Man Named 'Tiffany' Is Dominating Women's Pro Volleyball in Brazil

[paulpablo]

Sure, I just don't think that statement is the truism people take it to be, Pablo, less and less so the more women play sports...but it certainly can be true somewhere, and in those cases I doubt it's because they're guys.

Saying that the average male is better than the average female at lots of sports, I'd say the majority of sports, isn't saying they're male and they're better because they're male.

That really doesn't make much sense to say, it's circular logic and I've never heard anyone really say it in that way.

There's sexual dimorphism between male and female and humans and in humans as it stands right now males have more testosterone on average.  The average male is taller, stronger, faster with a different bone structure and less body fat than the average female.  That's why the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports.

[shadow]

So to sum it all up... even if transwomen always beat ciswomen.... it doesn't matter. Transwomen are women too, and if the alternative is banning all transwomen or forcing them to play with men when they're not men they're women.... then that's immoral and unjustified and the only possible motive is bigotry.

If only blonde haired women won at women's sports, would you ban blonde haired women from playing? If them dyeing their hair had no effect, and it was the fact they were born a blonde that made them win, would you still ban them? If they were even matched with the men would you force them to play with the men?

I think this is all very silly. Women winning women's sports is normal. The fact that someone is trans or cis is irrelevant. The fact any particular sub category of a group always wins doesn't make them not part of the group.  Everyone is part of the group, no one is cheating and to divide people up between trans/cis is just plain fucking wrong. Whether someone is trans or cis is wholly irrelevant. They're female, so they get to play with females.

And this is all to say even if transwomen always won.... that doesn't matter it's women playing and winning and fair is fair. That is not to say that they always do. The point is it's irrelevant.

It's not transwomen winning in women's sports.... it's women winning in women's sports. Trans/cis is irrelevant. And that is what everyone needs to takeaway from this, lest they be correctly labelled transphobic. It would be like finding out more black people than white people win and boxing, and that being seen as a problem.... the race someone is when they win is irrelevant. Whether someone is trans or cis is equally irrelevant. The group is categorized via gender and not via trans/cis. Just as men's boxing is men's boxing.... you don't have black male boxing and white male boxing.

Hammy, I couldn't care less if you want to label me transphobic. I'm not, and this is the problem with the far-left. You make it seem like anyone who doesn't fall in complete lockstep with going to extreme lengths and destroying reasonable systems to accomodate a minority group is somehow a bigot. It's in opposition to critically thinking. Trans women are not biological women. Sports are divided because of a difference in biological capability between men and women, so trans women don't fit in with biological women. This is the issue, not the gender with which someone identifies. That's not what sports are about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I just don't think that statement is the truism people take it to be, Pablo, less and less so the more women play sports...but it certainly can be true somewhere, and in those cases I doubt it's because they're guys.

Saying that the average male is better than the average female at lots of sports, I'd say the majority of sports, isn't saying they're male and they're better because they're male.

Agreed. I'd personally put broader participation in sports much higher than "big lungs" on why that may be wherever it is. Im definitely not confident that my big lungs are going to carry me through a soccer match against a girl who plays soccer at even the lowest level, for personal enjoyment.

That really doesn't make much sense to say, it's circular logic and I've never heard anyone really say it in that way.

That's the second time in this thread that someone has said they've never seen someone say something that;s being said in this thread with regularity.  Something is awry,. 

There's sexual dimorphism between male and female and humans and in humans as it stands right now males have more testosterone on average.  The average male is taller, stronger, faster with a different bone structure and less body fat than the average female.  That's why the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports.

So, in keeping with the "it's not because they're male" theme...can we posit that two athletes of similar t levels, similar strength, similar speed, similar skeletal structure, and similar body fat would be a good match? Building on that, if it just so happens that transitioning provides the relevant effect..there shouldn't be any specific advantage or reason to exclude them from competition with their cis gendered..well matched, peers?

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure, I just don't think that statement is the truism people take it to be, Pablo, less and less so the more women play sports...but it certainly can be true somewhere, and in those cases I doubt it's because they're guys.

Saying that the average male is better than the average female at lots of sports, I'd say the majority of sports, isn't saying they're male and they're better because they're male.

That really doesn't make much sense to say, it's circular logic and I've never heard anyone really say it in that way.

There's sexual dimorphism between male and female and humans and in humans as it stands right now males have more testosterone on average.  The average male is taller, stronger, faster with a different bone structure and less body fat than the average female.  That's why the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports.

Which is fine except we're not debating about a man named Tiffany.

[Catholic_Lady]

So to sum it all up... even if transwomen always beat ciswomen.... it doesn't matter. Transwomen are women too, and if the alternative is banning all transwomen or forcing them to play with men when they're not men they're women.... then that's immoral and unjustified and the only possible motive is bigotry.

If only blonde haired women won at women's sports, would you ban blonde haired women from playing? If them dyeing their hair had no effect, and it was the fact they were born a blonde that made them win, would you still ban them? If they were even matched with the men would you force them to play with the men?

