Is it OK for biological males to compete against women?

[Luvnit2]

(06-22-2023, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Jebus.

We had coed soccer until at least 8th grade.

There was a girl (senior) playing for our local HS football team this past season.

I think you're heavily under estimating how girls can compete with boys.

Young ladies do develop athletically faster than boys. I coached a very good select soccer team. I used to scrimmage select boys teams once a year when they were 10 years old. We beat them by 2 goals a game on average. 11 year old scrimmages we tied or won by a goal. At age 12, the boys dominated us and easy to see the boys athletic ability. Their speed, power and endurance overwhelmed my team that was one of the best teams in the US.

Serena and Venus Williams each lost in back to back tennis matches to a male tennis pro ranked around #200 in the world. Serena is one of the best women's tennis player in history, yet a male beat her and did i easily.

Why do pro women's tennis matches have best of 3 sets, yet men have best of 5 sets? Simple, men are physically superior over women.

I see some interesting takes. One is it is not a large issue impacting a lot of women YET. I agree and that is why I wonder why Democrats would go out on a limb on a topic Moms and Dads are against their daughter competing against males.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 12:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Young ladies do develop athletically faster than boys. I coached a very good select soccer team. I used to scrimmage select boys teams once a year when they were 10 years old. We beat them by 2 goals a game on average. 11 year old scrimmages we tied or won by a goal. At age 12, the boys dominated us and easy to see the boys athletic ability. Their speed, power and endurance overwhelmed my team that was one of the best teams in the US.

Serena and Venus Williams each lost in back to back tennis matches to a male tennis pro ranked around #200 in the world. Serena is one of the best women's tennis player in history, yet a male beat her and did i easily.

Why do pro women's tennis matches have best of 3 sets, yet men have best of 5 sets? Simple, men are physically superior over women.

I see some interesting takes. One is it is not a large issue impacting a lot of women YET. I agree and that is why I wonder why Democrats would go out on a limb on a topic Moms and Dads are against their daughter competing against males.

They were 16 when he beat them.  He was 31.

They got much better.  He did not...lol.

Women play three sets because "it was always done that way"  And there has been debate on whether men should go to three sets too. Some of the best male players are for it while some oppose it for "traditional" reasons.

I wonder why the gop is making a huge issue and passing laws to affect a handful of people in the country.  Probably because they don't have any real policies so they need to rile up people to get angry or afraid of anyone different than them.

[Mickeypoo]

(06-22-2023, 11:58 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Others have made points that it should be addressed on a case by case basis on the local level.  Getting the loud and exceedingly unpopular and incendiary national politicians involved is going to do more harm than good. 

I file this under common american oddness.  We have a thousand ways to deal with and normalize violence but we are still ultra squeamish about the human body and sex and all that stuff.  I view this stuff with a grey area, but then politicians who have made it clear they are only here to cause chaos and enrich themselves by sowing infighting among the peasants weigh in and I'm inclined to lean away from them. 

And in usual internet fashion a bunch of dudes are sitting around talking about protecting or promoting women and girls. White Knights are we. 


And I live in rural P.A. and around here even today people complain about schools that bring in black kids to fortify their school sports teams. It isn't against the rules but still, shame on them.  

I don't live that far from you, but I must be a lot more rural than you.  I have never seen nor heard of any of the surrounding schools, including the school my kids go to, bring in black kids for their sports teams.

Maybe we have different definitions of rural.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: They were 16 when he beat them.  He was 31.

They got much better.  He did not...lol.

Women play three sets because "it was always done that way"  And there has been debate on whether men should go to three sets too. Some of the best male players are for it while some oppose it for "traditional" reasons.

I wonder why the gop is making a huge issue and passing laws to affect a handful of people in the country.  Probably because they don't have any real policies so they need to rile up people to get angry or afraid of anyone different than them.

Serena herself said she'd get crushed in the men's league.  Stop mansplaining to female athletes.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Serena herself said she'd get crushed in the men's league.  Stop mansplaining to female athletes.

I wasn't.  I was mansplaining to Luvinit.

If he'd posted what you did I wouldn't have had to do that.

Wait, does your post make you a SJW?  Cool!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wasn't.  I was mansplaining to Luvinit.

Yeah, by arguing how Serena Williams was wrong.

