Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => General Discussion => Topic started by: RGU on December 17, 2018, 01:06:49 PM

Title: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 17, 2018, 01:06:49 PM
I just read the article below and am trying to parse out what I think/feel about it?
I have no issue with transgender people as I support whatever they feel is best for themselves, however this situation also affects others as well.
The best I could come up with was to eliminate the M/F categories in sports and just have them all compete together.
That almost seems fair, but is it really? With no WNBA, women would have to compete with men in the NBA. Would it be better to just let people compete in whatever they want to?
But what effect would this have, could you end up with a real life "Juwanna Mann"?

What are your thoughts?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete)
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Harry Black on December 17, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
I think sports are beneficial for health so I think they should be generally encouraged. To that end, I think mixing mens and womens categories would have a negative effect on participation and just result in other non cis male organisations breaking off.
I also think that developing a society where people are treated equally and with dignity is far more important than who wins a race.
Transphobic sore losers need to get over it and stop pretending that this is the end of cis female competitiveness.
Sports just arent that important.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 17, 2018, 02:26:36 PM
It is a complex situation. I am pro-transgender rights, but sport does bring up some difficult problems.

It some situations (and some sports) it can give transgender athletes an unfair advantage.

Sports just arent that important.

For some of us, sport is huge. For "most" aussies, it's an obsession  ;)

I do believe most transgender athletes can compete. They will have to be judged on a case by case situation.





Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Harry Black on December 17, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
For most people in general its an obsession.

But if they put it ahead of or comparable to peoples equality then their values would be pretty ugly.

"Sorry you dont get to be treated with dignity or as a valid person, but seeing people win shit just makes me too hapoy to care!"
Is not a thing I can see many people getting behind unless they do genuinely dislike trans people.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 17, 2018, 03:12:27 PM
I think sports are beneficial for health so I think they should be generally encouraged. To that end, I think mixing mens and womens categories would have a negative effect on participation and just result in other non cis male organisations breaking off.
I also think that developing a society where people are treated equally and with dignity is far more important than who wins a race.
Transphobic sore losers need to get over it and stop pretending that this is the end of cis female competitiveness.
Sports just arent that important.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, beyond you think sports are not important.
Mixing men's and women's categories are bad because men will split off and make more male organizations. But, it doesn't matter who wins and everyone should be treated equally. And if you disagree you are transphobic?

Why is someone who thinks a playing field should be even is Transphobic?
Does that mean if you think men and women should be separate, as you stated above, then that person is Cisphobic? or maybe just Femalephobic?

This isn't about a race. It is about all sports from Table Tennis, to MMA, to the Olympics, to MLB, etc...
Some sports have found gender crossovers possible like NASCAR (not that everyone considers it a sport) and others are so split up that you cannot wrestle a person of the same sex 15 lbs heavier than you.

You may not care about sports, but it in 2016, the North American sports market had a value of about 67.29 billion U.S. dollars (who knows what worldwide). People care. It is how many make a living, playing, supporting players, designing equipment and clothing. Obtaining scholarships or making enough money to bring themselves and their families up out of poverty.

All of this make it a difficult matter. Much more difficult than, it isn't a big deal and get over it or you hate trans people.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: amysrevenge on December 17, 2018, 03:22:12 PM
I believe the choice as presented is "make society fair and if that makes sports less fair sometimes, so be it" as directly opposed to "make sports fair, and if that makes society less fair sometimes, so be it".
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 17, 2018, 03:41:35 PM
I believe the choice as presented is "make society fair and if that makes sports less fair sometimes, so be it" as directly opposed to "make sports fair, and if that makes society less fair sometimes, so be it".

That make's sense - so what is fair and who determines it?
Isn't making sports fair (almost) always going to make society less fair and vice versa?

men and women are equal - fair in Society
men and women are equal - unfair in Boxing
disabled and non-disabled are equal - fair in Society
disabled and non-disabled are equal - unfair in the Olympics
etc.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Harry Black on December 17, 2018, 03:48:42 PM
I believe the choice as presented is "make society fair and if that makes sports less fair sometimes, so be it" as directly opposed to "make sports fair, and if that makes society less fair sometimes, so be it".
Exactly.
My sympathy is with the people who are oppressed, reviled and driven to suicide for just existing. Not the people who are scared of coming second to them.

