News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
That's not even close to similar since race has no significant bearing on physical capabilities as is easily proven by the Olympics results even when black people were still being excluded in North America.
The top female athletes get absolutely wrecked at strength based sports by even mediocre male athletes. Just go look up the Williams sisters vs Braasch (tennis)
Anyone who keeps claiming that trans athletes have zero benefit are lying to themselves. There are some who have no benefit, especially if they transitioned pre-puberty, but it's clear as day biologically that they were literally doping for a decade of their development if they transitioned later.
Can you show the results where cis women and trans women have competed where it is "easily proven" that they always have an advantage?
Do you really think Britney Griner has a disadvantage over all trans women?
Why does every trans athlete have to be better than Britney Griner for it to be unfair?
That's an unreasonable stance.
Women's sports leagues exist to eliminate men from competing where it would be unfair. Letting in anyone who surpasses ANY woman in that league simply because they were doping with Testosterone as a teenager breaks the entire spirit of why that league exists.
There was an example of a high school wrestler who was transitioning to male that was forced (he wanted to wrestle in the boys category) to compete against girls and went 52-0 that season.
I have no problem with Trans athletes competing in open or men's leagues, but there hasn't been a single trans man that has ever participated in the Olympics because without the benefit of natural testosterone during development they simply can't compete at that level. There was one trans man who almost made the Olympics (he got to the trials leading up to the Olympics) but he didn't succeed in making it there.
No matter how much we want to be inclusive, and I'm all for being inclusive as much as possible, if we've intentionally created a lower category for competition then it should only include the people who actually belong in that category.
We should just rename the categories from Mens and Womens to be "Over X Testosterone from ages 10-20" and "Under X Testosterone from ages 10-20" because that's what they were really meant to represent.
You said it is easily proven that they always have an advantage and you are basing it on one single high school wrestler.
That is not even close to being easily proven.
I did not use the word always in any of my comments on this thread.
If it isn't always, then there isn't an unfair advantage any more than being excessively tall is an unfair advantage in basketball.
That's not how fairness works.
If one man shows up to every woman's weight lifting competition and wins every time and at the same time three other men show up and place last every time, the situation is still unfair to women because someone still had an unfair advantage.
The fact that you are calling trans women men says all that I need to know.
I'm not calling trans women men, I'm saying that if a cis man were to show up.
Okay, but we aren't talking about men playing women's sports, we are talking about women playing women's sports.
And I was giving you an example where cis men could both win AND lose to cis women, and it would still be unfair.
Cis men are not relevant to this discussion, so the only reason to bring men up is if you think trans women are men.
They are fucking relevant, because you said that trans women need to ALWAYS beat cis women for it to be unfair.
I'm providing an example where in an even more extreme situation where cis men were involved directly, some cis men could lose and the situation would still be unfair.
So your argument that they all had to be better is false. Trans women participating in women's sports if even one of them is better because of their natural doping is an unfair situation.
You're providing an example that does not involve trans women. All you are doing is repeatedly implying that there is no physical difference between trans women and cis men, which is simply false if they are taking hormones.
And also, that was not my argument. Not in any way.
Taking hormones does not undo all of the benefits of male puberty body development. This is science that has been proven.
You simply cannot say that no trans women has an advantage, it's just false.
Given that at least some have an unfair advantage, they should not be allowed to participate in a division created specifically to avoid having to compete against that advantage.
It's that simple.
Are you going to acknowledge that was not the argument I was making?
Apparently fairness is not as important to you on a personal level.
The argument you made was that ALL trans women had to be better than Britney Griner for it to be unfair.
I countered by saying if even a single trans women, because of their male puberty development, was better than Britney Griner then it would be unfair.
The entire point of having a women's league at all is to exclude men, specifically because their bodies are vastly stronger when comparing two of the peak athletes in that sport.
I guess you're just going to continue to lie about what argument I was making. So you don't actually care about fairness at all.
Are you removed? Go back and read your own godamn comment.
No, I am not removed. I'm am still here. (I would love to know what racial slur you said that got censored.)
But you were still lying about the argument I was making and don't seem to care.
Lol, they're censoring the small R word.
If I'm not supposed to trust your argument in your original comment, then pray tell me what exactly is your arguement?
Oh I see, you're not a racial bigot, you're just an ableist bigot. Got it.
And maybe I will consider talking to you about my argument when you admit you don't actually know.
I won't be holding my breath, I'm sure you're far too busy saying bigoted things about disabled people.
You provided an argument, I tore it down, and you moved the goalposts, and now you won't even tell me where the goalposts are. Great conversation here.
At the end of the day, Trans women are going to get banned from competitive sport in the women's divisions. Which is how it should be. I wish them well in everything else they want to do in life.
Not a shock you're continuing to lie rather than admit you don't actually know what my argument was, much like it's not a shock about your being bigoted against the disabled.