Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
In terms of football, a U-18 mens team would probably beat a full women's team.
There's been a few recent examples - United women lost 9-0 to Salford Academy, FC Dallas under-15 boys squad once beat the U.S. Women's National Team.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Da feery is out there that women are potentially faster marathon runners than men.
In a probably vain attempt to to move the conversation on from what's in our under where.
For those that are following the numbers put out by Oryx about destroyed tanks and so on from the war in Ukraine.
Has anybody been tracing the ratios of losses by type?
e.g. in the first week X destroyed tanks for every one captured but in week 4 that's up to Y destroyed for every one Captured. or anything like this. It may not show us much but it would be an opportunity to crunch some numbers.
I've not seen a way to extract data from the site, easily. So you'd have to go through manually, looking up what was destroyed/captured on each date etc...
Pity or you could create some graphs daily like the exhalant COVID ones you do. and publish them on here, to let us know its time for Gin and Tonic.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Da feery is out there that women are potentially faster marathon runners than men.
Boris Johnson got through that relatively easily. With the Commons recess starting tomorrow, that will be a relief, because he then enters a two-week holiday when MPs are no longer in the Commons, and so the scope for plotting/troublemaking is always reduced. Not that many of them seem minded to plot against him: judging by their enthusiasm today, his backbenchers are fully supportive.
Given that Johnson breezed through PMQs only 24 hours after the Met confirmed that parties were held at No 10 during lockdown that broke the law (a ruling once thought to pose an existential threat to Johnson’s premiership), it has been a remarkable feat of political survival when you recall what Tory MPs were saying just a few weeks ago.
Starmer focused on the tax burden. His analysis was spot-on, and his questions were sharp but, apart from a good joke about the PM’s police questionnaire (a rehash of a gag he has used before), he never really managed to unsettle Johnson, who sounded more confident (and smug) than he has done for ages. In part that was because, when Johnson cited the pandemic as the explanation for the rising tax burden, he was deploying an argument that carries weight, and that people believe. But mostly it was because Starmer was talking in abstract terms (about the tax burden) and about process (the timing of the income tax cut). It all sounded a bit too much like something from an IFS briefing. It wasn’t in any way wrong (IFS briefings rarely are); it just wasn’t emotionally engaging.
Starmer also raised partygate. He effectively ridiculed the (implict) No 10 claim that Johnson only misled parliament about what was happening because he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers, and he linked this to Johnson’s evasiveness about his tax record, telling MPs:
[Johnson] really does think it’s one rule for him and another rule for everyone else, that he can pass off criminality in his office and ask others to follow the law. That he can keep raising taxes and call himself a tax-cutter. That he can hike tax during a cost-of-living crisis and get credit for giving a bit back just before an election. When is he going to stop taking the British public for fools?
But in the chamber this line of attack worked best when Starmer could articulate the concerns of Tory MPs, who used to sit there in silence worrying about their leader being a liar. Now, collectively, they seem to have decided to stick with Johnson, and so - with this audience, at least - the Starmer broadside bounced off much more easily.
The most discombobulating thing about this is that an MP 'hooked up with someone I met online'.
Hard to say this without appearing sniffy and hopelessly old-fashioned, but I would have thought MPs would have got that sort of thing out of their systems long before becoming MPs.
I felt just as uncomfortable when I read about Dehenna Davison's internet dating.
Or the PM of Finland going out clubbing and apparently not taking their phone to be contacted in an emergency.
As I understand it, a good night out for guys in Finland is going to a bar and drinking without anybody saying a word.
NATO nights out are about to get a whole lot weirder....
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Da feery is out there that women are potentially faster marathon runners than men.
Yes, the women’s marathon record is only 10% away from the men’s record, and has been progressing much faster in recent years.
Women have won ultra-marathon and very long distance running races outright.
The more usual sports where they compete equally involve manipulation of equipment rather than primarily physical activity (horse riding, shooting, motorsport etc).
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Climbing is an odd one. All else being equal, women start at a disadvantage because of muscle to fat ratios (or more pertinently, muscle to weight ratios). But it's not a simple straight line relationship; there are all sorts of local maxima, and very specific muscles are highly relevant. Being generally light also helps. Both my older daughters are keen climbers. At junior level, at least, competitions seem entirely mixed and they are a match for any boy. Though it may be a different story the other side of puberty.
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
193 miles is the crossover according to this. However, I suspect it is coming down.
About 20 years ago, a woman in the Seattle area was convicted of raping -- another woman.
(The details, for those who must have them: A younger woman got into an older woman's house by saying she had to make an emergency phone call. She tied up the older woman and forced her to commit oral sex.)
Why didn't this draw more attention at the time? Because of this detail: The younger woman, who was black, admitted (boasted?) that she committed the rape because she hated white people. The two Seattle newspapers -- the PI and the Times -- both buried the story as deep as they could, and left out the motive. (I only learned it because Joyce Taylor on King 5 told us about it on their noon program. As far as I can tell, that was the only mention of the motive by any of our local news organizations. Taylor is black -- and she seemed amused by the story. The station didn't mention the motive on their evening news program.)
I draw two conclusions from this story: Though it is extremely rare, biological women can commit rape. Second, our news organizations cannot be trusted to cover crime and race, honestly.
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Da feery is out there that women are potentially faster marathon runners than men.
Yes, the women’s marathon record is only 10% away from the men’s record, and has been progressing much faster in recent years.
Women have won ultra-marathon and very long distance running races outright.
The more usual sports where they compete equally involve manipulation of equipment rather than primarily physical activity (horse riding, shooting, motorsport etc).
I think there is some evidence that for ultra running women will end up being faster, but I'm not convinced it will happen at marathon distance, where the gap is still pretty big.
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
If they have gone through a lengthy medical procedure and had their male/female organs removed/changed, I would argue they have completed the entire process, yes
About 20 years ago, a woman in the Seattle area was convicted of raping -- another woman.
(The details, for those who must have them: A younger woman got into an older woman's house by saying she had to make an emergency phone call. She tied up the older woman and forced her to commit oral sex.)
Why didn't this draw more attention at the time? Because of this detail: The younger woman, who was black, admitted (boasted?) that she committed the rape because she hated white people. The two Seattle newspapers -- the PI and the Times -- both buried the story as deep as they could, and left out the motive. (I only learned it because Joyce Taylor on King 5 told us about it on their noon program. As far as I can tell, that was the only mention of the motive by any of our local news organizations. Taylor is black -- and she seemed amused by the story. The station didn't mention the motive on their evening news program.)