Quote:If he'd posted what you did I wouldn't have had to do that.

Immaterial.  You contradicted the best female tennis player of all time.

Quote:Wait, does your post make you a SJW?  Cool!

Does it?  You'd have to explain how, because I'm not seeing it.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, by arguing how Serena Williams was wrong.



Immaterial.  You contradicted the best female tennis player of all time.


Does it?  You'd have to explain how, because I'm not seeing it.

I never said Serena was wrong.   Show me where I did. I cited their ages when a man beat her and how they progressed from there.

I said absolutely nothing about when Serena said until you mentioned it.  So me where I contradicted HER.

I hope you don't conduct your investigations this way: trying to make the facts meet your conclusion.  Maybe being "under cover" here has affected your game?

It does!  You rushed to defend a woman who did not need defended as I never said anything about what SHE said, despite your contention that I did.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never said Serena was wrong.   Show me where I did. I cited their ages when a man beat her and how they progressed from there.

I said absolutely nothing about when Serena said until you mentioned it.  So me where I contradicted HER.

You argued it.  Your tweet to Luvnit is not far above, it's not hard to find.

Quote:I hope you don't conduct your investigations this way: trying to make the facts meet your conclusion.  Maybe being "under cover" here has affected your game?

Oooo, personal attacks against my professional acumen.  Nothing says you've got a strong argument then these types of attacks.

Quote:It does!  You rushed to defend a woman who did not need defended as I never said anything about what SHE said, despite your contention that I did.  

You contradicted her opinion by mansplaining away her losing to a male tennis player who had been and was smoking between matches.  But, being the charitable man I am I'll give you an out.  Do you think that Serena Williams is correct that she would get annihilated on the men's tennis circuit?  Follow up with explaining how that jives with allowing biological men to compete against women.  I know you'll dodge this, but if you don't it'll be interesting.

[Luvnit2]

(06-22-2023, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never said Serena was wrong.   Show me where I did. I cited their ages when a man beat her and how they progressed from there.

I said absolutely nothing about when Serena said until you mentioned it.  So me where I contradicted HER.

I hope you don't conduct your investigations this way: trying to make the facts meet your conclusion.  Maybe being "under cover" here has affected your game?

It does!  You rushed to defend a woman who did not need defended as I never said anything about what SHE said, despite your contention that I did.  

You attempted to downplay the loss to less than average man professional by Serena and her sister. Why not admit the obvious boys at age 13 or 14 have a higher ceiling playing against girls in most cases.

Look at the different sports, track is one that comes to mind. Has any woman bested records for any event in track at the Olympic or pro level? Are the women's records (elite women athletes) close to the men's records?

It is easy to see a developed male athleticism far exceeds a fully developed woman and that happens in the teens.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You argued it.  Your tweet to Luvnit is not far above, it's not hard to find.



Oooo, personal attacks against my professional acumen.  Nothing says you've got a strong argument then these types of attacks.


You contradicted her opinion by mansplaining away her losing to a male tennis player who had been and was smoking between matches.  But, being the charitable man I am I'll give you an out.  Do you think that Serena Williams is correct that she would get annihilated on the men's tennis circuit?  Follow up with explaining how that jives with allowing biological men to compete against women.  I know you'll dodge this, but if you don't it'll be interesting.

God you're still boring.

Luvnit cited her being beat by a man.

I said she was young and got much better.

You came in and said Serena said she'd lose on the men's circuit and accused me of mansplaining to Serena when I never said anything about what she said.

Maybe "Leon" can come back and explain it to you. 

So, yes, if you conduct investigations like you interrogate board members you're slipping.  Maybe you're still on medication?  I so be "charitable" and "I'll give you an out"...lol.

I think, IMO, that there were plenty of men Serena could have beat on the men's circuit when she was in her prime.  I think, without knowing where and when she was quoted saying it, that she may have been being a little over-the-top humble.  She was a force on the court.

I believe that if the sanctioning body creates rules and limits that anyone should be able to compete with anyone.  I do NOT believe that we need laws passed that allow judges to do genital inspections before games, or that affect a very small amount of people when the sports leagues themsleves are closer to the actual games and can handle it themselves.

btw, you're singular obsession with me is still the dumbest thing I've ever had to deal with.  Like Joe Rogan "debate me bruh" level dumb.

