World swimming bans transgender women from competing

[Mike95060]

Byke Bitchtitsfloppycock takes no supplements!

So, “Natty Penor Face” is your proper moniker! NPF for life!

 

[stangmx13]

Professional sports IS about exploitation for entertainment. Sports is also about competition, not empathy. Empathy comes when individuals/ teams lose. I get being against PED's and cheating. Cheating was never my thing too, but later when you learn that many of those you were competing against were, clearly they felt cheating was worth it. So...at that point, embrace those who want to do so. I mean, we let anyone do any drug they want in open public. Why not allow athletes to do the same and increase their viability, performance and earning power? How many athletes at the top of their game would take PED's if they knew they'd never be caught? We all watched Icarus...we know the answer. What determines winners in endurance sports is body composition. Bostrom's lungs are massive....and his ability is off the charts thanks to the DNA lottery. Those who do not have such advantages are either stuck out of luck (and trapped in their economic situation) or will turn to PEDs. Why not? Not like they're gonna get to the top without them for the most part. I get the PED/ cheating thing, but I never was into it myself. If I needed a paycheck? Who knows... FWIW, capitalism is what makes amateur sports mean something, and I say that with great pain given how professional sports has treated our amateur sports leagues/ clubs.

My comments were partially serious, cause no, I don't think this will ever happen. But I do think more exposure for the para sports would be great entertainment and allowing classes with experimental bionics, etc. would bring a new viewing audience.

I'm not sure how one can hold an anti-trans and anti woman stance at the same time. Doesn't make sense to me.

You misunderstand my position. I'm not inherently against PEDs (I didnt even bring up cheating). I'm against incentivizing increased harm for anyone, including athletes that are already somewhat exploited. In cases of exploitation, it's obvious that people need to be saved from their exploiters AND themselves. If everyone was capable (mentally, physically, economically, whatever) of avoiding exploitation, we wouldn't need laws and protections against it. But here we are.

More athletes would take PEDs if they were legal in Unlimited than if PED were illegal but the athlete would never get caught. There were some clean athletes in pro cycling in the Lance era and they are part of how that was brought down. If PEDs are incentivized, they become a must-have in Unlimited. With enough capitalism, maybe there would also be an arms race for PEDs, a much larger one than exists in today's Olympics or whatever. This leads to more exploitation and likely more injury/death/harm... which is bad.

Your position seems to boil down to "exploitation already exists, so i'm cool with it being worse". Why don't you have a problem with that?

I explained how I feel anti-trans positions in sports are also anti-women in a post you liked and quoted. You failed to respond to that part of it. Did you disagree or not read it?

Your comments here about empathy make you sound like a psychopath. Nearly every part of sport should include empathy because all the competitors are people. They have lives outside of your entertainment value and your want for competition. Only considering empathy when competition reaches an outcome suggests you've dehumanized the competitors too much. And that starts to explain your whole line of thinking here...

 

[Reli]

Speaking of Lance....the reason he was so arrogant and defensive is because he knew everyone else was doping, and didn't want to be one of the only fall guys. He also probably felt like he had a legit handicap due to needing to recover from cancer.

 

[stangmx13]

Lance did become the worst fall guy, maybe because he was so arrogant and defensive. I suspect that if he wasn't such an asshole to so many people, he wouldn't have gone down so hard.

Floyd Landis shows up to my bike races regularly. People cheer a little when he gets a call-up - usually racing a tandem. He was "let back into cycling" far sooner than Lance.

 

[Holeshot]

You misunderstand my position. I'm not inherently against PEDs (I didnt even bring up cheating). I'm against incentivizing increased harm for anyone, including athletes that are already somewhat exploited. In cases of exploitation, it's obvious that people need to be saved from their exploiters AND themselves. If everyone was capable (mentally, physically, economically, whatever) of avoiding exploitation, we wouldn't need laws and protections against it. But here we are.

Your position seems to boil down to "exploitation already exists, so i'm cool with it being worse". Why don't you have a problem with that?

Yes; exploitation exists in professional (paid) sports. How can it not when dollars are at stake? Maybe we're not in concert with the definition of exploitation? "I'm against incentivizing increased harm for anyone, including athletes that are already somewhat exploited". Admirable, but unrealistic. "In cases of exploitation, it's obvious that people need to be saved from their exploiters AND themselves". Really? Why? Are these people being asked to be saved? And what is "saved"? Taking their livery from them because they've made their own life choices that may be riskier to their long term (or short term) outcomes? Risk is reward. Hard work is reward. Humans have pretty simple motivations, at our core. Some have lots to trade for a chance at success; others, not so much. So, they PED up, or they put more risk on the line. So long as they're paid, there's a definition of "exploration" that fits...but, the individual is ok with that deal. Humans will always cheat to get ahead or win. Not all, but some...and that's because there's a financial benefit to do so. Economics. What can be traded for capital/ wealth?

