Jump to content

Gender in Sport (Split)


AlexLaw76
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

More complex then your simplistic worldview.

Sounds to me like you're refusing to answer. Can't be that difficult to answer surely? Fair enough it's more complex than my simplistic worldview so what is the definition then? Educate me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Sounds to me like you're refusing to answer. Can't be that difficult to answer surely? Fair enough it's more complex than my simplistic worldview so what is the definition then? Educate me. 

Read what has already been posted and build on the opinion you have just said is flawed. 

I'm not refusing to answer, i'm just ahead of you in already realising it's a shade of grey, not black/white.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

Read what has already been posted and build on the opinion you have just said is flawed. 

I'm not refusing to answer, i'm just ahead of you in already realising it's a shade of grey, not black/white.

You're not refusing to answer but you haven't answered? You've told me what it's not which is that it's not black and white or simplistic but I still haven't had an answer of what it is. Come on Colinjb surely it's not that difficult to provide a definition? What is a woman? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're not refusing to answer but you haven't answered? You've told me what it's not which is that it's not black and white or simplistic but I still haven't had an answer of what it is. Come on Colinjb surely it's not that difficult to provide a definition? What is a woman? 

So, you accept your view is too simplistic. Then you take it back to me wanting to address it directly again. 

Simplistic is the word. 

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

So, you accept your view is too simplistic. Then you take it back to me wanting to address it directly again. 

Simplistic is the word. 

No Colinjb. For the sake of argument I was agreeing with you telling me that my definition was simplistic. You're just making yourself look silly now. I'm giving you the opportunity to give me what your definition is seeing as you believe mine is simplistic and you're doing everything you can not to give one. 

Let's be honest it's because you either don't have a definition of or you know that anyone you do have will make yourself look silly. What's your definition? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

False, it's why this is such a good debate.

You are demonstrably wrong to make such a sweeping statement. 

Worth noting that you call me wrong in the manner of a biologist abd an idiot yet you can't even provide a definition of a woman... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Worth noting that you call me wrong in the manner of a biologist abd an idiot yet you can't even provide a definition of a woman... 

It's a good debate, because people far more intelligent then me cannot either. 

But one certainty we can have, is that your simple starting point is as incorrect as any more educated viewpoint I could present. But your need for something difinitve rather then a more nuanced perspective does you no credit at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

It's a good debate, because people far more intelligent then me cannot either. 

But one certainty we can have, is that your simple starting point is as incorrect as any more educated viewpoint I could present. But your need for something difinitve rather then a more nuanced perspective does you no credit at all. 

Hold on you're saying a definition isn't possible now? Or you could provide me with a "more educated" definition but are choosing not to? You're suggesting it does me no credit because I asked you for a definition of a word? Asking for a definition is wrong because that isn't providing enough nuance? Eh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hold on you're saying a definition isn't possible now? Or you could provide me with a "more educated" definition but are choosing not to? You're suggesting it does me no credit because I asked you for a definition of a word? Asking for a definition is wrong because that isn't providing enough nuance? Eh? 

What Science GCSE grade did you get, out of interest? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m struggling with this. The same people who tell us that if you are born with the male reproductive system you can’t be a woman are now arguing that a person born with the female reproductive system isn’t  a woman??

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

What Science GCSE grade did you get, out of interest? 

Interesting that you're asking me questions yet you can't or won't provide a definition of a woman. What is it about it that you find so difficult? You don't have to deflect, just answer the question. Can't be that difficult surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sadoldgit said:

I’m struggling with this. The same people who tell us that if you are born with the male reproductive system you can’t be a woman are now arguing that a person born with the female reproductive system isn’t  a woman??

Reports online suggest that the person in question has testicles and XY chromosones. Someone with testicles and XY chromosones is a biological man regardless of what DSD they possess that may give them an outward appearance of a woman. 

Do you want to help out colinjb? He seems to have difficulty providing the definition of a woman just like you have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Interesting that you're asking me questions yet you can't or won't provide a definition of a woman. What is it about it that you find so difficult? You don't have to deflect, just answer the question. Can't be that difficult surely?

I've said it's not as simple as providing a difinitive explanation. The more is learned about Humanity, the more cloudy it gets. 