I draw two conclusions from this story: Though it is extremely rare, biological women can commit rape. Second, our news organizations cannot be trusted to cover crime and race, honestly.
We have witnessed in considerable detail, on PB, that major news organisations can't report COVID well.
The people from the various professions, who post here, have also commented that the reporting on their professions is rubbish.
Hobbyists in various areas report the same with respect to their hobbies.
Why should the major news organisations suddenly start doing something right on a complex and emotive topic?
"That doesn't mean by the way that there aren't people who transition to other genders because they experience gender dysphoria and we should acknowledge that and conduct the debate in a respectful way that respects those people's rights and dignity."
If Labour just answered it this way every time they'd have no trouble. Well done Wes Streeting
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Maybe you should try reading what he says again, instead of instructing people what they must think. You're outrageous.
That’s quite fair to say Felix - because by saying don’t be obsessed with body parts, this really doesn’t define what makes people trans, so is disrespectful to reduce their struggle to that, focus more on how trans folk feel, their rights and equality, respect and place in our society - yes, I agree with you Felix, this is being more than a bit preachy and telling people what they should think and feel. It is patronising to tell people to go get yourself educated - but Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, feminism, or probably any religion wouldn’t exist without some degree of preaching “go get yourself educated”. There won’t be any progress in this world at all, without some sort of struggle and friction - we can’t just live in sweetness and light all the time, we’d never get anywhere.
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
An interesting aside when I was researching the whole ice skating Olympic debacle was that men get a 20% higher mark for performing the exact same move in the exact same manner as the women, and thus women would be highly competitive in a mixed competition.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
Technically anything over standard marathon is ultra running, but we are talking about things such as 50 miles, 100 miles as extreme endurance etc.
About 20 years ago, a woman in the Seattle area was convicted of raping -- another woman.
(The details, for those who must have them: A younger woman got into an older woman's house by saying she had to make an emergency phone call. She tied up the older woman and forced her to commit oral sex.)
Why didn't this draw more attention at the time? Because of this detail: The younger woman, who was black, admitted (boasted?) that she committed the rape because she hated white people. The two Seattle newspapers -- the PI and the Times -- both buried the story as deep as they could, and left out the motive. (I only learned it because Joyce Taylor on King 5 told us about it on their noon program. As far as I can tell, that was the only mention of the motive by any of our local news organizations. Taylor is black -- and she seemed amused by the story. The station didn't mention the motive on their evening news program.)
I draw two conclusions from this story: Though it is extremely rare, biological women can commit rape. Second, our news organizations cannot be trusted to cover crime and race, honestly.
"That doesn't mean by the way that there aren't people who transition to other genders because they experience gender dysphoria and we should acknowledge that and conduct the debate in a respectful way that respects those people's rights and dignity."
If Labour just answered it this way every time they'd have no trouble. Well done Wes Streeting
Unfortunately others will say you believe something very different to that and if you repeat a lie enough times to those who are susceptible to that lie it works. Sad but true.
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
If they have gone through a lengthy medical procedure and had their male/female organs removed/changed, I would argue they have completed the entire process, yes
This position is called transmedicalism and is controversial within the trans community because the implication is that someone who has not had surgery isn't really transgender.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
I read a theory that it is because of pheromones. Women smell differently, which can attract animals, even underwater animals, even salmon
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
If they have gone through a lengthy medical procedure and had their male/female organs removed/changed, I would argue they have completed the entire process, yes
This position is called transmedicalism and is controversial within the trans community because the implication is that someone who has not had surgery isn't really transgender.
I think if they consider themselves trans that is a matter for them but I think within the law they should be considered a woman at that point, is that controversial?
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Maybe you should try reading what he says again, instead of instructing people what they must think. You're outrageous.
That’s quite fair to say Felix - because by saying don’t be obsessed with body parts, this really doesn’t define what makes people trans, so is disrespectful to reduce their struggle to that, focus more on how trans folk feel, their rights and equality, respect and place in our society - yes, I agree with you Felix, this is being more than a bit preachy and telling people what they should think and feel. It is patronising to tell people to go get yourself educated - but Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, feminism, or probably any religion wouldn’t exist without some degree of preaching “go get yourself educated”. There won’t be any progress in this world at all, without some sort of struggle and friction - we can’t just live in sweetness and light all the time, we’d never get anywhere.
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
+1
There can never a be a pure, Socratic "debate of the elders" on such matters. Because people care so much.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
I read a theory that it is because of pheromones. Women smell differently, which can attract animals, even underwater animals, even salmon
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
I remember watching the women's football European championships in, about, 2005. It was on BBC3 (and quite possibly the only thing ever to justify that channels existence. Even the continuity announcements managed to be inane. Anyway.) I was absolutely delighted: because I was both correct in my preconceived opinion that as an example of sporting excellence it would be rubbish - and it was; it was noticeable how much less hard they could kick the thing; the running was rubbish; the tackling was uncompetitive; any of the sides in the tournament would have been trounced by a Vauxhall Conference side - and also wrong in that assuming this mattered: this was sport played by players who were representing their country by players who really wanted to win, and so it mattered and was genuinely entertaining: and it was also shorn of all the cynicism and nobbery and constant cheating that makes the men's game so unedifying. And also, the players tried right to the end in a way the England men's team of the time under Sven absolutely wouldn't (it would have been a case of - whatever the game situation - with 20 minutes to go, take off whoever is most creative and bring on Phil Neville and then try to keep possession in the corners. God that England team were dull. And dislikeable.)
EDIT: Ooh, look - my first 'modern' opinion of the day!
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
It's the tone of bumtiously self-confident point missing
If there are reactionary types on here who like to other people, who are they?
In the mean time, this sort of thing happens: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch and it continues to happen because of tone-deaf orthodoxy clasping from people lke you, and the victims are 1. the women who get, actually, you know, raped, and 2. the genuinely trans whose enemies (if they exist to any greater extent than saboteurs in Stalinist Russia) are buoyed up by stories like this.
To address your point about the hospital case, a crime was committed and for the hospital to try and deny the crime was wrong. The offender should be tried and punished and the hospital should be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or misleading the police or whatever the correct legal term is.
Being trans or gay or whatever is not a pass to do what you like. Actions have consequences, but neither should an entire group be blamed for the actions of a minority. If some perv decides to "identify as a woman" and then go into a ladies loo then there is as much as an issue there are there is if a woman is caught looking under toilet stalls or touching. The real issue is the behaviour, not the person. Women can assault other women too...