So I answered all your questions ("dodge" lol) and now you go back to radio silence while you remain undercover...lol.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: God you're still boring.

Luvnit cited her being beat by a man.

I said she was young and got much better.

Indeed, and to what purpose?  

Quote:You came in and said Serena said she'd lose on the men's circuit and accused me of mansplaining to Serena when I never said anything about what she said.

Also indeed.  What is the purpose of your response to Luvnit if not to refute that she lost to a man ranked in the 100's?

Quote:Maybe "Leon" can come back and explain it to you. 

I don't know who that is.

Quote:So, yes, if you conduct investigations like you interrogate board members you're slipping.  Maybe you're still on medication?  I so be "charitable" and "I'll give you an out"...lol.

Ooooo, more personal attacks.  I'm rather disappointed.

Quote:I think, IMO, that there were plenty of men Serena could have beat on the men's circuit when she was in her prime.  I think, without knowing where and when she was quoted saying it, that she may have been being a little over-the-top humble.  She was a force on the court.

So you admit you're mansplaining to her after arguing that you weren't mansplaining her.  The cognitive dissonance is honestly impressive.

Quote:I believe that if the sanctioning body creates rules and limits that anyone should be able to compete with anyone.  I do NOT believe that we need laws passed that allow judges to do genital inspections before games, or that affect a very small amount of people when the sports leagues themsleves are closer to the actual games and can handle it themselves.

Cool, but this doesn't address what you were asked.  I asked if you think Serena would get crushed on the men's circuit.  John McEnroe also stated she would.  He likely knows a bit more about tennis then you or I.  If women are being discriminated against, as they are when men are allowed to compete in women's sports, then that is a federal issue.  Or are you in favor of an employer being able to treat employees unfairly based on their biological sex?

Quote:btw, you're singular obsession with me is still the dumbest thing I've ever had to deal with.  Like Joe Rogan "debate me bruh" level dumb.

Oh please, get over yourself.  You mean literally nothing to me.

Quote:So I answered all your questions ("dodge" lol) and now you go back to radio silence while you remain undercover...lol.

You didn't, but ok.  Also, your confusion about my status, so much so that you had to ask mods about it in another forum, is hilarious.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 01:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You attempted to downplay the loss to less than average man professional by Serena and her sister. Why not admit the obvious boys at age 13 or 14 have a higher ceiling playing against girls in most cases.

Look at the different sports, track is one that comes to mind. Has any woman bested records for any event in track at the Olympic or pro level? Are the women's records (elite women athletes) close to the men's records?

It is easy to see a developed male athleticism far exceeds a fully developed woman and that happens in the teens.

I definitely downplayed the loss of a 16 year old girl to a 30 year old man.  And if 30 year old professional male athletes want to compete in high school or college sports against women (or men) I'd have a problem with that.  Look what are NBA All-Stars did in the Olympics.

There are exceptions to all rules, nonetheless you are focused purely on the possibility of a problem that does not exist on any kind of measurable scale.  

I maintain that local organizations should handle such things and that the chances of anyone being affected by it as incredibly small.  Yet a bunch of people who are not affected by it all want to drone on about what a problem it is.

Would the top male beat the top female in most sports?  More than likely.  Can women compete with men?  Yes.  Especially depending on the sport.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2023, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh please, get over yourself.  You mean literally nothing to me.


You didn't, but ok.  Also, your confusion about my status, so much so that you had to ask mods about it in another forum, is hilarious.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 01:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You attempted to downplay the loss to less than average man professional by Serena and her sister. Why not admit the obvious boys at age 13 or 14 have a higher ceiling playing against girls in most cases.

Hmm, how is this so obvious to you and not him?  Didn't a U15 boys team beat the US woman's national team 5-2?

Quote:Look at the different sports, track is one that comes to mind. Has any woman bested records for any event in track at the Olympic or pro level? Are the women's records (elite women athletes) close to the men's records?

It is easy to see a developed male athleticism far exceeds a fully developed woman and that happens in the teens.