Why don't I have a problem with it? Cause it's a personal choice and only that individual knows if it's worth it for themselves. I'm not one to judge another's balance of life safety. Especially, me...actually.

I explained how I feel anti-trans positions in sports are also anti-women in a post you liked and quoted. You failed to respond to that part of it. Did you disagree or not read it?

I agreed, or so I I thought. I re-read it a few times and understood your position is to allow trans-acceptance into women's sports based on the inability to decipher who's XX and who's XY. I don't agree that's a strong enough reason to allow blended gender women's sports, especially in light of your plea for "Incentiving increased harm for anyone". The two posts argue discontinuous positions, given the reasons for XY in XX sports are about safety of the competitors. I liked your post for the 2nd paragraph, not the first.

Your comments here about empathy make you sound like a psychopath. Nearly every part of sport should include empathy because all the competitors are people. They have lives outside of your entertainment value and your want for competition. Only considering empathy when competition reaches an outcome suggests you've dehumanized the competitors too much. And that starts to explain your whole line of thinking here...

Every sport includes empathy. We feel it when players are hurt. We feel it when teams lose. And we feel when teams and individuals fail at meeting their goals. We all felt it when Damar Hamlin collapsed and each time my friend missed his Olympic Gold in his Olympic downhill runs. Yeah, those hurt. But that's cause we've been there too, even as amateurs. What part of empathy should I have for someone who wants to win so bad, they'll take years off their life to do so? The part that loses the years or the part that wins?

Life is a series of (shitty) compromises. The best we can do is be good to people and each other, and make some jokes about daily life. One day, we won't be able to.

My comments were partially serious, cause no, I don't think this will ever happen. But I do think more exposure for the para sports would be great entertainment and allowing classes with experimental bionics, etc. would bring a new viewing audience.

Serious me, above.

 

[Kurosaki]

Every sport includes empathy. We feel it when players are hurt. We feel it when teams lose. And we feel when teams and individuals fail at meeting their goals. We all felt it when Damar Hamlin collapsed and each time my friend missed his Olympic Gold in his Olympic downhill runs. Yeah, those hurt. But that's cause we've been there too, even as amateurs. What part of empathy should I have for someone who wants to win so bad, they'll take years off their life to do so? The part that loses the years or the part that wins?

Life is a series of (shitty) compromises. The best we can do is be good to people and each other, and make some jokes about daily life. One day, we won't be able to.

In the context of sports, since that is the topic, it's sad you only relate empathy in situations of athletes losing. Are you REALLY saying you don't have any empathy for someone who wants to win so bad, they'll take years off their life to do so? This doesn't really jive with your last statement the best we can do is be good to people and each other. If you really believe that, it's at odds with your statement about empathy.

Empathy for athletes is not contingent on whether they won or lost. Empathy for anyone is not contingent on their life situation.

The basic definition of empathy disagrees your mindset.

"empathy - the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

It's that simple.

Words mean things and we should use them as they are defined as best as we can, not what we think they mean.

 

[Holeshot]

Robert and I raced motorcycles for a considerable amount of time. Do I think anyone had empathy for the immediate dangers? No, I don't. But, plenty had/ have sympathy when things go wrong to each other and (some) regret when it happens to yourself. And, neither of us were ever paid any significant sum to participate. Pretty much, everyone does the same thing that goes out there: "It's gonna happen to someone else, not me".

Lives shortened by years or the end of a life is tragic, but...it's a life. People make their own choices. I did. I assume Robert did as well. In the end, most boil it down to "luck" and smart ones get out before they get hurt too bad. People know how to quit dangerous activities when it's worth it to them. I've been living and seeing it for over 20 years, as a racer and Club President.

Robert used a great term to describe me. It's too bad he wasn't next to me when things went horribly bad at events for our riders over the years. I can replay each one in detail easily...and I don't have a great memory. Empathy? Sympathy? There's no difference, chief. It's all tragedy when it goes wrong. And there's no forgetting it. I know this well. "People make their own choices". That reality helps.

 

[Kurosaki]

Re-read my last post. I'm not going to repeat myself.

If you really believe you or anyone didn't have empathy in the situations you're describing, you have a serious problem and don't understand empathy. Your word salad is unnecessary.

 

[Holeshot]

Nope.

 

[Kurosaki]

Typical...

 

[stangmx13]

Yes; exploitation exists in professional (paid) sports. How can it not when dollars are at stake? Maybe we're not in concert with the definition of exploitation? "I'm against incentivizing increased harm for anyone, including athletes that are already somewhat exploited". Admirable, but unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic. We do it all the time with regulations and laws that prevent unsafe and exploitative conditions. Practically every new sporting regulation that increases competitor safety is doing exactly what I want. Many existing anti-PED regulations are doing it. Competitor unions primary goal can probably be boiled down to reducing exploitation and harm, both physical and economic - like most unions. Etc etc.