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
If they have gone through a lengthy medical procedure and had their male/female organs removed/changed, I would argue they have completed the entire process, yes
This position is called transmedicalism and is controversial within the trans community because the implication is that someone who has not had surgery isn't really transgender.
I think if they consider themselves trans that is a matter for them but I think within the law they should be considered a woman at that point, is that controversial?
Making it a requirement for legally transitioning is controversial because it's equivalent to saying that women don't have penises, which some consider transphobic.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
Da feery is out there that women are potentially faster marathon runners than men.
Yes, the women’s marathon record is only 10% away from the men’s record, and has been progressing much faster in recent years.
Women have won ultra-marathon and very long distance running races outright.
The more usual sports where they compete equally involve manipulation of equipment rather than primarily physical activity (horse riding, shooting, motorsport etc).
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
I’m not entirely sure of the science because I never bothered with science at school, but I believe what you are referring to is women are more important than men, in the scheme of things, because they carry the eggs, so they have been given an extra chromosome making them to some degree stronger and superior to men.
About 20 years ago, a woman in the Seattle area was convicted of raping -- another woman.
(The details, for those who must have them: A younger woman got into an older woman's house by saying she had to make an emergency phone call. She tied up the older woman and forced her to commit oral sex.)
Why didn't this draw more attention at the time? Because of this detail: The younger woman, who was black, admitted (boasted?) that she committed the rape because she hated white people. The two Seattle newspapers -- the PI and the Times -- both buried the story as deep as they could, and left out the motive. (I only learned it because Joyce Taylor on King 5 told us about it on their noon program. As far as I can tell, that was the only mention of the motive by any of our local news organizations. Taylor is black -- and she seemed amused by the story. The station didn't mention the motive on their evening news program.)
I draw two conclusions from this story: Though it is extremely rare, biological women can commit rape. Second, our news organizations cannot be trusted to cover crime and race, honestly.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.
What a woke party!
This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?
Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.
If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.
This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.
I have no problem with anything you have just posted. Its just that your position is not the Tory position which is trying to go to town over Starmer saying a woman can have a penis.
Starmer is a clown if he thinks that and a thick one to boot , no wonder they are going to town.
Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.
What a woke party!
This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?
Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.
If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.
This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.
Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?
I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.
Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.
Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.
That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.
Anyone using cis is immediately outed as a looney.
Since most sex crimes, assaults, murders, etc are committed by men, surely we should lock boys up as soon as puberty starts?
And do not go saying that it is not all men that behave like that, one or two is enough for these repressive measures to be justified...
Second sentence contradicts the first. If one or two is enough to justify repressive measures, we should lock up all girls as well.
Yes - people kick back when the ideas used to repress others are applied to their own group. It is the ultimate NIMBYism.
I just expressed the "trans loo problem" or "gay sex pests problem" in its broadest possible sense. Perhaps some of the more reactionary types on here would benefit from standing in the shoes of those they like to "other"?
You seem to be Heathener in disguise.
Definitely not. I though Heathener was meant to be Leon? Or is it the other way round?
It's the tone of bumtiously self-confident point missing
If there are reactionary types on here who like to other people, who are they?
In the mean time, this sort of thing happens: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch and it continues to happen because of tone-deaf orthodoxy clasping from people lke you, and the victims are 1. the women who get, actually, you know, raped, and 2. the genuinely trans whose enemies (if they exist to any greater extent than saboteurs in Stalinist Russia) are buoyed up by stories like this.
To address your point about the hospital case, a crime was committed and for the hospital to try and deny the crime was wrong. The offender should be tried and punished and the hospital should be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or misleading the police or whatever the correct legal term is.
Being trans or gay or whatever is not a pass to do what you like. Actions have consequences, but neither should an entire group be blamed for the actions of a minority. If some perv decides to "identify as a woman" and then go into a ladies loo then there is as much as an issue there are there is if a woman is caught looking under toilet stalls or touching. The real issue is the behaviour, not the person. Women can assault other women too...
What’s gay got to do trans? I’ve always solidly identified as female, and proudly so, I’ve never for a moment felt non binary in gender.
Hence the moral of the whole discussion I suppose, waking up to there being more forms of feeling alive out there. And how spooked we allow ourselves to be by different things we will always struggle with and will never truly understand.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
I read a theory that it is because of pheromones. Women smell differently, which can attract animals, even underwater animals, even salmon
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
I remember watching the women's football European championships in, about, 2005. It was on BBC3 (and quite possibly the only thing ever to justify that channels existence. Even the continuity announcements managed to be inane. Anyway.) I was absolutely delighted: because I was both correct in my preconceived opinion that as an example of sporting excellence it would be rubbish - and it was; it was noticeable how much less hard they could kick the thing; the running was rubbish; the tackling was uncompetitive; any of the sides in the tournament would have been trounced by a Vauxhall Conference side - and also wrong in that assuming this mattered: this was sport played by players who were representing their country by players who really wanted to win, and so it mattered and was genuinely entertaining: and it was also shorn of all the cynicism and nobbery and constant cheating that makes the men's game so unedifying. And also, the players tried right to the end in a way the England men's team of the time under Sven absolutely wouldn't (it would have been a case of - whatever the game situation - with 20 minutes to go, take off whoever is most creative and bring on Phil Neville and then try to keep possession in the corners. God that England team were dull. And dislikeable.)
EDIT: Ooh, look - my first 'modern' opinion of the day!
Whether it's a question of time, development and training I don't know but women's cricket seems less physical than mens. The ball generally isn't hit as hard or bowled quite as fast. Not sure about the skills in slow bowling though; can't see why that shouldn't be as good, or, given women's long fingers, better.
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
If a person has transitioned to become a woman and completed the entire process, is the point that they should have fewer rights than an actual woman? Or that they should be treated differently in say a medical context? Because I think these points differ.
There's no single definition of "the entire process".
If they have gone through a lengthy medical procedure and had their male/female organs removed/changed, I would argue they have completed the entire process, yes
This position is called transmedicalism and is controversial within the trans community because the implication is that someone who has not had surgery isn't really transgender.
I think if they consider themselves trans that is a matter for them but I think within the law they should be considered a woman at that point, is that controversial?
Making it a requirement for legally transitioning is controversial because it's equivalent to saying that women don't have penises, which some consider transphobic.
Only brain dead morons could consider that transphobic. If you have a penis you are a man , de facto 100% for certain. You can call yourself what you liek and dress how you like etc but in the grand scheme of things you are a man.
