Everyone is so offended.

[Ridgemont]

8.4L 154 said:

Ridgemont said:

8.4L 154 said:

Ridgemont said:

That said I’m not sure how Laura Hubbard’s competitors feel about her turning in
1st 2017, 2019 Oceania Championships
1st 2017, 2019 Commonwealth Championships
1st 2019 Pacific Games
1st 2019 Worldmasters Games

Step back for a minute and consider whether this seems ‘fair’?

That's 4 medals over three years in restricted international competition. Zero in open world competition, How many would have been ok?

I'm guessing less than none.

Not just 4 medals: that’s 6 (see years) in gold.
Cmon what’s your view on ‘fair’?

Sorry, missed the 2nd dates. So 6 in restricted competition over three years, big whoop.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like my idea of fair so I won't hit submit on that post, but here's a hint. Was it fair to the kid in school with Phelps, or regionals with Farrah, nationals with bolt?

But go on how many would be acceptable for a trans women to win?

I don’t care about apportioning ‘win’ ratios to trans women. I care about the fact there is a competitor who has the muscle mass of a man competing against women who don’t.
‘Restricted competition’: aka nonsense. She’s taking part in regional competition that is relevant to New Zealand. And wiping the floor.
That other stuff you mention is irrelevant as well.
How is this fair?

[8.4L 154]

Ridgemont said:

8.4L 154 said:

Ridgemont said:

8.4L 154 said:

Ridgemont said:

That said I’m not sure how Laura Hubbard’s competitors feel about her turning in
1st 2017, 2019 Oceania Championships
1st 2017, 2019 Commonwealth Championships
1st 2019 Pacific Games
1st 2019 Worldmasters Games

Step back for a minute and consider whether this seems ‘fair’?

That's 4 medals over three years in restricted international competition. Zero in open world competition, How many would have been ok?

I'm guessing less than none.

Not just 4 medals: that’s 6 (see years) in gold.
Cmon what’s your view on ‘fair’?

Sorry, missed the 2nd dates. So 6 in restricted competition over three years, big whoop.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like my idea of fair so I won't hit submit on that post, but here's a hint. Was it fair to the kid in school with Phelps, or regionals with Farrah, nationals with bolt?

But go on how many would be acceptable for a trans women to win?

I don’t care about apportioning ‘win’ ratios to trans women. I care about the fact there is a competitor who has the muscle mass of a man competing against women who don’t.
‘Restricted competition’: aka nonsense. She’s taking part in regional competition that is relevant to New Zealand. And wiping the floor.
That other stuff you mention is irrelevant as well.
How is this fair?

Stop being obtuse, regional competition is restricted competition. It's restricted to those in the region.

If it's restricted in its competitors then you can't use it to show an outright performance advantage especially when that unfair competitor tanks against an open field. There is always someone quicker stronger or with more money in the lower ranks that unless you're the true elite you will eventually meet and never win against. I don't see that as a problem in the midfield if it's a trans women, it's just bad luck, as so far there is no evidence that at the top they hold the muscle advantage you claim, so the same is true all the way down and it becomes less important as the stakes become lower anyway as it's easier to find a competition you can win.

If you can't win the park run in Exeter against a trans women, go and try your luck in Plymouth against Sharron Davies. The trans women is only running in Exeter because she couldn't stand the abuse in Plymouth.

And I'm not sure I understand your claim about not apportioning ‘win’ ratios to trans women.when that is the foundation of your post.

So how many can a trans women win and still be fair. We know it's less than 2 a year av by your standard so far

[Ridgemont]

8.4L 154 said:

Stop being obtuse, regional competition is restricted competition. It's restricted to those in the region.

If it's restricted in its competitors then you can't use it to show an outright performance advantage especially when that unfair competitor tanks against an open field. There is always someone quicker stronger or with more money in the lower ranks that unless you're the true elite you will eventually meet and never win against. I don't see that as a problem in the midfield if it's a trans women, it's just bad luck, as so far there is no evidence that at the top they hold the muscle advantage you claim, so the same is true all the way down and it becomes less important as the stakes become lower anyway as it's easier to find a competition you can win.

