Trans athlete wins in female swimming race

Not RTFT, so apologies if I'm repeating, but Lia has been reported to the authorities for indecent exposure

twitter.com/Flashmaggie/status/1505287520992600066?s=20&t=Sr9xeTMNVOd4TEj-p6ChcQ

Tsk. We women, eh?

I know, right?! If only I could sort out my attitude. Then I could significantly reduce my training, eat all the crap, drink alcohol, and have quite an obvious stomach BUT be faster and stronger.

Haha! Thanks Samphire - I’ll have that in my head all day now…

Oh don't! I'll get moaned at... but here you go Hips Don't Lie

Hmm? What is that? (I’m sorry, recovering from covid and a bit of brain fog here is making it hard for me to keep up!)

I haven't resorted to Shakira yet, you are more than welcome to post her educational tome regarding the Q angle

Oh! I must have missed it, thanks. It’s a bug bear of mine as I have quite an extreme q angle. This means that despite training a lot harder than my overweight husband he’s still a better athlete than me! But it’s probably socialisation rather than the discrepancy in training, diet, body fat, bmi (all favourable to me, and yet…)

Bloody hell! That's terrible. May I post that again, with slightly warmer, fat arthritic fingers?

As I said earlier, greasy you are asking for the impossible. A study that removes all socialisation would be deemed to be cruel, harmful.

And I gave you the easiest way to see similar, non harful results. You just chose to apply your illogic and dismiss it. Maybe apply your towering intellect and run an outline of a possible, non harmful study past me and I'll see what I can do!

Actually, I'll give you a hint: twin studies

Go on then greasyshoes - I’ll give you a starter. Look up “Q angle” differences between men and women. That isn’t determined by socialisation.

And I gave you the easiest way to see simialr, non harful results. You just chose to apply your illogic and dismiss it. Maybe apply ypur twoering intellect and run an outline of a possible, non harmful study past me and I'll see what I can do!

The inanity of grease’s posts are quite startling. I am sure that they think they are making so much sense and that they clearly are onto something or they are not even a clever Whatabout expert. We have had much better whatabouterers here in the past.

This is like a primary school edition of whataboutery.

There hasn't been a study which has determined how much of the difference is due to biological differences between men and women.

You have been unable to link up any ‘studies’ you have actually written. And didn’t deign to answer a direct question on whether you had read any.

It is laughable that you make this statement after all you have posted, but it is also boring.

Arguing against myself, it may be both - ultrarunning is an event that smooths out the male/female physical difference enough to let the numbers argument operate.

Oh fantastic.! How to get the very best female athletes? Make sure that most of them give up because of an unfair system! You couldn't make it up.

Yes, I think that's a much more likely outcome given that most girls will do great than 0 sport so you'd expect those who do keep it up to be more innately talented than those who give it up rather than the other way round.

@Nacreous the numbers argument may work the other way - fewer women in a sport may mean that those who are in it are better. I read an interesting article (which I don't have the link for) about the number of female winners in ultrarunning; iylt may be less to do with 'better female endurance' and more to do with the fact that the only women who do ultrarunning are those who are exceptionally good at it.

You really are trolling and wasting posters time now.

Yeah. Greasy is reduced to mindless repetition.

Didn't take long.

I think what really confuses me about this women aren't socialised to train hard enough is that what it's basically saying is either:

1. Even elite female athletes still don't train as hard as men and that's why they lose.

That option sounds pretty obviously sexist to me and not in a way that is a result of male and female biological differences so I'll park it for now but if that IS what posters suggestions meant let me know.

OR

1. In spite of men and women training equally hard when they've decided to compete in sport, fewer women compete so all the winners are men.

Now this actually makes no logical sense.

If we have 1000 women and 1000 men but only 200 women compete in sports there's no reason to think it will only be women who are worse at sport that compete. You'd expect at the very least it to be a distribution which correlated with the overall distribution of male athletes. So over time you'd expect to see fewer women than men with times they would win you a medal but not a factor many times higher than the number of competitors is lower.

What you're essentially proposing is that in this chart of pick a factor Vs sportiness women and men have the distribution attached but instead of times and distances being for the top X percent for men and women somehow the top X percent of women just forget to compete. Even if only 1/5 of the women in the chart compete statistically with the number of women who do pay sorry across the world the likelihood of all those top athletes being missing is incredibly unlikely. Which means the likelihood of socialisation causing the difference in performance is also not significant.

Im sorry that was a genuine error, her mother's name.

I understand Lia's middle name is Catherine, his mother's name.

On another site I saw that Lia was adapted as though he had a middle name like Rachel. A man would never wind his competitive brother up by openly getting further in a swimming competition with a nod to liar in a name would he?