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
I can't watch it. I find it feeble. Women's rugby is even worse
Women's tennis I can tolerate, just about. Partly because it is more about the gladiatorial confrontation than the sport; the clash of styles and personalities
I do like to watch women dance, however. Much much more than any man. I'm quite the balletomane
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
I wouldn't disagree with that as it is the most popular spectator sport in the world. Something I have noticed is women's football used to be dire. It isn't now, but it will never compete in my opinion.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
It's exaggeration to talk about an existential threat but women's sport does need controls to protect the integrity of competition. I think this issue will be resolved before too long.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
I read a theory that it is because of pheromones. Women smell differently, which can attract animals, even underwater animals, even salmon
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Maybe you should try reading what he says again, instead of instructing people what they must think. You're outrageous.
That’s quite fair to say Felix - because by saying don’t be obsessed with body parts, this really doesn’t define what makes people trans, so is disrespectful to reduce their struggle to that, focus more on how trans folk feel, their rights and equality, respect and place in our society - yes, I agree with you Felix, this is being more than a bit preachy and telling people what they should think and feel. It is patronising to tell people to go get yourself educated - but Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, feminism, or probably any religion wouldn’t exist without some degree of preaching “go get yourself educated”. There won’t be any progress in this world at all, without some sort of struggle and friction - we can’t just live in sweetness and light all the time, we’d never get anywhere.
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
+1
There can never a be a pure, Socratic "debate of the elders" on such matters. Because people care so much.
But we can try.
Brilliant. You said in one sentence what I struggled with in three paragraphs. 🙂
Maybe there’s a few more words on the end, around that default position of humans when confronted with new things they perceive threatening them, is fight or flight. Hence all those sci fi shows that call in the military to blow it up, when Professor wants to study it, and comes to conclusion the monster is just frightened and wants to be loved.
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Apparently they are using their revenues to prop up the currency. Is that ever a wise strategy?
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
I can't watch it. I find it feeble. Women's rugby is even worse
Women's tennis I can tolerate, just about. Partly because it is more about the gladiatorial confrontation than the sport; the clash of styles and personalities
I do like to watch women dance, however. Much much more than any man. I'm quite the balletomane
Rubbish re women's rugby. Lots of open play with less reliance on forwards, for obvious reasons.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
Interesting time to post that considering at 5.45 this afternoon the women's Classico is expected to have a record 90,000 crowd.
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Apparently they are using their revenues to prop up the currency. Is that ever a wise strategy?
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Maybe you should try reading what he says again, instead of instructing people what they must think. You're outrageous.
That’s quite fair to say Felix - because by saying don’t be obsessed with body parts, this really doesn’t define what makes people trans, so is disrespectful to reduce their struggle to that, focus more on how trans folk feel, their rights and equality, respect and place in our society - yes, I agree with you Felix, this is being more than a bit preachy and telling people what they should think and feel. It is patronising to tell people to go get yourself educated - but Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, feminism, or probably any religion wouldn’t exist without some degree of preaching “go get yourself educated”. There won’t be any progress in this world at all, without some sort of struggle and friction - we can’t just live in sweetness and light all the time, we’d never get anywhere.
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
+1
There can never a be a pure, Socratic "debate of the elders" on such matters. Because people care so much.
But we can try.
Brilliant. You said in one sentence what I struggled with in three paragraphs. 🙂
Maybe there’s a few more words on the end, around that default position of humans when confronted with new things they perceive threatening them, is fight or flight. Hence all those sci fi shows that call in the military to blow it up, when Professor wants to study it, and comes to conclusion the monster is just frightened and wants to be loved.
But sometimes the aliens don't come in peace. Mars! Attacks!
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Apparently they are using their revenues to prop up the currency. Is that ever a wise strategy?
It is if you are central banker and don't want to be poisoned I guess.
"The Government has asked ports to refuse access to regular ferry services that don't pay workers the minimum wage, as the fallout from P&O's mass sackings continues.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs the request was a temporary measure while the Government consulted on legislative changes to make it a legal requirement."
Nothing to do with us, squire, and tough sh*te if you get sued for breach of contract as a result ...
Also, notice the possible weasel wording: "regular" and "ferry" (I say "possible" as unclear if that is the DT's wording or Mr Shapps').
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
That’s a truly mixed up sport. 😦
I think there was quite a lot bet of Gladiator fights.
www.GladiatorBetting.com anybody?
but seriously one of the ways that we can be confidant that there where female gladiators and this is not just some made up roomer, is that at one point the senate at onw point voted to make it illegal for daughters of senators to fight as gladiators, suggesting a few of them had rebellious daughters that they struggled to control.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
I remember watching the women's football European championships in, about, 2005. It was on BBC3 (and quite possibly the only thing ever to justify that channels existence. Even the continuity announcements managed to be inane. Anyway.) I was absolutely delighted: because I was both correct in my preconceived opinion that as an example of sporting excellence it would be rubbish - and it was; it was noticeable how much less hard they could kick the thing; the running was rubbish; the tackling was uncompetitive; any of the sides in the tournament would have been trounced by a Vauxhall Conference side - and also wrong in that assuming this mattered: this was sport played by players who were representing their country by players who really wanted to win, and so it mattered and was genuinely entertaining: and it was also shorn of all the cynicism and nobbery and constant cheating that makes the men's game so unedifying. And also, the players tried right to the end in a way the England men's team of the time under Sven absolutely wouldn't (it would have been a case of - whatever the game situation - with 20 minutes to go, take off whoever is most creative and bring on Phil Neville and then try to keep possession in the corners. God that England team were dull. And dislikeable.)
EDIT: Ooh, look - my first 'modern' opinion of the day!
Whether it's a question of time, development and training I don't know but women's cricket seems less physical than mens. The ball generally isn't hit as hard or bowled quite as fast. Not sure about the skills in slow bowling though; can't see why that shouldn't be as good, or, given women's long fingers, better.
Most male fast bowlers are very tall, simply because that's an advantage when it comes to bowling fast, so simply by being shorter on average you'd expect women to bowl more slowly on average.
An additional factor in cricket though is the pitch. There are only so many cricket pitches around, particularly first-class venues, and the women don't have first dibs. Worn, used pitches are slower and will be harder to bowl fast on, so this increases the physical difference.
Also, turns out that spinners are more important bowlers in the shorter formats, and the women rarely play the long format games where pace bowling is more important, so this also encourages more spin bowling on women's cricket.
