsic worth as men." They think, oh, well women were wrong to think they were worth as much as us, and now they'll come to their senses and things will go back to men running everything for our own benefit while women will be content with whatever scraps we give them after we've satisfied our wants.

I think some men are aware they think this way and are open about it, while for others it's just subconscious and they would never admit (even to themselves) that's how they see things.

I agree with you that sports is just really crap for women especially in terms of wanting to be taken seriously. I'd love for the FA to allow men's clubs to sign women players but women's football and more broadly team sport is just ghettoised to an astounding degree. The football culture of England was largely cultivated by women in the eras of the two world wars.

Let's make this very clear. The football culture of England was largely cultivated by females during the war periods. And I doubt with the current focus on dementia in sport, including females prevalence of dementia in football due to headers, that allowing females to play with males is coming with the game being played as it is now.

I am not really sure why you continue to ignore the impact of why males should not be included in any female contact sport because to the increase in risk. At all. Regardless of if they feel they should be included.

I'd actually agree with you again in that I think that disparities in abilities in non contact team sports (hockey, football, netball etc.) would be greatly decreased if only we didn't needlessly gender sports.

Football is a contact sport. I watch my teen play and it is very physical and, headers. Which will be greatly impacted by a ball that has a faster pace due to being kicked by a male. And hockey.... having watched female international level hockey for decades, I am bemused that you would think that there is no contact here. You obviously have not seen those women come off after a game.

And again, in hockey and football males with greater power, speed, different centre of gravity, greater lung and heart so they can go faster for longer, if a male tackles (as in runs into an opponent to take the ball) it will be much more dangerous.

There are mixed sex netball teams already. But again it is unfair for males to compete in female category. In fact, a young adult team of males trounced the female team of the same age group recently in Australia. Even one male on a team is unfair.

You obviously don't like to hear it. Where there is mixed sex teams, that is where a transitioned male should play. Not in any female team.

When I was younger my school actually let kids play whatever sports they wanted. I as a boy at the time played netball during football season and rounders during cricket season and even pre puberty such was the scandal about this that I was not allowed to represent my school in either of these sports as other schools' teams were "girls teams" and apparently a single 10 year old boy was unfair.

The latest research from Australia which had something like 20,000+ primary school kids observed, recorded that boys consistently out perform girls from about 6 (if I remember correctly). So, yes, even back 17 years ago, it would have been known by teachers that it was unfair. It has not changed for centuries, but now we have evidence.

Unless it is a mixed sex children's team, it needs to remain single sex.

I'll however, disagree with your point about reserved places or what have you since that's just how sports teams work. The two main arguments for separate men's and women's competitions is that either there's a disparity in ability or that it'd give both groups better representation.

These arguments are true. Although, I would say separating females out will give the female athletes better representation. But that is just nit picking.

I understand the points but I feel that the latter is too often used to pretend the situation is separate but equal when it is in fact anything but. Take football in England and Wales: The premier league is for men only. If a woman (cis or trans) wanted to play football, they'd be forced to play for a WSL team if they wanted to play at the highest level. Even if they're the next Lionel Messi they'd be forced into a competition where the teams compete in men's training and youth grounds and get paid a pittance with abysmal attendance etc.

Are you saying the premier league will not accept a transitioned male player in a male team? Why? Why won't they allow a transitioned male play football in the premier league in a male team?

Now that is something that you should be fighting. Right there. I am sure you would receive a great deal of support to go and play in the male league.

No woman as yet has beaten the mens fastest 100m. Since drug-testing came in, no woman has broken the women's 200m World Record, set over 30 years ago by Florence Griffith Joyner.Men have, though.

Quite a few boys have broken it as well.

No woman as yet has beaten the mens fastest 100m

Since drug-testing came in, no woman has broken the women's 200m World Record, set over 30 years ago by Florence Griffith Joyner.

Men have, though.

no one is arguing that women are just as strong as men on average.

And women on average are NOT as strong as transitioned males on average either. Because despite what you think, if you went through a virilised puberty, you will retain a lot more advantages than you seem want to convey to us.

with the implication I'm not a woman???