The problem here is that when you're an ideologue you are required to parrot everything believed by said ideology.  It forces the kind of tortured logic we see in threads like this.  It is patently obvious that there are physical differences between men and women that cannot be erased by HRT.  Bone length being an obvious one.  If you can even attempt to argue otherwise you're demonstrating an abdication of logic for that of ideological purity.  It's so bad that said people will even explain away the direct statement of the best female tennis player in history as, "she didn't really mean it".  It's amazing the omniscience this adherence appears to provide.  Quite something to witness.

And I say all this as someone who disagrees vehemently with you on several issues.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2023, 02:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Ahahaha, it was literally on the front page.  In fact it still is.  You're precious, I mean that sincerely.

[Mickeypoo]

(06-22-2023, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never said Serena was wrong.   Show me where I did. I cited their ages when a man beat her and how they progressed from there.

I said absolutely nothing about when Serena said until you mentioned it.  So me where I contradicted HER.

I hope you don't conduct your investigations this way: trying to make the facts meet your conclusion.  Maybe being "under cover" here has affected your game?

It does!  You rushed to defend a woman who did not need defended as I never said anything about what SHE said, despite your contention that I did.  

Oh snap!!

[*pally*]

you know who gets hurt by these narratives and laws. Girls/women, who, if heaven forbid, happen to be taller, stronger, or much better than their opponent or look "masculine" will have to defend themselves against "transgender" police.

These people will weaponize their bodies against them...all in the name of "protecting" them

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-22-2023, 02:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem here is that when you're an ideologue you are required to parrot everything believed by said ideology.  It forces the kind of tortured logic we see in threads like this.  It is patently obvious that there are physical differences between men and women that cannot be erased by HRT.  Bone length being an obvious one.  If you can even attempt to argue otherwise you're demonstrating an abdication of logic for that of ideological purity.  It's so bad that said people will even explain away the direct statement of the best female tennis player in history as, "she didn't really mean it".  It's amazing the omniscience this adherence appears to provide.  Quite something to witness.

As I am reading this thread and formulating a reply in my head, I came across this post. 

This is a masterpiece. It sums up perfectly my thoughts and what I wanted to reply. Thank you. You put it into words better than I ever could have. 

I am not in favor of our government wasting time on senseless legislation, but whenever the trans in sports issue starts to cost people opportunities for scholarships, actual scholarships themselves, and even money, then maybe it isn't as senseless as some believe. And while it may only be a "few" or a few "hundred" it needs to be addressed as it will only become more widespread. 

It's interesting to see the mental and logical gymnastics that people are doing to defend the indefensible. From arguing about young children playing sports together, to citing recreational co-ed sports, to girls playing HS football among other things, it laughable. 

Let's be honest, this isn't about any of those things. It is specifically about men playing in women's sports at the highest academic levels. 
It doesn't matter if U7 soccer is co-ed. It doesn't matter if U9 girls soccer kicks U9 boys ass. It doesn't matter that the occasional girls soccer player kicks FGs for the HS football team, she's actually competing UP a level.   

What matters is girls at the highest levels of athletics, the level that is the culmination of years of hard work and the level that can actually bring them recognition, scholarships, and money, could be robbed of those opportunities. It's unfair. And shouldn't be allowed. Period. End of story. Full stop. 

What is ironic is that the ideology that is supposed to be the most supportive of women can suddenly be so anti-woman. To everyone who is defending this absurdity at any level, I have to ask, 'why are you anti-woman and why do you hate them so much?' 

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-22-2023, 12:47 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So because it's not many people, it's ok to negatively impact their lives? They don't matter? The morally correct thing to do only applies if there's more than a hundred people it impacts?

It's one of the only ways to defend the indefensible. They have no case, they know it's wrong, and they have no way of defending it other than to minimize it and act like it doesn't matter and that you're the weirdo for caring about it. They're twisted and so steeped in their ideology that they can't deviate from it one iota. 

See post #74...sums it up perfectly. 

[BFritz21]

(06-22-2023, 09:56 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: It's one of the only ways to defend the indefensible. They have no case, they know it's wrong, and they have no way of defending it other than to minimize it and act like it doesn't matter and that you're the weirdo for caring about it. They're twisted and so steeped in their ideology that they can't deviate from it one iota. 

See post #74...sums it up perfectly. 

Exactly and the irony is that they say we need to give smaller groups their respect/confirmation/whatever and treat them like they're part of the big group but then they don't care that they're screwing people over just because it's not a lot of people.