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
It's exaggeration to talk about an existential threat but women's sport does need controls to protect the integrity of competition. I think this issue will be resolved before too long.
One of the complicating factors is that sport governing bodies were / are incredibly sexist: Pretty much every sport where woman could in fact compete on an equal level with men usually banned women from competing with men at the highest levels. The olympics is riddled with ridiculous “women’s versions” of sports that were created to prevent women & men competing, not because women were the “weaker sex” but because male egos couldn’t cope with women beating them.
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
That’s a truly mixed up sport. 😦
I think there was quite a lot bet of Gladiator fights.
www.GladiatorBetting.com anybody?
but seriously one of the ways that we can be confidant that there where female gladiators and this is not just some made up roomer, is that at one point the senate at onw point voted to make it illegal for daughters of senators to fight as gladiators, suggesting a few of them had rebellious daughters that they struggled to control.
I always thought of games in the colosseum as being more about entertainment than sport, rather like a bullfighting show, when they first cut up donkeys for fun, who are not even fighting. And then the bits on the colosseum programme that’s a big bull raping a Jewish heiress to death, not in anyway sport. ☹️
Some San Franciscans may have already noticed @Waymo cars with empty driver’s seats. Now it’s official: we’ve started fully autonomous operations in SF
Emily Bridges in the cycling world will be the really interesting one. Before she transitioned she was far from mediocre, unless the tall US Swimmer.
The smorgasbord of hormonal treatments she is on will also make it very difficult, if not pointless, to baseline her bio-passport. All competitive cycling is a chemical weapons arms race...
There's a comment in the Times op-ed by Owen Slot about Bridges:
"Bridges was dropped from the elite men's squad because of poor performances.
Started identifying as a woman two weeks later. Was immediately rehired by British Cycling as part of the women's team."
If this is true - I have no idea - it is grounds for suspicion that people have started to game the trans debate, for personal gain in sports.
And why would they not? The potential benefits are enormous
I always thought it would first happen in tennis, which relies so heavily on strength and speed, and where women make so much money, despite being seriously weaker and slower than men. A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Wasn't there the whole battle of the sexes thing in tennis? Bobby Riggs vs Billy Jean King. Although he was apparently 55 at the time.
This whole debate is on dangerous ground though. You either accept that women are intrinsically weaker, slower etc so must have their own sport, or you have no women in most sports. There are clear exceptions such as horse racing/jumping, shooting, archery etc, and possibly extreme endurance running, but for most sports, most of the time, no women would ever reach the top of the sport. i don't think we want that. The growing appeal and success of womens cricket, football and rugby is testament to this, and is providing inspiration and role models for young girls to aspire to.
Extreme endurance running arguably needs a male category. Women are gradually taking it over as more compete.
'Extreme endurance running' is that where people try to run 3 marathons in 24 hours and that sort of thing?
One rationale is that women are equipped for extreme pain better than men, because, pregnancy. So they can "endure" more
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
Specifically, women tend to catch record sized salmon. There's a theory which says they spend the day being pleasured senseless by the ghillie, who then picks up the rod and says Aye, we'll just cast a fly or two for the look of the thing...
I read a theory that it is because of pheromones. Women smell differently, which can attract animals, even underwater animals, even salmon
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
This might also explain why women can make better jockeys?
In eventing, based on apocryphal evidence, I'd say men are better riders of stallions and geldings, and women better riders of mares. Probably because you need to muscle a stallion into submission and establish yourself as the alpha with a gelding, but for a mare, it always needs to be their idea.
Seriously, tho, those poor people. Totally in hock to China, as well
Did you notice any problems while you were there?
Yes
A lot of people really desperate for money. Tuk tuk drivers who told me they were managers or builders until a few months before. Now forced to do the most menial job imaginable, and still not earning enough
It was heart-breaking. It's one time I have felt zero guilt about spending money in a poor country. They need all the foreign exchange they can get
Ken Dilanian @KenDilanianNBC · 2h New: A U.S. official tells NBC News accurate information about Russia’s failures on the battlefield – and the impact of crippling sanctions - is not making its way to Putin himself “because his senior advisors are too afraid to tell him the truth.” @PeterAlexander
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
How do you distinguish common or garden promotion from "desperate" promotion?
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
Well it raises an interesting alternative. At the moment we have men's football and women's football. What if we had tall football and short football?
Average height of a man is about 5'11", and of a woman 5'7", so the average height overall is 5'9". If you had football for over 5'9" and for those shorter than 5'9", would the short teams still be mostly women, but with a few short men too, and might a couple of tall women make it into tall football?
You could have similar for rugby - lightweight rugby where all the players have to be below a weight limit, and heavyweight rugby for the brickhouse giants.
Then you'd have a physically relevant division, but I'm not sure whether the muscle mass advantage for men would still make it uneven.
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
I can't watch it. I find it feeble. Women's rugby is even worse
Women's tennis I can tolerate, just about. Partly because it is more about the gladiatorial confrontation than the sport; the clash of styles and personalities
I do like to watch women dance, however. Much much more than any man. I'm quite the balletomane
Rubbish re women's rugby. Lots of open play with less reliance on forwards, for obvious reasons.
A matter of taste, surely. I adore the blood and thunder of proper rugby union. The crunching tackles, the horrible injuries, the rucks and mauls. The contrast with the free flowing back movements is what makes it, at its best, the finest team sport in the world for the spectator (tho it can also be very turgid and boring)
I find sevens rugby boring quite quickly, and women's rugby is even more boring than THAT. To me. Clearly we differ
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Apparently they are using their revenues to prop up the currency. Is that ever a wise strategy?
It is if you are central banker and don't want to be poisoned I guess.
But what will be the effect in the medium term? Devaluation does give you an exit route. I know it's not that simple.
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Apparently they are using their revenues to prop up the currency. Is that ever a wise strategy?
I hope they are and that things really are bleak for Russia. I've discerned a subtle change of atmosphere in the last couple of days' commentary on Ukraine. A few pessimistic straws in the wind:
- Seemingly a marked slowdown in reports of Ukrainian capture or destruction of Russian equipment - Very little news about demoralised Russian soldiers or large scale surrenders - Mariupol looking like it's within days or even hours of full capture - Reports of heavy shelling (by Russian forces) North West of the capital despite their announced retreat - Strains showing in NATO and EU unity and that vague sense that some countries are rather too keen to offer that off-ramp - More visible Pro-Russian sentiment on social media. Have the bots managed to find their way back? - Better quality propaganda and psyops on the Russian side. The stories of soldiers rescuing cats being today's novelty - A more cocky and confident note overall from Russian officials
Is it just my imagination or is Russia having quite a good week? I really hope not. They need to lose, and badly, or things will only get worse over the next few years.
