AIBU to be surprised that Laurel Hubbard didn't register a lift in the Olympics?

[Gladiolixoxo]

I wonder if all the controversy around Laurel's participation led to her losing her nerve?

@Waspsarearseholes

I do think it would improve not just athletics but the Olympics overall. It would stop the race to the records and show talent in each category- think of the variation we could introduce if we weren’t just chasing speed.

Bloody hell. The Olympics isn't a summer fete talent show where everybody gets to have their turn and win a badge. It's the world's most elite athletes. You disapprove of them 'racing to the records' and 'chasing speed' when they have literally trained their whole lives to be the best/fastest they can be? You think, instead, the Olympics should be a celebration of mediocrity where everyone should be encouraged to have a go? Your posts get more bizarre and make less sense every time.

I’m not sure why you think I want it to be a celebration of mediocrity, instead of a showcase of a range of talents. What do you think the fastest 100m sprint time could be, ever? Do you think it’s 3seconds?

Did anyone force LH to compete?? No they did not! I have zero sympathy for them, I reserve my sympathy for the women who lost out so that a mediocre male could live out their fantasy

And if they don’t menstruate? If they’re underweight and their periods stopped? Less of a woman?

Of course they are not ‘less of a woman’. Where have I even hinted at that?

But you are again missing the very real physical advantages that the males will have compared to the females. Females who don’t have menstrual cycles (even hormone fluctuations) will not have the significant advantages that males of the same weight, height and fat/muscle ratio.

Hence, I mentioned femur ratio, twitch muscle reponse time, lung capacity, bone density, hip placement. And that is just for running off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.

I’m not sure why you think I want it to be a celebration of mediocrity

Because that's what it becomes when you don't maintain the integrity of the sex segregation. Women's sport becomes a retirement ground for old, mediocre men who were never anywhere near international level when they competed against other males.

I don't care if they do create new categories for different sizes in more disciplines, but the sex segregation needs to remain within them because women are not men with a few drugs and the difference is way more comprehensive than weight or size alone.

Pumper.

What do you think the fastest 100m sprint time could be, ever? Do you think it’s 3seconds?

Have we seen the fastest 100m then? If not, when will we see it. Be good to know there'll be no need to watch after that or bother to record any times. Will it go sub 9.5?

Oh, hang on, we don't know....

I too have no sympathy for LH. My thoughts and sympathy are with the natal born women disadvantaged by LHs inclusion in NZs Olympic team.
As to pumpers dream of future Olympics I certainly won't be bothering to watch mediocrity competing with hypocracy thank you.

@Helleofabore

And if they don’t menstruate? If they’re underweight and their periods stopped? Less of a woman?

Of course they are not ‘less of a woman’. Where have I even hinted at that?

But you are again missing the very real physical advantages that the males will have compared to the females. Females who don’t have menstrual cycles (even hormone fluctuations) will not have the significant advantages that males of the same weight, height and fat/muscle ratio.

Hence, I mentioned femur ratio, twitch muscle reponse time, lung capacity, bone density, hip placement. And that is just for running off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.

No I’m not - you’re suggesting menstruation is a reason to separate by sex, even though menstruation is not seen as an excuse to perform poorly, nobody is making allowances for menstruation. Then you accused me of suggesting everyone should take the pill, which was also rubbish and untrue.

I’m not missing the physical advantages of men versus women. I’m suggesting (and remember, I have no skin in this game, I don’t work for the Olympics, I am not an Olympian) that it’s maybe time we looked at changing it up. And floating ways we could do that.

Pumper- a really important question for me on this. Like would be massively interested in your thoughts. So really grateful for a considered answer.

'It wouldn’t though. Women would be competing with someone in their own height/weight/proportion group'

And your view is that will for certain events mean fair competition, no physical advantage.

That perspective, if formalised in the ultimate arena of sport. Throws up other issues.

Namely. And this is a serious point for me and connected so not I don't think a diversion.

IF it's accepted that when it comes to physical competition, males and females are essentially equal if they are of the same height, weight, build.

What does this mean for crime?

In general it's currently understood that even if similar size age etc, if a man attacks a woman, in general, she is at a disadvantage.

This would raise questions about how so many women and girls end up being assaulted raped etc surely.