If you can't win the park run in Exeter against a trans women, go and try your luck in Plymouth against Sharron Davies. The trans women is only running in Exeter because she couldn't stand the abuse in Plymouth.

And I'm not sure I understand your claim about not apportioning ‘win’ ratios to trans women.when that is the foundation of your post.

So how many can a trans women win and still be fair. We know it's less than 2 a year av by your standard so far

I have no idea why you keep on asking how many trans women can win and still be fair. I’m asking a simple question which you avoid answering: why is a participant with the muscle mass of a man able to compete with women who don’t?
I’m not going to indulge you re the ‘restricted competition’ as it seems to be a qualifier of Hubbard’s advantage.
How is Hubbard’s muscle ratio fair to women competitors? This isn’t hard. Either you think it is fair or not.

[Ridgemont]

And I’ll keep on asking this question ad nauseum as I have 5 times previously if you continue to refuse to answer the simple premise.

Is it fair.

Edited by Ridgemont on Wednesday 4th March 02:48

[8.4L 154]

Yes it's fair as the idea she has more muscle mass than cis women in not supported in scientific studies or her results, as other cis women she has competed against on a wider stage (or even the same region this year) have beaten her.

Now I have answered your question. Answer mine. How may wins is too many for her to be competing fairly.

[Driver101]

8.4L 154 said:

popeyewhite said:

8.4L 154 said:

popeyewhite said:

8.4L 154 said:

she has despite the reality of her results as she is not winning, obliterating or even qualifying for the competition she is supposed to do all those things in.

She got a 2016 Olympic Gold medal you wazzock.

Really? you'd have though if that was the case she would be listed in the medals table.

Why? She's a runner, those are weighlifting classifications.

Well if you hadn't of confused yourself so much with out of context quoting and follow the comments back to what they relate to you would have realised the comments were in regards to Laura Hubbard who is trans not Casta semenya who is intersex.

I'm not sure Laura would do very well in the 800m dash.

Nothing like being a smart arse for it to backfire so badly.

[Ridgemont]

8.4L 154 said:

Yes it's fair as the idea she has more muscle mass than cis women in not supported in scientific studies or her results, as other cis women she has competed against on a wider stage (or even the same region this year) have beaten her.

Now I have answered your question. Answer mine. How may wins is too many for her to be competing fairly.

But she does? She’s significantly more muscular than her competitors? Are you denying that? I can drag out the numbers but that is a fact.

But it’s good to know you feel that is fair.

Let’s move on as a result of your accepting that: so it is fair for a woman who has a grotesque inequality in terms of muscle ratio should be able to ‘win’ against competitors. How is this ‘winning’?

Or is fair actually not fair. Is it merely fair when non trans gender women lose?

You do realise you are defending the most enormously sexist position?

[8.4L 154]

Driver101 said:

Nothing like being a smart arse for it to backfire so badly.

I did wonder when he referred to fraction of a second advantage in a weight lifting discussion.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

8.4L 154 said:

Now I have answered your question. Answer mine. How may wins is too many for her to be competing fairly.

One.

[8.4L 154]

Ridgemont said:

But she does? She’s significantly more muscular than her competitors? Are you denying that? I can drag out the numbers but that is a fact.

But it’s good to know you feel that is fair.

Let’s move on as a result of your accepting that: so it is fair for a woman who has a grotesque inequality in terms of muscle ratio should be able to ‘win’ against competitors. How is this ‘winning’?

Or is fair actually not fair. Is it merely fair when non trans gender women lose?

You do realise you are defending the most enormously sexist position?