Some San Franciscans may have already noticed @Waymo cars with empty driver’s seats. Now it’s official: we’ve started fully autonomous operations in SF
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
Women are often superior at ultra endurance sports, also some sports in which they are clearly inferior they can produce a greater spectacle. Women's rugby is more like men's 7s.
they are desperately promoting womens football but i have serious doubts it will ever have more than 10% of the popularity of the mans game
I can't watch it. I find it feeble. Women's rugby is even worse
Women's tennis I can tolerate, just about. Partly because it is more about the gladiatorial confrontation than the sport; the clash of styles and personalities
I do like to watch women dance, however. Much much more than any man. I'm quite the balletomane
Rubbish re women's rugby. Lots of open play with less reliance on forwards, for obvious reasons.
A matter of taste, surely. I adore the blood and thunder of proper rugby union. The crunching tackles, the horrible injuries, the rucks and mauls. The contrast with the free flowing back movements is what makes it, at its best, the finest team sport in the world for the spectator (tho it can also be very turgid and boring)
I find sevens rugby boring quite quickly, and women's rugby is even more boring than THAT. To me. Clearly we differ
Some San Franciscans may have already noticed @Waymo cars with empty driver’s seats. Now it’s official: we’ve started fully autonomous operations in SF
A good male tennis player - someone in the top 1000 but not top 100 - would beat Serena Williams at her peak
Has this ever been tested? I remember in their pomp, Richard Williams boasted that he'd have to start entering Serena and Venus in male competitions to get a good game, and John Mackinroe replied that he was coaching male players on the youth circuit who could easily beat either sister. Not sure if they have ever done it though.
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Hahaha
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
I remember watching the women's football European championships in, about, 2005. It was on BBC3 (and quite possibly the only thing ever to justify that channels existence. Even the continuity announcements managed to be inane. Anyway.) I was absolutely delighted: because I was both correct in my preconceived opinion that as an example of sporting excellence it would be rubbish - and it was; it was noticeable how much less hard they could kick the thing; the running was rubbish; the tackling was uncompetitive; any of the sides in the tournament would have been trounced by a Vauxhall Conference side - and also wrong in that assuming this mattered: this was sport played by players who were representing their country by players who really wanted to win, and so it mattered and was genuinely entertaining: and it was also shorn of all the cynicism and nobbery and constant cheating that makes the men's game so unedifying. And also, the players tried right to the end in a way the England men's team of the time under Sven absolutely wouldn't (it would have been a case of - whatever the game situation - with 20 minutes to go, take off whoever is most creative and bring on Phil Neville and then try to keep possession in the corners. God that England team were dull. And dislikeable.)
EDIT: Ooh, look - my first 'modern' opinion of the day!
Whether it's a question of time, development and training I don't know but women's cricket seems less physical than mens. The ball generally isn't hit as hard or bowled quite as fast. Not sure about the skills in slow bowling though; can't see why that shouldn't be as good, or, given women's long fingers, better.
Interesting clarification by Jamie Wallis just now.
"My gender dysphoria" "Will continue to present"
The debate is so complex; interesting to see an example of someone coming out and talking about it as a medical condition.
I hope this calms things down a bit. On both sides.
I fear I must break it to you that Leon will be along shortly to inflame the issue.
It’s not that complex.
The only people obsessed with body parts are the non trans people denying equality to trans people by, wait for it… obsessing about body parts. Being trans is nothing to do with body parts. It’s to do with being a non binary person facing huge levels of abuse and inequality and non acceptance for who they are, and being treated as a political football by media and politicians (and PB posters) who can’t get their head round what non binary is, hence contribute to that abuse and inequality with every dinner gag and PB post.
I am sure the woman raped in hospital by someone who the authorities said was not able to rape her would beg to differ about the importance of certain body parts.
This is not about people wanting to be non binary. It is about the authorities recognising that there are difficult issues which arise from this for the whole of society and just passing laws saying everything is fine and those problems don't exist does not deal with those issues.
I’m not trans, so can’t be sure what they feel, only suspect it’s non binary people suffering in silence and invisible to us, who actually need our love and respect and support. Which puts a lot of the posts on PB about this into a very unhelpful place, if you see what I mean?
I may better understand, although it never happened to me, when gay people go through a “ fluid phase” with relationships with opposite sex, and feel unhappy in them. I could be wrong, but I should imagine being trans right now is like the feeling the world you are in doesn’t love you. that you feel alive and you love the world, but the world doesn’t love you back or even acknowledge all what you feel. Which is a sad and unhappy place but it’s actually not down to them, but down to all the rest of us to help with it. If that makes any sense to you?
Straw trans man
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
As far as I can see, no one on this site - which is socially very liberal - wants to deny love and concern for people with gender dysphoria/a desire to transition. Etc. And out of sheer politeness if someone wants to be called Ms Mrs Miss or whatever then who would say No?
The issue is when trans rights start to trample over other rights, such as the right of women to feel safe from rape in hospital wards, prisons, etc. Or when female sports risk becoming dominated by people born male.
These are very real issues - as we can see from recent stories - and people are now getting angry at how this important argument is constantly closed down with aggressive accusations of “transphobia”. It happens on here
The “rape in hospital, trample on other rights” is preciscisly the “reefer madness” you are getting wrong. It makes you come across unwilling to understand and help because all every trans person wants is to rape people in hospitals. Do you see what I mean 🤷♀️
What we can actually do to help is stop the misconception of the “can a women have a penis” question, so that question is never heard ever again. Stop tarring every trans and non binary person with “there was a rape in hospital” on the basis that you don’t actually believe it’s fair or helpful to do that.
Maybe you should try reading what he says again, instead of instructing people what they must think. You're outrageous.
That’s quite fair to say Felix - because by saying don’t be obsessed with body parts, this really doesn’t define what makes people trans, so is disrespectful to reduce their struggle to that, focus more on how trans folk feel, their rights and equality, respect and place in our society - yes, I agree with you Felix, this is being more than a bit preachy and telling people what they should think and feel. It is patronising to tell people to go get yourself educated - but Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, feminism, or probably any religion wouldn’t exist without some degree of preaching “go get yourself educated”. There won’t be any progress in this world at all, without some sort of struggle and friction - we can’t just live in sweetness and light all the time, we’d never get anywhere.