We stand the same chance of fighting them off than a man of the same proportions.

Then in the end ideological insistence that men and women with similar proportions have the same potential or actual strength.

I've seen a lot that men are quicker/ stronger etc in elite sports because the women aren't trying hard enough.

Altering the social understanding around women and men around this could, probably would, have impacts way further than sport.

@DrSbaitso

I’m not sure why you think I want it to be a celebration of mediocrity

Because that's what it becomes when you don't maintain the integrity of the sex segregation. Women's sport becomes a retirement ground for old, mediocre men who were never anywhere near international level when they competed against other males.

I don't care if they do create new categories for different sizes in more disciplines, but the sex segregation needs to remain within them because women are not men with a few drugs and the difference is way more comprehensive than weight or size alone.

Pumper.

Oh, have you stopped having a go at my username now? Are we civil again?

Thanks for your input.

@NiceGerbil

Pumper- a really important question for me on this. Like would be massively interested in your thoughts. So really grateful for a considered answer.

'It wouldn’t though. Women would be competing with someone in their own height/weight/proportion group'

And your view is that will for certain events mean fair competition, no physical advantage.

That perspective, if formalised in the ultimate arena of sport. Throws up other issues.

Namely. And this is a serious point for me and connected so not I don't think a diversion.

IF it's accepted that when it comes to physical competition, males and females are essentially equal if they are of the same height, weight, build.

What does this mean for crime?

In general it's currently understood that even if similar size age etc, if a man attacks a woman, in general, she is at a disadvantage.

This would raise questions about how so many women and girls end up being assaulted raped etc surely.

We stand the same chance of fighting them off than a man of the same proportions.

Then in the end ideological insistence that men and women with similar proportions have the same potential or actual strength.

I've seen a lot that men are quicker/ stronger etc in elite sports because the women aren't trying hard enough.

Altering the social understanding around women and men around this could, probably would, have impacts way further than sport.

Ok. I don’t think men attack women because they see themselves in the same category as them in the Olympics. I don’t see why that would change. Men would still attack women.

I’m not sure why you think I want it to be a celebration of mediocrity, instead of a showcase of a range of talents. What do you think the fastest 100m sprint time could be, ever? Do you think it’s 3seconds?

'A showcase of a range of talents'. So, not the world's best, then. A selection of talents from around the world who can rock up to the Olympics (who is going to fund this, by the way? Considering how difficult it is for the most elite athletes to get funding/sponsorship to enable them to attend), have a jolly good go and go home happy that they had a great time. I really don't think there'd be much of an appetite for that.
Why are you so obsessed about the impossibility of breaking world records? We are way off that yet. Who on earth are you to decide what the cut off of human performance is anyway? When are you going to decide that nobody can ever be quicker?
The Olympics isn't just running races. There are many other sports that make up the games. And generally, people want to see the best their country has to offer compete at a global level against others in the same sex categories as them. They want to be the female gold medalist for archery. Not the male/female/trans gold medalist for archery in the category of such and such fat to muscle ratio and arms under 100cm and weighing under 70kg and under 185cms in height. They won the gold because there was only one other athlete in their category and they've never fired a bow before but always thought it looked like fun and pumperthepumper would like to see a range of talents' at the Olympics so here we are. Well done.

' They have to have three inches between their eyes (five for midsize, eight for short) '

I assume this is a typo but pmsl!!!

What human has 3 let alone 5 inches between their eyes!!!

Which is why I know that’s the way the world is turning.

Please clarify what you mean here?

Can anyone suggest a reason why there aren’t any transmen competing in the men’s events?

Because presumably if transwomen are physically equivalent to natal women, then transmen are physically equivalent to natal men? So they’d be competing on a level playing field? But where are they?

' It would stop the race to the records and show talent in each category- think of the variation we could introduce if we weren’t just chasing speed.'

Do you know what the Olympics is?

Just checking.

@Waspsarearseholes

I’m not sure why you think I want it to be a celebration of mediocrity, instead of a showcase of a range of talents. What do you think the fastest 100m sprint time could be, ever? Do you think it’s 3seconds?