That includes in table tennis, MMA etc.
We have waited this long to find a trans athlete who is kicking ass (at a high school level!)  I really dont think this warrants interventions that will take away the little joy some trans folks may have in their lives.

Edit- Oh great. A bunch of false equivelancies.
Im out.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 17, 2018, 06:51:59 PM
I’ve expressed my feelings about this before: Competition is unhealthy and destructive. Physical activity is good and should be encouraged. Competitive sports tend to discourage the weak and uncoordinated from participating, as happened with me. We need non-competitive sports. Then it doesn’t matter what your gender is or what reproductive organs you were born with or have now. Right now, the people who need physical activity the most are discouraged or even barred from playing because with the emphasis on winning, nobody wants them on their team. As happened to me. I’m uncoordinated and I’m not strong. I was a fat kid. Nobody wanted me on their team, and in reaction I had contempt for jocks. Until I was 30 I excoriated all physical activity because of the way I was treated, which in turn was because of competition. Fuck competition. Give everybody an opportunity for non-competitive exercise where they’ll be welcomed.

I’m currently most enthusiastic about paddling. (Canoes and kayaks.) There are races (bad idea) and there’s recreational paddling. The races have divisions based on age and gender, and I have no idea how the governing agencies handle our new understanding of gender. But for recreational paddling, anybody that wants to paddle is welcome in the boat. Doesn’t matter if you are male or female, cis or trans, or something else. Doesn’t matter if you are gay or straight. Doesn’t matter what color your skin is. Doesn’t even matter what language you speak because most of the commands are given in Hawaiian.

We need more games and events where there’s no score-keeping or time keeping. Yesterday there was a big “jungle rules” paddling race. Anything that floats was welcome. No timekeeping, no winners or losers. Turn around before the marker buoy if you feel like it. It was so much fun. My canoe was basically last and nobody in the canoe cared. We all had fun.

There’s no health benefit to sitting on your couch watching other people play sports on TV.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 17, 2018, 07:04:58 PM
Your experience, Daniel, mirrors mine, perhaps possibly excepting (or rather you didn't mention this aspect) that I was relentlessly bullied throughout high school for being bad at sports.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 17, 2018, 07:03:25 PM
(double post due to network shenanigans)
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 17, 2018, 07:35:08 PM
Your experience, Daniel, mirrors mine, perhaps possibly excepting (or rather you didn't mention this aspect) that I was relentlessly bullied throughout high school for being bad at sports.

Surprisingly, I wasn’t bullied very much at all. Maybe because I didn’t care what anybody else thought about me. And maybe because I was good at avoiding confrontations. I was insulted a lot but just ignored it. I have no idea why I was never physically assaulted.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 17, 2018, 08:18:19 PM
Your experience, Daniel, mirrors mine, perhaps possibly excepting (or rather you didn't mention this aspect) that I was relentlessly bullied throughout high school for being bad at sports.

Surprisingly, I wasn’t bullied very much at all. Maybe because I didn’t care what anybody else thought about me. And maybe because I was good at avoiding confrontations. I was insulted a lot but just ignored it. I have no idea why I was never physically assaulted.

I was never actually physically beaten up (came close once but I grovelled adequately), but I was the subject of derision and insults and the butt of all the meanness that young teenagers can muster.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 18, 2018, 12:57:20 AM
I am all for removing all discrimination. LGBTI people should have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

Sport is a hard one though as this issue only affects women's sports. There is no problem with transgender sportspeople competing in men's sport.

I also would say that transgender sportspeople would be ok to compete in most female's sports, but there will be a few exceptions. Mostly in power sports

It wouldn't be fair for women to compete with transgender sports people who have a muscle mass that was built while they were still male (There are real world examples of this happening) or to compete with a transgender sportsperson with a high testosterone level.

We can't make it fair for one group by discriminating against another group.