So. What GCSE grade did you get? Or was it so painfully poor you fear it would undermine you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Reports online suggest that the person in question has testicles and XY chromosones. Someone with testicles and XY chromosones is a biological man regardless of what DSD they possess that may give them an outward appearance of a woman. 

Do you want to help out colinjb? He seems to have difficulty providing the definition of a woman just like you have.  

Where is it reported that Khalif has testicles ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

I've said it's not as simple as providing a difinitive explanation. The more is learned about Humanity, the more cloudy it gets. 

So. What GCSE grade did you get? Or was it so painfully poor you fear it would undermine you?

So your answer to what the definition of a woman is is that there is no definition? Seriously? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So your answer to what the definition of a woman is is that there is no definition? Seriously? 

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Unlike the gender debate, this is definitive. 

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Where is it reported that Khalif has testicles ?

The info in the public domain makes it likely the dsd in question is 5-ARD which is the same condition that caster semenya has. In male foetuses internal testes are formed and produce testosterone (hence the raised testosterone levels that got the banned in the first place) but the extra step to another hormone is missing so external male structures aren't formed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colinjb said:

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Unlike the gender debate, this is definitive. 

You didn't clarify your answer stop deflecting. Is your answer to the question of what the definition of a woman is that there is no definition? That's different from the answer you gave earlier where you said that you weren't refusing to answer and that a definition did exist but it was more complex than the definition I had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the whole argument surrounding ‘gender identity’ in society, there are at least facts in this subject which are possible to debate. The fact that everybody apart from a very, very small minority of people can be classed as having either male (produce sperm) or female (produce eggs) reproductive organs still hold true here, so you can argue can argue that she should be allowed to compete in women’s sport. On the other hand testosterone irregularities can clearly give some women a massive advantage which some would argue is unfair, as it was with Caster Semenya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

You didn't clarify your answer stop deflecting. Is your answer to the question of what the definition of a woman is that there is no definition? That's different from the answer you gave earlier where you said that you weren't refusing to answer and that a definition did exist but it was more complex than the definition I had. 

I've given you my answer. Your lack of ability to get your head around it is not my concern. 

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.badlefthook.com/2024/8/1/24211625/there-are-no-transgender-women-boxing-in-paris-olympic-boxing-news-2024#comments

 

"Claims are swirling that Khelif does possess XY chromosomes, but the only source appears to be Kremlev himself. The supposedly damning test has never been made public or even defined. Every single other test these women took in the last six years confirmed that they were exactly what they claimed to be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She failed a secretive test (unknown protocol or reliability) run by a discredited organisation, which has no relevance to the Olympics.  She is biologically female, no evidence of xy chromosomes, no evidence of testicles, this whole argument is just weird.  She's not transgender or intersex, this whole thing is based on baseless assumptions because of what the IBA did before they were suspended and stripped of their status.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

I've given you my answer. Your lack of ability to get your head around it is not my concern. 

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Me: "What is a woman" You: "It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation."

So you've failed to answer the very simple question I asked and you're accusing me of not being able to get my head around your answer? It's simply evasion on your part since as I said you are either incapable of answering the question or you don't want to. I'm not sure why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Me: "What is a woman" You: "It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation."

So you've failed to answer the very simple question I asked and you're accusing me of not being able to get my head around your answer? It's simply evasion on your part since as I said you are either incapable of answering the question or you don't want to. I'm not sure why. 

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colinjb said:

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

OK your latest tactic to not answer the very clear question- "what is a woman" is to ask me an unrelated question to try to get out of answering. Just want to be very clear here that you have been unwilling or unable to answer a very simple question which calls into question your other answers in this area. 

Colinjb is unable to provide an answer to the question: What is a woman? 

Just so we are clear. 

And to pre-empt your mindless response asking me about my GCSEs again, no idea why you think something I did decades ago is of relevance to what a woman is but I was very pleased with my results. Happy to answer in more detail once you've actually answered the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

OK your latest tactic to not answer the very clear question- "what is a woman" is to ask me an unrelated question to try to get out of answering. Just want to be very clear here that you have been unwilling or unable to answer a very simple question which calls into question your other answers in this area. 