I think this is all very silly. Women winning women's sports is normal. The fact that someone is trans or cis is irrelevant. The fact any particular sub category of a group always wins doesn't make them not part of the group.  Everyone is part of the group, no one is cheating and to divide people up between trans/cis is just plain fucking wrong. Whether someone is trans or cis is wholly irrelevant. They're female, so they get to play with females.

And this is all to say even if transwomen always won.... that doesn't matter it's women playing and winning and fair is fair. That is not to say that they always do. The point is it's irrelevant.

It's not transwomen winning in women's sports.... it's women winning in women's sports. Trans/cis is irrelevant. And that is what everyone needs to takeaway from this, lest they be correctly labelled transphobic. It would be like finding out more black people than white people win and boxing, and that being seen as a problem.... the race someone is when they win is irrelevant. Whether someone is trans or cis is equally irrelevant. The group is categorized via gender and not via trans/cis. Just as men's boxing is men's boxing.... you don't have black male boxing and white male boxing.

Hammy, I couldn't care less if you want to label me transphobic. I'm not, and this is the problem with the far-left. You make it seem like anyone who doesn't fall in complete lockstep with going to extreme lengths and destroying reasonable systems to accomodate a minority group is somehow a bigot. It's in opposition to critically thinking. Trans women are not biological women. Sports are divided because of a difference in biological capability between men and women, so trans women don't fit in with biological women. This is the issue, not the gender with which someone identifies. That's not what sports are about.

I mean, he's already admitted that even if it is an unfair competition for the rest of the women, he doesn't care. So theres not much else to argue about.

Also, marry me!

[paulpablo]

Saying that the average male is better than the average female at lots of sports, I'd say the majority of sports, isn't saying they're male and they're better because they're male.

Agreed.  I'd personally put broader participation in sports much higher than "big lungs" on why that may be wherever it is.  Im definitely not confident that my big lungs are going to carry me through a soccer match against a girl who plays soccer at even the lowest level, for personal enjoyment.  

That really doesn't make much sense to say, it's circular logic and I've never heard anyone really say it in that way.

That's the second time in this thread that someone has said they've never seen someone say something that;s being said in this thread with regularity.  Something is awry,. 

There's sexual dimorphism between male and female and humans and in humans as it stands right now males have more testosterone on average.  The average male is taller, stronger, faster with a different bone structure and less body fat than the average female.  That's why the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports.

So, in keeping with the "it's not because they're male" theme...can we posit that two athletes of similar t levels, similar strength, similar speed, similar skeletal structure, and similar body fat would be a good match?  Building on that, if it just so happens that transitioning provides the relevant effect..there shouldn't be any specific advantage or reason to exclude them from competition with their cis gendered..well matched, peers?

I can posit that the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports because of presence of more testosterone , growth hormones and so in on the average male compared to the average female. It's why synthetic testosterone is used as a performance enhancing drug.

That was what we were talking about, that's the point I objected to, so it's better to finish one conversation at a time rather than skip topics.

You said previously that you're a cripple (possibly an exaggeration)  so I imagine there wouldn't be much of an advantage for you vs a girl who plays soccer even at low levels.

My lung capacity, stronger muscles and height won't help me against female soccer players, I know because I know an experienced female soccer player who can run rings around me.  But that's the case of me (I haven't played soccer since I was in my teens) vs one of the best female soccer players in my area.  I know that if she competes with a male at a similar level to her he will have the advantage.  She has body fat (tits and ass) vs lean muscle mass.  Less speed, less explosive power.

I had a weight lifting competition just today with this same girl and another girl just for fun.  I beat her with one arm in the amount of reps I did then proceeded to beat the next girl by about 10, that's 2 girls in a row with little effort.  It's not that girls who specialize in a sport or develop a skill can't beat men.  It's that the average man just has a different body to the average woman, and that doesn't take skill it's just what a man is born with.

Coincidentally I also had a really fun volley ball game with the girl which went kind of equal.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can posit that the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports because of presence of more testosterone , growth hormones and so in on the average male compared to the average female.  It's why synthetic testosterone is used as a performance enhancing drug.

You could posit it, but it's not strictly true.  All of my average guy t aint gonna keep the ball out of the net when sally fuckin rocket shins comes calling...and she aint a pro, she just likes to play soccer and I don't.    

That was what we were talking about, that's the point I objected to, so it's better to finish one conversation at a time rather than skip topics.

I think that you and I broadly agree on the subject, at least insomuch as comparing two athletes with equal backgrounds (this isolates cultural norms about who plays sports that might otherwise throw our conclusion)...the one with more performance enhancing substances present is at least likely to outperform the other - though thats technically gender and sex neutral.  Errybody can dope. 

You think that for average people the male is better at sports because of x y and z...and while I can see why an athlete might be better at some specific sport because of some specific x y or z.....for "the average person" I'd consider their familiarity with the sport far more important.  