With the implication that you are wrong when you say that most women are taller than you. 5ft 4 is the average height of women.

no one is arguing that women are just as strong as men on average. This is a straw man and a total fallacy

So men will always have an advantage than women, always.

That trailing line shouldn't be there, obviously.

Anyway, women want to play sport. We have founded our own teams so we can play with each other, and we want the legal right to keep males out.

Women's teams aren't there as a opportunity for males who don't reach the competitive standard for the men's teams. Where do the women displaced by the male players go? Should they push children out of children's teams?

no one is arguing that women are just as strong as men on average This is a straw man and a total fallacy

This is not rocket science ok.
Women on average are simply not as strong as men. See theres these things called "records" of men's and womens sports for all kinds of categories.
No woman as yet has beaten the mens fastest 100m
And on and on and on. Check them out yourself. Go right ahead.

If the Premier League were legally able to sign women (taking your word for it that they're not), they wouldn't. For the same reason that boxing promoters don't stage fights between featherweights and heavyweights. For the same reason that you don't see managers playing a 13 year old from the development squad. For the same reason that the people who kidnap human beings in order to force them to have babies to sell (this happens) always kidnap women and girls.

Male human beings cannot get pregnant, however hard they try. Female human beings can not beat male athletic standards, however hard they try.

It sucks, as I grew up watching Buffy and I will never grow out of wanting to be her, but my body is not capable of those feats.

For the same reason that when

I'd love for the FA to allow men's clubs to sign women players
Do you mean on the mens team? Cos that's not gonna happen, men are stronger despite any drugs they might take. Insurance companies would find that a step too far methinks.
Do you mean start there own womens teams?
Hasn't that already happened?

no one is arguing that women are just as strong as men on average. This is a straw man and a total fallacy

No you are arguing, with no scientific argument to support it, that lowering testosterone in a biologically male athlete removes the differential in athletic performance that exists between the two sexes.

Take football in England and Wales: The premier league is for men only. If a woman (cis or trans) wanted to play football, they'd be forced to play for a WSL team if they wanted to play at the highest level. Even if they're the next Lionel Messi they'd be forced into a competition where the teams compete in men's training and youth grounds and get paid a pittance with abysmal attendance

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Did you miss the women's World Champions losing to an under 15 boys team. The idea of any female athlete who identifies as a man being chosen by a men's Premier League team is ridiculous. Oh wait a minute, maybe the World Champions weren't trying hard enough.

that's out of order frankly...

this is just the way we as humans decide to segregate sports sadly and you can make whatever shallow judgements you want about athletes you've never met or even seen in person but ultimately it's
just ignorant
It worked segregated by sex for a very long time now. Youve given no good reason to change that.

and frankly pretty offensive and imo ludicrous to suggest that cis
men would come out as one of the most stigmatised minorities around and like deal with all this bs I've had to deal with since I came out JUST so they can maybe win some meaningless sports competition
Meaningless to whom? I love my sport, I dont want men in it, men would make it unsafe for me and frankly the team without men would lose every time. You give us sportswomen a good enough reason and we might reconsider, probably not though.

We "award" "mediocre sportsmanship" in this way all the time. If
you're 6'4" and an average goalkeeper, you're probably going to be at
a similar level to a keeper who's a foot shorter and a lot more skilled because you're just at an advantage to begin with so you have to put in less effort. Sadly we're not all created equal and it sucks but human's like to pretend we're all equal in every way when we should in fact just be making our environments more equal

There are a fuck ton of women out there that could be brilliant at a sport but they haven't found it, haven't been pushed to try it, haven't got funding (cos lots of money goes to mens sports and a fraction to womens) to make our environment equal we would need to pay women more, give them better chances to find a sport they love, so not solely football and rugby at school etc.
Here's a great idea, let's start finding money for womens sports, let's get training organised solely for women.
When women are equally represented in all sports at all levels and paid the same as the men at the same levels then we can look at inclusion.
Of course this will never happen.