I'm impressed with your desire to split up even fairly brief posts like that when all was required was a brief response/acknowledgement, thankfully amongst the noise we seem to have one: Yes, it is rather fundamental. Anyone not XX is, well anyone... I'm not referring to "anyone not XX" but rather only some people with particular conditions that I'm asserting give an obvious advantage (thanks to having high levels of testosterone that they are sensitive to) . It is starting to feel that way.
I think I've made it pretty clear tbh... this is just becoming a time wasting exercise now, you're "sealioning" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning That pretty much sums it up... read post, split it down line by line, go off on many tangents, repeatedly ask for information easily found elsewhere...
Bump. One of the long standing claims about the transgender women in sport issue is that 'no direct research shows' that they maintain an advantage. And this was strictly true, simply because research hadn't been done. Well now it's starting to and... the results aren't a surprise. Paper Cliffs: biological males still have a huge advantage after a year of treatment. It's good this is being done, but at the same time it's annoying knowing more interesting research could have been funded instead of something that's patently obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of physiology.
TBH I don't think you would ever be able to remove the advantage of a male body. Unless you grow a whole new, female body and do a brain transplant. But even that might not work since it would still be a male brain and it would want to maintain a male body.
how people even argue this is so dumb, do you hate women? then let trans women compete and say goodbye to all naturally born women in sport, men and women are splitted for god dam obvious reasons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezwjJxXS718 4 mins and 50 sec onwards
Not sure, I think Serena would give Andy Murray a hard time. She is just trying to play it down The physical gap is big, but the difference in the game isn't THAT big.
I cannot speak for tennis but definitely for badminton at least. Perhaps it's broadly relatable. I used to be an above average county level player in the early naughties. So in England I would've been around the top 150 or so. At world stage, I would not even be allowed to play in the qualification draw of a Tier 3 European tournament. I got to play an exhibition set against the female world nr2 at the time. A promotional thing of sort. Now, I'm not saying she tried her absolute hardest, but I'm saying that it would've made zero difference. She could not score a single point. Just a slow and weak player. I remember thinking that she surely is just letting me win, but during certain points she was moving full steam and playing attacking shots and moving me across the court into defense positions. Slow and weak, all of it, all the time. When I attacked the point was over in 3-4 shots. Inversely, where I think females do have the upper hand (in badminton at least), would be their deceptive net game. They can cut angles that I've seen very few men do. Particularly in mix doubles where the oppositional male player would always seek to target and isolate the female player. They've learned ways to deal with that by being incredibly deceptive. I don't know tennis well enough to analyze the mix doubles game but I imagine it's broadly similar. But for badminton at least, top males versus top female. No way, not ever. To the untrained eye the game may seem the same, but to those that know the game, the difference is astronomical.
I always found that John McEnroe panel odd. One of the female hosts acknowledged that men (in general) were both faster and more powerful, but couldn't seem to make the leap that this would obviously lead to a transferable advantage in tennis. Odd...
I'm really all for an open class only at the next Olympics. Do away with the male/female categories. Let the female runners sprint against the male runners. Let the female badminton players play the males. Let the male swimmers race the female swimmers. Let everyone compete against everyone else, regardless of genders, real or made up. Once the inevitable results are obvious enough, the debate should be settled.
It doesn't have to be at the top. 10% is the difference between world champion and nobody. Even a couple of percent makes all the difference.
I find it interesting that there are a lot of high profile female athletes speaking out about this, including world champions, but the media are purposely leaning to the trans side. I find it interesting that the person in the video clip says shes legally and medically a woman, but then refers to herself as a trans woman, and also admits there is a possibility that a trans woman has a physical advantage. Why is it in todays society people say they are real yet don't accept the reality? Is there a shame about being a trans woman/man? Why keep shoe-horning in to categories that is already established? Knowing they have a physical advantage over other athletes if you did win the race, wasn't they expected to? They haven't done anything exceptional.
Tbh I know quite a lot of trans people and this is such a weirdly minor issue picked up by a tiny minority of them. Most I know actually do agree it would be unfair for them to play against genetic women. Personally I find all the athletics stuff a bit boring but we could go down the ISO route redefine the catagories instead of on a vauge old definition to new empirical definitions. Male category becomes "any person with XY chromosomes and a natural testosterone level between X and Z (whatever the typical and accepted athletic range for a Male is) Womens catagory becomes anyone with XX chromosome and a natural testosterone level between A and B that's typical and accepted for women 3rd catagory anyone who does not meet the above criteria.
Ok, that's just a guy in a pink wig. I think I can even see some stubble :/ It's ridiculous that we're expected to take this seriously. It's like turning up to a high profile meeting in a clown suit and getting annoyed when someone questions it.
Underneath it all, they must know that competing against biological women is unfair and therefore an unsatisfying win.
It's the new doping. They can't easily get away with drugs anymore. Now they dress up as women, apparently that's allowed.
It's been said that even Serena would have great difficultly breaking into the top 100 in the men's game. Potentially it's even worse than that. The differences in height, raw strength and explosive power make it an impossible ask.
I recall the No 1 woman a while back saying she couldn't reliably beat her brother, who wasn't even seeded and played for fun. Serena Williams isn't that much worse than Andy Murray, but the 1000th tennis player isn't that much worse than Andy Murray. People near the top of a sport are usually seperated by fractions of a percent. I'd be willing to bet a week's pay that she couldn't get into the top 250. Maybe not the top 500. The famous tennis match in which it's sometimes claimed that a woman beat the "world champion" actually involved a woman beating a man who had been the world champion 30 years earlier and hadn't competed for over 20 years. And he'd just beaten the woman ranked 1 at the time. The woman who beat him was ranked 2, had watched the previous match and skillfully played at his weak point - endurance. He was fairly fit for his age, but he was no longer up to prolonged darting about the court.
