Jaxyon posted:

Internaut! posted:

Like Jimmy the Greek pointing out that African-Americans were bred for centuries to be big and strong, and this is why the NFL is full of African-Americans descended from slaves, while there's been like 3 Africans ever in the league not descended from African-American slaves? I'm not sure what social blowback people would face for this, but why should they? Unpalatable truths remain truths after all.

ram dass in hell posted:

I mean realistically the current title always meant this, lol. It's not a debate with two reasonable sides, it's an oppressed group trying to fuckin' live and harassment from freaks who are obsessed with other people's genitals and/or who thrive on the attention and endorphins they get from taking their own personal issues out on a class of people a lot of people in society feel they have a green light to verbally bully, physically assault, and so on. There's no middle ground and there's no way to convince me that the transphobes have a point.

PeterCat posted:

It is a competition. Your PT score adds to your promotion points. More promotions points means you get promoted ahead of other people competing for the same promotion. If you have 2 people who are otherwise equal in schools and performance and one has a higher score on the PT test, they are going to get promoted first.

thehandtruck posted:

Yeah. If anyone actually cared about any sports at all a solution could be to create divisions based on factors such as bone-density etc, if that's what chuds keep complaining about. Having a gender divide has always felt weird to me, and sometimes it exists in stuff like Chess which is pretty funny. Yet another solution is no divisions whatsoever, just one huge pool of participants.

But honestly the solutions are silly because nobody actually cares about any of this, myself included. It's just more of the outrage machine and the opinion machine. Both tools of oppression and control. Nearly identical situation as bathroom outrage but even less relatable.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

That's not really true. For skill sports, I'm sure there's a bunch of additional nonsense. In many sports elite women just straight-up can not compete for the podium with elite men, so the gender division provides a competitive field. The women's world record marathon is 2:14:04, and that time was 23nd overall in the race in which it was set.

Just Chamber posted:

In all sports? What about combat sports? Should a heavyweight woman be allowed to compete against say a heavyweight man in UFC? Or boxing?

Nice on paper that women should be allowed to compete where they want but I don't think this works for certain sports that involve combat or contact. But yes in other sports sure, certain sports like the 100m etc they'd never qualify but they should be able to attempt with the men.

Just Chamber posted:

If you want to put the strongest world heavyweight man, say 6'7 Tyson Fury against a female boxer, if you can find one that is similar weight and height and he's allowed to punch her with all of his incredible strength I'm sure that will go well and her punches and strength will be at all equal to his (they won't) . It just doesn't work. It's quite probable a 5 ft something male boxer will punch an awful lot harder than a 6 ft something female boxer, how do you account for this? The whole point of combat sports organised into gender divisions is that roughly a 6ft tall male boxer will be more or less equal in strength to a similar boxer of his height and weight allowing the other boxer to not get absolutely destroyed and possibly given brain damage just like if Tyson fury went up against a 5ft5 male boxer who was likely half his weight also.

But yes that's just misogony...

Just Chamber posted:

I can't believe we're having this debate seeing as there is a matter of people's safety involved for one but sure yes the completion decides it, years of you know, having fighters pitted against each other for century's and probably discovering that it's really not a match if you pit a 5'6 guy against a 6'5 guy and more than likely the 6'5 guy doesn't want to face an opponent he not only can likely beat with one hand behind his back, but also will very likely caused long term serious harm if he went full out which is the whole point of competition,you go your hardest to win.

Or would you advocate that it's fair that a person with dwarfism should if they want be allowed to fight in a heavyweight ufc fight against someone who's 6ft 5 and 115kg if they like even if there's a high chance that if this ufc fighter doesn't hold back they'd probably be killed? Does the crowd want to see someone get brain damage? Does the fighter want to give that to them? No. So these rules exist for a good reason.

And yes they compete in a sport where bodily harm is possible. But the rules with gender, and body weight divisions are put in place to protect those in the ring as much as possible. This doesn't always work but on the whole it's very successful on stopping people getting life long injuries or dying.