You said previously that you're a cripple (possibly an exaggeration)  so I imagine there wouldn't be much of an advantage for you vs a girl who plays soccer even at low levels.

There wasn't when I was an athlete and a non-cripple, either.  I just suck at soccer.  I'm not good at alot of sports..actually.  Fuckin lacrosse...what the hell is that?  Don't pick me.  My t never fixed that..maybe it's defective, lol. Don't play football either. Or hockey. The list of sports I'm just fundamentally bad at is long. My wife's into aikido....not a pro, just a hobby.....and I won't be winning there either..even though I'm in massively better shape despite my injuries and come equipped with all the male whatsits. She;s got that low center of grav and swivelhips man.....it's like getting on a carousel that flips you upside down for shits and giggles. I guess I could just clock her right in her smug face...but she doesn;t have a glass jaw, and outweighs me...so that hook I'm gonna get in return is a problem. Add boxing to the list of shit I'm not good at.

I -used- to be able to run, and I could play basketball decently well for a white boy, went state as a forward (lost, lol). Beyond that, I wasn't better at any other sport than any of the girls I knew who played them.

---

I did, just as another anecdote, know a girl who ran with us on the bridges.  She was every bit as fast as we were..but she was the real fuckin deal.  IIRC she got a full ride to USF..which makes her a traitor in every sense of the word.

[FFaith]

So to sum it all up... even if transwomen always beat ciswomen.... it doesn't matter. Transwomen are women too, and if the alternative is banning all transwomen or forcing them to play with men when they're not men they're women.... then that's immoral and unjustified and the only possible motive is bigotry.

If only blonde haired women won at women's sports, would you ban blonde haired women from playing? If them dyeing their hair had no effect, and it was the fact they were born a blonde that made them win, would you still ban them? If they were even matched with the men would you force them to play with the men?

I think this is all very silly. Women winning women's sports is normal. The fact that someone is trans or cis is irrelevant. The fact any particular sub category of a group always wins doesn't make them not part of the group.  Everyone is part of the group, no one is cheating and to divide people up between trans/cis is just plain fucking wrong. Whether someone is trans or cis is wholly irrelevant. They're female, so they get to play with females.

And this is all to say even if transwomen always won.... that doesn't matter it's women playing and winning and fair is fair. That is not to say that they always do. The point is it's irrelevant.

It's not transwomen winning in women's sports.... it's women winning in women's sports. Trans/cis is irrelevant. And that is what everyone needs to takeaway from this, lest they be correctly labelled transphobic. It would be like finding out more black people than white people win and boxing, and that being seen as a problem.... the race someone is when they win is irrelevant. Whether someone is trans or cis is equally irrelevant. The group is categorized via gender and not via trans/cis. Just as men's boxing is men's boxing.... you don't have black male boxing and white male boxing.

What if Mike Tyson identified as a woman with a manly body who wanted to keep his body as is and not do any hormone treatment? If you don't let him compete with the women, you're basically telling him that he's not a woman and you are humiliating him. That's bigotry by your logic, no? A woman with a penis who has undergone no surgery or hormone treatments is still a woman. Why isn't it transphobic to not let them compete? Would you let him compete even though you're pretty much guaranteed to have several bio women ending up in caskets at Tyson's hands? I think you are well meaning and really do think you think you are fighting against bigotry, but in reality you are actually the one that is being sexist/ anti-women.

[The Grand Nudger]

The man in the dress strikes again!  

[paulpablo]

I can posit that the average male is better than the average female at the majority of sports because of presence of more testosterone , growth hormones and so in on the average male compared to the average female.  It's why synthetic testosterone is used as a performance enhancing drug.

You could posit it, but it's not strictly true.  All of my average guy t aint gonna keep the ball out of the net when sally fuckin rocket shins comes calling...and she aint a pro, she just likes to play soccer and I don't.    

That was what we were talking about, that's the point I objected to, so it's better to finish one conversation at a time rather than skip topics.

I think that you and I broadly agree on the subject, at least insomuch as comparing two athletes with equal backgrounds (this isolates cultural norms about who plays sports that might otherwise throw our conclusion)...the one with more performance enhancing substances present is at least likely to outperform the other - though thats technically gender and sex neutral.  Errybody can dope. 

You think that for average people the male is better at sports because of x y and z...and while I can see why an athlete might be better at some specific sport because of some specific x y or z.....for "the average person" I'd consider their familiarity with the sport far more important.  

You said previously that you're a cripple (possibly an exaggeration)  so I imagine there wouldn't be much of an advantage for you vs a girl who plays soccer even at low levels.

There wasn't when I was an athlete and a non-cripple, either.  I just suck at soccer.  I'm not good at alot of sports..actually.  Fuckin lacrosse...what the hell is that?  Don't pick me.  My t never fixed that..maybe it's defective, lol.

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.  

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

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. 

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.