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
+1
There can never a be a pure, Socratic "debate of the elders" on such matters. Because people care so much.
But we can try.
Brilliant. You said in one sentence what I struggled with in three paragraphs. 🙂
Maybe there’s a few more words on the end, around that default position of humans when confronted with new things they perceive threatening them, is fight or flight. Hence all those sci fi shows that call in the military to blow it up, when Professor wants to study it, and comes to conclusion the monster is just frightened and wants to be loved.
But sometimes the aliens don't come in peace. Mars! Attacks!
Alternatively, have you seen the untamed (2016)?
Clever movie poster this may not immediately dawn on you.
Some San Franciscans may have already noticed @Waymo cars with empty driver’s seats. Now it’s official: we’ve started fully autonomous operations in SF
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
Well it raises an interesting alternative. At the moment we have men's football and women's football. What if we had tall football and short football?
Average height of a man is about 5'11", and of a woman 5'7", so the average height overall is 5'9". If you had football for over 5'9" and for those shorter than 5'9", would the short teams still be mostly women, but with a few short men too, and might a couple of tall women make it into tall football?
You could have similar for rugby - lightweight rugby where all the players have to be below a weight limit, and heavyweight rugby for the brickhouse giants.
Then you'd have a physically relevant division, but I'm not sure whether the muscle mass advantage for men would still make it uneven.
Messi is 5'7 (probably a bit shorter but does not want to admit it). It would be all men. There will easily be 1000 better male footballers under 5'9 than the best female player.
Football is not a sport like basketball where being tall is particularly important, aside from as a goalkeeper or centre back.
Comments
There's been a few recent examples - United women lost 9-0 to Salford Academy, FC Dallas under-15 boys squad once beat the U.S. Women's National Team.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49284389
PMQs - snap verdict
Boris Johnson got through that relatively easily. With the Commons recess starting tomorrow, that will be a relief, because he then enters a two-week holiday when MPs are no longer in the Commons, and so the scope for plotting/troublemaking is always reduced. Not that many of them seem minded to plot against him: judging by their enthusiasm today, his backbenchers are fully supportive.
Given that Johnson breezed through PMQs only 24 hours after the Met confirmed that parties were held at No 10 during lockdown that broke the law (a ruling once thought to pose an existential threat to Johnson’s premiership), it has been a remarkable feat of political survival when you recall what Tory MPs were saying just a few weeks ago.
Starmer focused on the tax burden. His analysis was spot-on, and his questions were sharp but, apart from a good joke about the PM’s police questionnaire (a rehash of a gag he has used before), he never really managed to unsettle Johnson, who sounded more confident (and smug) than he has done for ages. In part that was because, when Johnson cited the pandemic as the explanation for the rising tax burden, he was deploying an argument that carries weight, and that people believe. But mostly it was because Starmer was talking in abstract terms (about the tax burden) and about process (the timing of the income tax cut). It all sounded a bit too much like something from an IFS briefing. It wasn’t in any way wrong (IFS briefings rarely are); it just wasn’t emotionally engaging.
Starmer also raised partygate. He effectively ridiculed the (implict) No 10 claim that Johnson only misled parliament about what was happening because he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers, and he linked this to Johnson’s evasiveness about his tax record, telling MPs:
[Johnson] really does think it’s one rule for him and another rule for everyone else, that he can pass off criminality in his office and ask others to follow the law. That he can keep raising taxes and call himself a tax-cutter. That he can hike tax during a cost-of-living crisis and get credit for giving a bit back just before an election. When is he going to stop taking the British public for fools?
But in the chamber this line of attack worked best when Starmer could articulate the concerns of Tory MPs, who used to sit there in silence worrying about their leader being a liar. Now, collectively, they seem to have decided to stick with Johnson, and so - with this audience, at least - the Starmer broadside bounced off much more easily.
NATO nights out are about to get a whole lot weirder....
Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[58]
Women are also better at angling, I believe, and possibly some forms of climbing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression
Women have won ultra-marathon and very long distance running races outright.
The more usual sports where they compete equally involve manipulation of equipment rather than primarily physical activity (horse riding, shooting, motorsport etc).
Both my older daughters are keen climbers. At junior level, at least, competitions seem entirely mixed and they are a match for any boy. Though it may be a different story the other side of puberty.
Women are rubbish at most sports. Why do we even watch them? Pathetic weaklings playing patball
The answer to this entire debate is to have no gender divides at all. Let the best human win. Endex
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/women-are-faster-long-distance-runners-estrogen-2020-1?amp
(The details, for those who must have them: A younger woman got into an older woman's house by saying she had to make an emergency phone call. She tied up the older woman and forced her to commit oral sex.)
Why didn't this draw more attention at the time? Because of this detail: The younger woman, who was black, admitted (boasted?) that she committed the rape because she hated white people. The two Seattle newspapers -- the PI and the Times -- both buried the story as deep as they could, and left out the motive. (I only learned it because Joyce Taylor on King 5 told us about it on their noon program. As far as I can tell, that was the only mention of the motive by any of our local news organizations. Taylor is black -- and she seemed amused by the story. The station didn't mention the motive on their evening news program.)
I draw two conclusions from this story: Though it is extremely rare, biological women can commit rape. Second, our news organizations cannot be trusted to cover crime and race, honestly.
The people from the various professions, who post here, have also commented that the reporting on their professions is rubbish.
Hobbyists in various areas report the same with respect to their hobbies.
Why should the major news organisations suddenly start doing something right on a complex and emotive topic?
If Labour just answered it this way every time they'd have no trouble. Well done Wes Streeting
I don’t think I do much preaching on PB.com, except Libdem policy from time to time, I’m speaking up now to say Let’s not let this become an about freedom of speech and being preached at. It shouldn’t really be about that, because behind that particular battlefield is a question about equality and acceptance into society I expect most of us can be on the same page on, that we don’t want to ignore. That’s all I’m saying really. Let’s not get the, we are being told what to think and feel, get in the way on acting on, what Richard Tyndall pointed to, what clearly needs to be done with proper grown up discussion and the right legislation.
I spoke up today really by believing something being used as a political football, or to fight “woke” and “culture wars” really shouldn’t be.