Each case has to be judged on individually. A one rule for all can't work and be fair for everyone.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on December 18, 2018, 09:13:50 AM
Sports are, almost by definition, the selection of particular physical attributes and segmenting society based on them. They didn't have the big national spelling bees when I was a child, but I would have competed quite well on that field. Football (of any variety), no.

The history of human progress has been in finding ways in which a relatively-weak species could dominate its ecological niche by accommodation. Had humans not invented eyeglasses, I would have likely been relegated to a life of poverty.

I have gone from a mild interest in some sports (baseball and college basketball) to absolutely zero interest today. It is the one section of the Sunday newspaper that I do not read. IMHO life is better without it.

I tend to see most sex-related differences, so much hashed over in societal conversation, as overlapping normal curves on sex-related characteristics for XX and XY people (not to mention the other combinations). While the adult XX height curve has a mean of less than the XY adult height curve, there is still huge overlap, meaning millions of women are taller than millions of men. You can even take that logic to breast size. There is considerable overlap of the size curves, but for some reason, we make a big deal about this as being a male-female thing.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 18, 2018, 10:01:28 AM
I heard a discussion about this issue (trans women in sports) and the thrust of the discussion was that although trans women seem to have an advantage in muscle size over cis women, many or most top-level athletes have some genetic advantage over the majority of us. They are taller or bigger or have an extremely rare mix of muscle fiber types. I remember a female marathon champion when I first started jogging and subscribed to a runner’s magazine. Her legs were longer in proportion to her height, and by a large margin, than just about anybody on the planet.

The question of whether or not it’s “fair” for trans women to compete against cis women is irrelevant because nothing about competitive sports is fair. Competitive sports are inherently unfair.

And on a separate note, the ubiquitous use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout high-level competitive sports is by itself a good enough reason to put an end to competition. Not only the athletes at the highest level, but also kids who aspire to reach those levels, are doing themselves serious physical damage by using such drugs. The adulation of champion athletes drives kids to destroy their health in pursuit of a goal that maybe one in ten thousand or one in a hundred thousand will achieve.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 18, 2018, 11:23:39 AM
I wasn't particularly athletic as a kid, my parents never put us in any little league or extracurricular sports activity.
I think I would have definitely benefited from it, and reject the notion that there is something unhealthy about sports and competition. Hell I work in an industry catering to it and can see the clearly how people who engage in it --things like Tennis, etc remain youthful and healthy even in their later years.

My two children (14 and 12) have been in a USATF track and field club for about five years, I think I have been to maybe a hundred competitions--outdoor track and field, cross country and indoor track--including any number of regional events--some of which had showcase events and trials for elite Olympic level athletes.
If there is a downside to this activity I must be completely blind to it.

That said, the idea that there should be an elimination of separate events between male and female is ridiculous for kids over the age of 8 or 9. After this age the differences are just stark. In an event like the 1600 meter, the top women competitor wouldn't even qualify to compete in the men's even based on time alone.
My kids participated in a NYRR one- mile event this past autumn, later that day was the Elite section, which included a recent women's world champion and several national champions. The time for the winner was a full 10 seconds slower than any of the men who competed. Even today the records for women's one mile are akin to the minimum that most good college programs would want for the men.

Now, how transgender people should fit into this is something I do not have an answer for, but anyone who comes up with an easy answer is probably not giving it enough thought.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 18, 2018, 01:24:48 PM
More information that I found which was interesting
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/we-thought-female-athletes-were-catching-up-to-men-but-theyre-not/260927/

Men have an average of 13.6 to 17.5 grams of hemoglobin per decalliter in their blood. Women have 12.0 to 15.5 g/dl.

There is an overlap of men and women, but not when you get to the elite status. Should that be a factor?

