He knows, paul. He's just being obtuse on purpose and intellectually dishonest. It's the khem way of doing things. I wouldn't bother.

I mean, I have to agree with most people here that men DO tend to be stronger, faster, etc. than women. Of course it doesn't apply across the board. Of course there are anomalies, but to suggest that men and women are physically equal is just sort of silly. There are well-documented physical differences that most certainly trend toward differences in ability. I mean, you'd never buy a male golden retriever and expect it to be the same size as a female, right? It's just biology, not politics. All of that said, to suggest that women are athletically inferior is equally stupid. A man doesn't have an advantage over a woman just because he's male. He has to also train. All other things being equal, the man will likely do better. Other factors being unequal, a woman can definitely kick a man's ass in a variety of sports. These aren't disputable opinions. They're facts. I don't know how you people can go on and on about it as if we don't already know all of these things for a fact. The only thing in question is whether transitioning does enough to mitigate the gender difference in sports. I don't know, but I do know men and women are not equally matched physically, all other things being equal.

(March 2, 2018 at 2:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I just previously said I think familiarity is more important.  I know female athletes who I think could beat me at soccer, old women can beat me at swimming.  

We seem to be in agreement.  

Quote:It's results based on averages, relating to specific sports, I'd argue most sports, that men out perform women on average.

We've left the domain of "the average guy/gal" and entered into the domain of athletes.  I'd agree, but as we've already agreed..it aint "because male". 

Quote:People can raise their standards of performance with steroids, growth hormones and other substances, people can lower their standards of performance by keeping their muscles still and letting the muscle waste away.  That's gender neutral. 

Agreed, they can also intentionally waste their muscle mass and bone density and stamina and (on and on) away with hormone therapy...like, say, an m-f transition.  

Quote:You can keep a cheetah in horrible conditions, let the muscles waste away while training up a greyhound and giving it performance enhancing drugs.  That dog might beat that feline.  Cheetahs are still faster than greyhounds on average.

What happens when you inject drugs into people has no impact on average male vs average female.

The presence of those substances, however, seems to be to be a highly relevant factor..in that we've also agreed.  

So, since we agree on everything, how about that question I asked earlier? What do you think. If we had good trans regs, and m-f trans athletes were matched with females because they had similar muscle mass, bone density, t levels..etc....would that be kosher?

(March 2, 2018 at 2:24 pm)Shell B Wrote: I mean, I have to agree with most people here that men DO tend to be stronger, faster, etc. than women. Of course it doesn't apply across the board. Of course there are anomalies, but to suggest that men and women are physically equal is just sort of silly. There are well-documented physical differences that most certainly trend toward differences in ability. I mean, you'd never buy a male golden retriever and expect it to be the same size as a female, right? It's just biology, not politics. All of that said, to suggest that women are athletically inferior is equally stupid. A man doesn't have an advantage over a woman just because he's male. He has to also train. All other things being equal, the man will likely do better. Other factors being unequal, a woman can definitely kick a man's ass in a variety of sports. These aren't disputable opinions. They're facts. I don't know how you people can go on and on about it as if we don't already know all of these things for a fact. The only thing in question is whether transitioning does enough to mitigate the gender difference in sports. I don't know, but I do know men and women are not equally matched physically, all other things being equal.

I'm not sure what you mean about men not having an advantage over women because they are men. It contradicts the first part of your post, and is the whole reason why we are having this discussion lol.

(March 2, 2018 at 2:24 pm)Shell B Wrote: The only thing in question is whether transitioning does enough to mitigate the gender difference in sports.

Exactly...and the data we have suggests that it does.  That's not really surprising since transitioning effects the things we refer to when we try to explain the biological foundation of performance in sports. Again, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that trans athletes have an advantage at -any- point in the process...but laying that aside..we know that the terminus of that process is relevant parity..or worse, metric based inferiority.

The drugs and the surgery fuck you up, they don't turn a person into a super competitor.

No, it doesn't. This is what I've been saying all along. The distinct biological differences they do have tend to make them stronger, etc, but it does not make them more *able* to be athletic. A woman can train, get in her peak physical condition and smoke the majority of men who are sitting on their couches. You get the advantages by training, not by being born. Unless you're saying a woman can't train to become stronger than a man, then we don't disagree.