That's the point she isn't winning over cis women with her "significantly" higher muscle mass. She is winning over some of them some of the time. If her muscle mass is so much higher it's not doing her much good with coming 5th in the Olympic qualifier lifting significantly less than the competition and failing to qualify for the Olympics at that event.

[Ridgemont]

8.4L 154 said:

That's the point she isn't winning over cis women with her "significantly" higher muscle mass. She is winning over some of them some of the time. If her muscle mass is so much higher it's not doing her much good with coming 5th in the Olympic qualifier lifting significantly less than the competition and failing to qualify for the Olympics at that event.

And her performance in the competitions I indicated earlier suggest precisely the opposite. Carry on ignoring.

Fair. Not so much.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

8.4L 154 said:

That's the point she isn't winning over cis women with her "significantly" higher muscle mass. She is winning over some of them some of the time. If her muscle mass is so much higher it's not doing her much good with coming 5th in the Olympic qualifier lifting significantly less than the competition and failing to qualify for the Olympics at that event.

The person that was 6th was denied 5th by unfair competition, and so on down the list.

Fair competition should be based on biology not psychology.

[8.4L 154]

Ridgemont said:

And her performance in the competitions I indicated earlier suggest precisely the opposite. Carry on ignoring.

Fair. Not so much.

Cherry picking her wins and ignoring the losses does not prove an advantage. It just shows you to be arguing in bad faith.

[8.4L 154]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

The person that was 6th was denied 5th by unfair competition, and so on down the list.

Fair competition should be based on biology not psychology.

That's always a daft position. It's so unfair I missed out on loosing. What about the competitors in 1st to 4th. How was it unfair to them?

[Ridgemont]

8.4L 154 said:

Ridgemont said:

And her performance in the competitions I indicated earlier suggest precisely the opposite. Carry on ignoring.

Fair. Not so much.

Cherry picking her wins and ignoring the losses does not prove an advantage. It just shows you to be arguing in bad faith.

It’snt cherry picking to look at her overall performance: this is why I keep on banging on about fairness.

It’s not fking fair

[Stay in Bed Instead]

8.4L 154 said:

That's always a daft position. It's so unfair I missed out on loosing. What about the competitors in 1st to 4th. How was it unfair to them?

They won their position fairly. The person in 5th didn't.

[anonymous-user]

8.4L 154 said:

Cherry picking her wins and ignoring the losses does not prove an advantage. It just shows you to be arguing in bad faith.

Let's say the best male weightlifter in the world woke up one morning and decided he was a she.

Would it be fair on the biologically female athletes to be forced to compete with them?

[8.4L 154]

janesmith1950 said:

Let's say the best male weightlifter in the world woke up one morning and decided he was a she.

Would it be fair on the biologically female athletes to be forced to compete with them?

They wouldn't meet the qualification criteria. Get them to come back after 1 year of testosterone suppression and oestrogen therapy, 2 years if they are American and including legal recognition and gender reassignment surgery.

I think there is a trans sponsored challenge and significant reward for any elite athlete willing to meet IOC trans qualification requirements and succeeded in winning at their sport. For some reason no-one has accepted the offer.

[8.4L 154]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

8.4L 154 said:

That's always a daft position. It's so unfair I missed out on loosing. What about the competitors in 1st to 4th. How was it unfair to them?

They won their position fairly. The person in 5th didn't.

I didn't ask how fair their participation was. I asked how Laura's participation was unfair to them. After all the claim is her participation is unfair to all women. Yet they don't seem to have suffered a disadvantage in their final placing.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

8.4L 154 said:

I didn't ask how fair their participation was. I asked how Laura's participation was unfair to them. After all the claim is her participation is unfair to all women. Yet they don't seem to have suffered a disadvantage in their final placing.

It's unfair to every biologically female competitor regardless of whether or not they are beaten by the biologically male competitor. You clearly have trouble appreciating this.

Using your argument any male should be permitted in a female category providing they don't have a chance of winning.

Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Wednesday 4th March 06:05