'A showcase of a range of talents'. So, not the world's best, then. A selection of talents from around the world who can rock up to the Olympics (who is going to fund this, by the way? Considering how difficult it is for the most elite athletes to get funding/sponsorship to enable them to attend), have a jolly good go and go home happy that they had a great time. I really don't think there'd be much of an appetite for that.
Why are you so obsessed about the impossibility of breaking world records? We are way off that yet. Who on earth are you to decide what the cut off of human performance is anyway? When are you going to decide that nobody can ever be quicker?
The Olympics isn't just running races. There are many other sports that make up the games. And generally, people want to see the best their country has to offer compete at a global level against others in the same sex categories as them. They want to be the female gold medalist for archery. Not the male/female/trans gold medalist for archery in the category of such and such fat to muscle ratio and arms under 100cm and weighing under 70kg and under 185cms in height. They won the gold because there was only one other athlete in their category and they've never fired a bow before but always thought it looked like fun and pumperthepumper would like to see a range of talents' at the Olympics so here we are. Well done.

Who on earth are you to decide what the cut off of human performance is anyway?

Again, to be clear - I don’t work for the Olympics. I am not an Olympian. I have no power over the Olympics.

But I don’t think it’s massively controversial to suggest that world records can’t be broken forever. I gave the example upthread that there’s a theory about reducing the number of football players per team - because modern footballers are massively more physically advanced than ever before and rather than seeing an incredible showcase of skill, you see games interrupted as everyone fights over the ball.

Pumper, this is nonsensical, even by your standards.
You really need to either listen or engage your brain.

@NiceGerbil

' They have to have three inches between their eyes (five for midsize, eight for short) '

I assume this is a typo but pmsl!!!

What human has 3 let alone 5 inches between their eyes!!!

I mean, it was very obviously a joke.

Essentially, it comes down to the question of whether you believe that a man literally becomes a woman just because he says he feels like one. Unless you believe you can magically change sex at the click of your own fingers (which is a fantasy) then there is simply no argument for allowing men into women's categories.

@FluffyBattleKitten

Pumper, this is nonsensical, even by your standards. You really need to either listen or engage your brain.

I don’t recognise your username. Which bit specifically?

If we're looking for the fastest, strongest, etc etc human of x size and weight, then it will be in the massive majority male people who win and female people will largely be excluded.

This is why there are two separate competition groups.

One seeks for and celebrates the best of the best of male bodies, the (current) limit of male biology. The other seeks for and celebrates the best of the best of female bodies. By all means categorise those two sex groups into their separate weights, heights, etc etc.

But the only reason there is a lot of intellectualising and modernity about why female people no longer deserve should be permitted autonomy and equality and a sports category that celebrates female biology...

is solely and exclusively because some male people resent it and want it for themselves.

It's misogyny. Total lack of respect for females. And demonstrating, repeatedly, why women must have separate sex resources. Because male humans will never voluntarily permit them equality and fairness in shared resources, and in a world largely dominated at the top by wealthy powerful men with nowhere near equality of representation, the system is run by men, for men.

Men like Hubbard's extremely wealthy father, who forced this agenda for his highly privileged offspring, and against the interests of the 18 year old woman who rose from a background of real challenge who was not at the Olympics. She was excluded because Hubbard was 'included' in her place. This is not inclusion. This is an absolute bloody misogynist farce.

Oh, have you stopped having a go at my username now? Are we civil again?

I have no trouble believing that a person arguing on Mumsnet for the inclusion of men in women's sports, even as they mention menstruation, is named for a breast pump. Really, I haven't. I promise. I admit it wasn't what I initially thought, but once you explained, it made even more sense. So yes, I absolutely accept that.

But do you have a response to the rest of the post, which was rather comprehensive?

Again, to be clear - I don’t work for the Olympics. I am not an Olympian. I have no power over the Olympics

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I was worried that Paris 2024 would be like my primary school's sports day. Phew.

Everything you have said is poorly thought out and evidenced. Where to begin.
Lurkers notice when you say ridiculous things.

@Waspsarearseholes

Again, to be clear - I don’t work for the Olympics. I am not an Olympian. I have no power over the Olympics

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I was worried that Paris 2024 would be like my primary school's sports day. Phew.

Ah, I’m glad. Because your post really suggested you thought I was going to swoop in tomorrow and mix it up. Mainly the ‘who on earth are you to decide’ bit.