Colinjb is unable to provide an answer to the question: What is a woman? 

Just so we are clear. 

And to pre-empt your mindless response asking me about my GCSEs again, no idea why you think something I did decades ago is of relevance to what a woman is but I was very pleased with my results. Happy to answer in more detail once you've actually answered the question. 

My answer was given earlier. You dimwit. 

Your inability to accept things cannot be answered within your limited terms is idiotic. 

 

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A

Now the next question...

P.s. no such thing as an A* in my day.

Although not sure that qualifies me for anything other than naming the parts of an onion skin seen through a microscope.

It really has no relevance to anything. It's of significantly more concern if you were unable to define what a woman is, particularly if you are in any sort of position of authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

My answer was given earlier. You dimwit. 

Your inability to accept things cannot be answered within your limited terms is idiotic. 

 

I haven't provided limited terms! All I did was ask for a definition! Either words can be defined or they can't. If I asked you to provide a definition of any manner of other things I presume you'd be able to do so yet simply asking for a definition of this particular word is in your mind too limiting? 

How on Earth is asking for the definition of a word limiting you? You have the entire English language at your disposal to provide any sort of definition you feel is suitable. Explain how it limits you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I fear you may be wasting your time fishing in this particular pond Hypo. 

Colinjb is clearly not an unintelligent person. I genuinely don't understand this confusion that comes over previously clever people. Just a decade ago there wouldn't be an issue answering this simple question. Now you just get non-answers, obfuscation and deflection. You get it from world leaders too so it's affects a lot of people. It's so odd. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

What was your GCSE Science grade? 

Which subject ? Personally I have 'O' and 'A' levels in chemistry, physics, and biology, 2 As and a B at 'O' and 3 Bs at :A'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Colinjb is clearly not an unintelligent person. I genuinely don't understand this confusion that comes over previously clever people. 

It's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to grasp.

I'm quite happy to accept my limitations on this. That this issue is not able to definitively solved in a fair and just way yet shows it's nowhere near as simple as the arguments many throw. They can be dangerous.

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

It's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to understand.

I'm quite happy to accept my limitations on this. That this issue is not able to definitively solved in a fair and just way yet shows it's nowhere near as simple as the arguments many throw. They can be dangerous.

Why don't you give it go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colinjb said:

It's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to understand.

I'm quite happy to accept my limitations on this. That this issue is not able to definitively solved in a fair and just way yet shows it's nowhere near as simple as the arguments many throw. They can be dangerous.

"it's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to understand" 

Genuinely not trying to be antagonistic or thick but I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you saying that you are incapable of providing an adequate definition of what a woman is? Or that you are capable of providing an answer but not one that would be understood by the likes of me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"it's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to understand" 

Genuinely not trying to be antagonistic or thick but I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you saying that you are incapable of providing an adequate definition of what a woman is? Or that you are capable of providing an answer but not one that would be understood by the likes of me? 

I suspect both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

I suspect both.

So you genuinely can't answer the question then. Don't you consider it a little troubling if you are unable to have definitions of words? Can you not see how that could potentially cause some problems? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So you genuinely can't answer the question then. Don't you consider it a little troubling if you are unable to have definitions of words? Can you not see how that could potentially cause some problems? 

No, life is full of paradoxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

No, life is full of paradoxes. 

I know that being able to answer what a woman is matters a great deal more to many women than it does to either of us. I'm sure you could imagine and I could provide you with a number of scenarios where being unable to define what a woman is may cause some problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I know that being able to answer what a woman is matters a great deal more to many women than it does to either of us. I'm sure you could imagine and I could provide you with a number of scenarios where being unable to define what a woman is may cause some problems. 

Thankfully, for 99%+ of the population, social convention is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Thankfully, for 99%+ of the population, social convention is enough.

For 99% of the population your reproductive organs are enough. There is no social convention on gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Would you support women only spaces for things like rape crisis centres? 

It's one of the areas where a single universally accepted description would clearly be helpful. 

Is this where you go on a moral crusade now because I didn't explicitly say 'Of course they should be' women only?'

They need to be safe for the victims, regardless of gender. 

Edited by Colinjb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...