"In cases of exploitation, it's obvious that people need to be saved from their exploiters AND themselves". Really? Why? Are these people being asked to be saved? And what is "saved"? Taking their livery from them because they've made their own life choices that may be riskier to their long term (or short term) outcomes? Risk is reward. Hard work is reward. Humans have pretty simple motivations, at our core. Some have lots to trade for a chance at success; others, not so much. So, they PED up, or they put more risk on the line. So long as they're paid, there's a definition of "exploration" that fits...but, the individual is ok with that deal. Humans will always cheat to get ahead or win. Not all, but some...and that's because there's a financial benefit to do so. Economics. What can be traded for capital/ wealth?

Why don't I have a problem with it? Cause it's a personal choice and only that individual knows if it's worth it for themselves. I'm not one to judge another's balance of life safety. Especially, me...actually.

In this context, "saved" is preventing people from having to make choices that lead to increased harm or increased exploitation. It's easy to think personal choice and personal responsibility is good enough to regulate the balance of risk/exploitation/etc. But we know that it's not from all of the societal structures in place that protect people and their "choices".

Heres a silly example. You are an F1 rookie that just got their big break. The FIA removes all crash-test standards from the rulebook and dramatically lowers the weight limit (for unrealistic reasons that don't matter). The teams start producing cars that are much faster and significantly more dangerous for the driver, cuz they gotta win. Do you risk it? You spent your entire life working to this point thinking the cars were gonna be safe-enough. RedBull is dangling that multi-million dollar contract in your face, asking you to INCREASE the risk to your life beyond what you expected. No pressure though - it's your personal choice.

Should other drivers be allowed to risk it? Would you let your child or partner risk it? Generally, society says no - we dont allow INCREASES in harm in sports (or many other parts of society). Once we've figured out something that increases safety, that thing is not removed.

Your Unlimited class and open use of PEDs is that FIA rule change.

As I'm typing this, I realize we've gone too far into the weeds with this hypothetical. I'm good with moving away from this topic. It's barely applicable to the original topic anymore.

I agreed, or so I I thought. I re-read it a few times and understood your position is to allow trans-acceptance into women's sports based on the inability to decipher who's XX and who's XY. I don't agree that's a strong enough reason to allow blended gender women's sports, especially in light of your plea for "Incentiving increased harm for anyone". The two posts argue discontinuous positions, given the reasons for XY in XX sports are about safety of the competitors. I liked your post for the 2nd paragraph, not the first.

I gave reasons for how bans will negatively impact ciswomen in sports. Do you agree that the harm I presented will/does exist?

I did not give any solution for including transwomen in women's sports. I dont know of a solution, and especially not one that applies to every situation that can arise in sports.

"Safety of competitors" is practically a red-herring, as it applies to so few sports and competitors. The argument can be made for contact sports where there the sport contains an intent to harm your competitors.... which is a small subset of an already tiny population of competitors. Using "safety of competitors" as a reason to ban transwomen from tennis for example is just dumb.

Every sport includes empathy. We feel it when players are hurt. We feel it when teams lose. And we feel when teams and individuals fail at meeting their goals. We all felt it when Damar Hamlin collapsed and each time my friend missed his Olympic Gold in his Olympic downhill runs. Yeah, those hurt. But that's cause we've been there too, even as amateurs. What part of empathy should I have for someone who wants to win so bad, they'll take years off their life to do so? The part that loses the years or the part that wins?

Life is a series of (shitty) compromises. The best we can do is be good to people and each other, and make some jokes about daily life. One day, we won't be able to.

In the case of the competitor that took years off their life to compete, I'll default to love the player and hate the game. I hope that the game can be changed so future competitors don't have to make that choice. The last part seems to be where we differ.

 

[Holeshot]

Yeah, look, I think we're pretty close here, really. So long as you read the part I wrote about being "half serious" on the unlimited part. More of a spit ball session than reaility. But that doesn't change the quest for ever more in humans and in all sports, there's cheating. And there's cheating because there's financial and status gain for doing so. We'll never cure that, aside from a ruleset and technical inspection(s) that don't allow cheating.

Back to the point of an unlimited class; Leg blades. That's where my head was at, mainly cause watching the para olympics brought the thought about development for para olympians to go beyond their current condition. With no wars we're fighting (thank God), sports are a solid replacement for development. PED's fall into this category too, and while I look down on the stuff, I do think there's still plenty to learn and plenty to gain with the use of PED's. Without any sort of testing ground, there is no advancement. I'd expect regulation(s) in an unlimited category as well.

In the end; self determination is the ultimate freedom and I think that should be afforded people. At the same time, I'd rather spend the effort to curb alcohol and drug abuse in our nation. But, no one cares about that, so...unlimited.