(March 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, it doesn't. This is what I've been saying all along. The distinct biological differences they do have tend to make them stronger, etc, but it does not make them more *able* to be athletic. A woman can train, get in her peak physical condition and smoke the majority of men who are sitting on their couches. You get the advantages by training, not by being born. Unless you're saying a woman can't train to become stronger than a man, then we don't disagree.

Ok. No one here disagrees with your last sentence.

But I do disagree with you saying men don't have an advantage from being male. As you said, men are bigger, stronger, faster, have more testosterone, more muscle mass, bone density, etc etc. That doesn't mean all men in the world are better than all women in the world at everything. But it does mean that from the nature of being male it gives them an automatic advantage. Not a guarantee. An advantage.

Of course, training also gives you an advantage. And a woman can train her ass off and be better than the guy who eats junk food and sits on the couch all day.

It doesn't matter whether or not men have advantages, the subject of contention is trans females, not men in dresses.

(March 2, 2018 at 2:24 pm)Shell B Wrote: I mean, I have to agree with most people here that men DO tend to be stronger, faster, etc. than women. Of course it doesn't apply across the board. Of course there are anomalies, but to suggest that men and women are physically equal is just sort of silly. There are well-documented physical differences that most certainly trend toward differences in ability. I mean, you'd never buy a male golden retriever and expect it to be the same size as a female, right? It's just biology, not politics. All of that said, to suggest that women are athletically inferior is equally stupid. A man doesn't have an advantage over a woman just because he's male. He has to also train. All other things being equal, the man will likely do better. Other factors being unequal, a woman can definitely kick a man's ass in a variety of sports. These aren't disputable opinions. They're facts. I don't know how you people can go on and on about it as if we don't already know all of these things for a fact. The only thing in question is whether transitioning does enough to mitigate the gender difference in sports. I don't know, but I do know men and women are not equally matched physically, all other things being equal.

Perfect summary

---

(March 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, it doesn't. This is what I've been saying all along. The distinct biological differences they do have tend to make them stronger, etc, but it does not make them more *able* to be athletic. A woman can train, get in her peak physical condition and smoke the majority of men who are sitting on their couches. You get the advantages by training, not by being born. Unless you're saying a woman can't train to become stronger than a man, then we don't disagree.

... Really? So the female just has to work extra hard? Why are you mentioning males who don't care about sports? All factors equal: males are more athletic.

(March 2, 2018 at 2:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 2, 2018 at 2:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I just previously said I think familiarity is more important.  I know female athletes who I think could beat me at soccer, old women can beat me at swimming.  

We seem to be in agreement.  

Quote:It's results based on averages, relating to specific sports, I'd argue most sports, that men out perform women on average.

We've left the domain of "the average guy/gal" and entered into the domain of athletes.  I'd agree, but as we've already agreed..it aint "because male". 

Quote:People can raise their standards of performance with steroids, growth hormones and other substances, people can lower their standards of performance by keeping their muscles still and letting the muscle waste away.  That's gender neutral. 

Agreed, they can also intentionally waste their muscle mass and bone density and stamina and (on and on) away with hormone therapy...like, say, an m-f transition.  

Quote:You can keep a cheetah in horrible conditions, let the muscles waste away while training up a greyhound and giving it performance enhancing drugs.  That dog might beat that feline.  Cheetahs are still faster than greyhounds on average.

What happens when you inject drugs into people has no impact on average male vs average female.

The presence of those substances, however, seems to be to be a highly relevant factor..in that we've also agreed.  

So, since we agree on everything, how about that question I asked earlier?  What do you think.  If we had good trans regs, and m-f trans athletes were matched with females because they had similar muscle mass, bone density, t levels..etc....would that be kosher?

I don't know if we agree because you haven't yet alluded to agreeing that the average male is better at the majority of sports than the average woman. 

We agree that women can be skillful and win things while in competition with men, which is something a 6 year old could conclude and something which no one has argued against that I know of.

---

(March 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, it doesn't. This is what I've been saying all along. The distinct biological differences they do have tend to make them stronger, etc, but it does not make them more *able* to be athletic. A woman can train, get in her peak physical condition and smoke the majority of men who are sitting on their couches. You get the advantages by training, not by being born. Unless you're saying a woman can't train to become stronger than a man, then we don't disagree.

Not to be picky but sometimes you get the advantages by being born into the right genetics.  

A lot of professional athletes could take years off training, even take drugs (not the performance enhancing ones), have a few donuts (probably while doing whatever athletic challenge/sport we're competing in) and destroy me in my prime while I train however many days a week at the gym.