One thing we can control is how polite and respectful we are whilst arguing about something though, you agree? And yes, that certainly applies to some people who have taken up the cause of trans rights. But let’s not be dragged into their way of doing it, when we know we need to get ourselves educated on anything new to us to help those in a more difficult place than ourselves, that’s how to change the world for the better. It always starts with our own spirit, not the arguments people pick with us in the way they chose to pick it.
This sounds insane, and almost certainly is insane, except that is a scientific fact that dolphins can sense when a female diver is menstruating/ovulating by scent, and they interact differently thereby. Some dolphins seem to be sexually attracted to human women, esp when ovulating
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/28/a-lonely-dolphins-sexual-behaviors-toward-humans-caused-a-french-town-to-ban-swimming/
This might also explain why women can make better jockeys?
There can never a be a pure, Socratic "debate of the elders" on such matters. Because people care so much.
But we can try.
Womens football however is awful.
EDIT: Ooh, look - my first 'modern' opinion of the day!
Being trans or gay or whatever is not a pass to do what you like. Actions have consequences, but neither should an entire group be blamed for the actions of a minority. If some perv decides to "identify as a woman" and then go into a ladies loo then there is as much as an issue there are there is if a woman is caught looking under toilet stalls or touching. The real issue is the behaviour, not the person. Women can assault other women too...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/the-golden-ratio-the-one-number-that-describes-how-mens-world-records-compare-with-womens/260758/
Hence the moral of the whole discussion I suppose, waking up to there being more forms of feeling alive out there. And how spooked we allow ourselves to be by different things we will always struggle with and will never truly understand.
John Kemp
@JKempEnergy
·
4h
[MUST READ] Sri Lanka runs out of foreign currency to import fuel, orders blackouts for 10 hours a day:
https://twitter.com/JKempEnergy/status/1509114065054060554
Not sure about the skills in slow bowling though; can't see why that shouldn't be as good, or, given women's long fingers, better.
I understand that there is some accounts from the Romans of Female gladiators, with the normal set up being a Female gladiator fighting a male dwarf, with most of the time the female wining and the Mail Dwarf dyeing.
Not sure how relevant it is to todays debate, but seemed like one of the rare occasions that I can drop that bit of knowledge in to the conversation.
"The ruble’s stronger showing is most likely driven by artificial factors and might not be a good marker that the Russian economy is improving, said Yevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow."
NY Times blog
Women's tennis I can tolerate, just about. Partly because it is more about the gladiatorial confrontation than the sport; the clash of styles and personalities
I do like to watch women dance, however. Much much more than any man. I'm quite the balletomane
France, Harris Interactive poll:
Macron (EC-RE): 28.5% (-1)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 21% (+1.5)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 15% (+1)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 10% (-1)
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 9.5% (-0.5)
+/- vs. 18-21 March 2022
Fieldwork: 25-28 March 2022
Sample size: 2,035"
I TOLD YOU ALL TO GO THERE AND SPEND MONEY
Seriously, tho, those poor people. Totally in hock to China, as well
Maybe there’s a few more words on the end, around that default position of humans when confronted with new things they perceive threatening them, is fight or flight. Hence all those sci fi shows that call in the military to blow it up, when Professor wants to study it, and comes to conclusion the monster is just frightened and wants to be loved.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/30/ftse-100-markets-live-news-inflation-stocks-russia-economy/
"The Government has asked ports to refuse access to regular ferry services that don't pay workers the minimum wage, as the fallout from P&O's mass sackings continues.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs the request was a temporary measure while the Government consulted on legislative changes to make it a legal requirement."
Nothing to do with us, squire, and tough sh*te if you get sued for breach of contract as a result ...
Also, notice the possible weasel wording: "regular" and "ferry" (I say "possible" as unclear if that is the DT's wording or Mr Shapps').
www.GladiatorBetting.com anybody?
but seriously one of the ways that we can be confidant that there where female gladiators and this is not just some made up roomer, is that at one point the senate at onw point voted to make it illegal for daughters of senators to fight as gladiators, suggesting a few of them had rebellious daughters that they struggled to control.
An additional factor in cricket though is the pitch. There are only so many cricket pitches around, particularly first-class venues, and the women don't have first dibs. Worn, used pitches are slower and will be harder to bowl fast on, so this increases the physical difference.
Also, turns out that spinners are more important bowlers in the shorter formats, and the women rarely play the long format games where pace bowling is more important, so this also encourages more spin bowling on women's cricket.
https://twitter.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1509169630689955842?s=20&t=2aF2LDmP7Z7WHm9Gs3MLyQ
A lot of people really desperate for money. Tuk tuk drivers who told me they were managers or builders until a few months before. Now forced to do the most menial job imaginable, and still not earning enough
It was heart-breaking. It's one time I have felt zero guilt about spending money in a poor country. They need all the foreign exchange they can get
@KenDilanianNBC
·
2h
New: A U.S. official tells NBC News accurate information about Russia’s failures on the battlefield – and the impact of crippling sanctions - is not making its way to Putin himself “because his senior advisors are too afraid to tell him the truth.”
@PeterAlexander
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1509154381874319369
===
He could always just look on social media.
Average height of a man is about 5'11", and of a woman 5'7", so the average height overall is 5'9". If you had football for over 5'9" and for those shorter than 5'9", would the short teams still be mostly women, but with a few short men too, and might a couple of tall women make it into tall football?
You could have similar for rugby - lightweight rugby where all the players have to be below a weight limit, and heavyweight rugby for the brickhouse giants.
Then you'd have a physically relevant division, but I'm not sure whether the muscle mass advantage for men would still make it uneven.
I find sevens rugby boring quite quickly, and women's rugby is even more boring than THAT. To me. Clearly we differ
- Seemingly a marked slowdown in reports of Ukrainian capture or destruction of Russian equipment
- Very little news about demoralised Russian soldiers or large scale surrenders
- Mariupol looking like it's within days or even hours of full capture
- Reports of heavy shelling (by Russian forces) North West of the capital despite their announced retreat
- Strains showing in NATO and EU unity and that vague sense that some countries are rather too keen to offer that off-ramp
- More visible Pro-Russian sentiment on social media. Have the bots managed to find their way back?
- Better quality propaganda and psyops on the Russian side. The stories of soldiers rescuing cats being today's novelty
- A more cocky and confident note overall from Russian officials
Is it just my imagination or is Russia having quite a good week? I really hope not. They need to lose, and badly, or things will only get worse over the next few years.
Clever movie poster this may not immediately dawn on you.
Football is not a sport like basketball where being tall is particularly important, aside from as a goalkeeper or centre back.