I do not know if I can even address the whole there should be no competition, winners, and losers in sports as it is silly to me... at an adult level. I do get the crazy parent and young kids, but that is a separate issue.
I cannot imagine a sport with no winner. when do you stop? what is the point?
I understand exercise - but I have never played a sport harder than when I was competing. Take Volleyball which I like playing,without competition you get the lazy just hit it types, the ones the laugh when they hit it into the net or out of bounds 30 ft. (take their beer away) but if you keep score and compete, win or lose it is more fun and more of a workout. Me chasing a ball across the road because someone smashed the crap out of it is not good exercise.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 18, 2018, 01:56:32 PM
That said, the idea that there should be an elimination of separate events between male and female is ridiculous for kids over the age of 8 or 9. After this age the differences are just stark. In an event like the 1600 meter, the top women competitor wouldn't even qualify to compete in the men's even based on time alone.
My kids participated in a NYRR one- mile event this past autumn, later that day was the Elite section, which included a recent women's world champion and several national champions. The time for the winner was a full 10 seconds slower than any of the men who competed. Even today the records for women's one mile are akin to the minimum that most good college programs would want for the men.

Now, how transgender people should fit into this is something I do not have an answer for, but anyone who comes up with an easy answer is probably not giving it enough thought.

You're right. that's why each case has to be assessed individually. Most transgender women will be ok to compete, but there will be cases where they have an unfair superiority over their cis-female competitors.

Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: gebobs on December 18, 2018, 02:54:02 PM
Hoo boy...we as a society have painted ourselves into a dichotomous gender corner and reality is not so cleanly cut.

Radiolab presented a series called Gonads. To date I think there are six episodes. But the one that hits most closely to this thread was this one.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/dutee
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 18, 2018, 05:01:38 PM
That said, the idea that there should be an elimination of separate events between male and female is ridiculous for kids over the age of 8 or 9. After this age the differences are just stark. In an event like the 1600 meter, the top women competitor wouldn't even qualify to compete in the men's even based on time alone.
My kids participated in a NYRR one- mile event this past autumn, later that day was the Elite section, which included a recent women's world champion and several national champions. The time for the winner was a full 10 seconds slower than any of the men who competed. Even today the records for women's one mile are akin to the minimum that most good college programs would want for the men.

Now, how transgender people should fit into this is something I do not have an answer for, but anyone who comes up with an easy answer is probably not giving it enough thought.

You're right. that's why each case has to be assessed individually. Most transgender women will be ok to compete, but there will be cases where they have an unfair superiority over their cis-female competitors.

How do you figure that?
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on December 18, 2018, 07:05:22 PM
When it comes to sex stuff, I increasingly see "normal" as just a statistic. Society is all about reinforcing "normal," which is why they call them "norms."
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 19, 2018, 01:13:11 AM
That said, the idea that there should be an elimination of separate events between male and female is ridiculous for kids over the age of 8 or 9. After this age the differences are just stark. In an event like the 1600 meter, the top women competitor wouldn't even qualify to compete in the men's even based on time alone.
My kids participated in a NYRR one- mile event this past autumn, later that day was the Elite section, which included a recent women's world champion and several national champions. The time for the winner was a full 10 seconds slower than any of the men who competed. Even today the records for women's one mile are akin to the minimum that most good college programs would want for the men.

Now, how transgender people should fit into this is something I do not have an answer for, but anyone who comes up with an easy answer is probably not giving it enough thought.

You're right. that's why each case has to be assessed individually. Most transgender women will be ok to compete, but there will be cases where they have an unfair superiority over their cis-female competitors.

How do you figure that?

I'm assuming, (probably a huge mistake  ;) ), that transgender women will know the guidelines and protocol of their sport, (re: transgender participation), before they try to compete. i.e. testosterone level etc (which applies to cis-females as well) and make sure they qualify under those guidelines.
In some sports their will need to be the transgender trailblazers who have to fight for the right to compete and push for guidelines and protocols

Transgender is a very broad term. I would be very surprised if anyone supported a transgender sportsperson competing in women's sport by just self identifying as a woman, but with an adult male's muscle mass and testosterone level.

Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2018, 11:10:47 AM
... I cannot imagine a sport with no winner. when do you stop? what is the point?

... Take Volleyball which I like playing,without competition you get the lazy just hit it types, the ones the laugh when they hit it into the net or out of bounds 30 ft. (take their beer away) but if you keep score and compete, win or lose it is more fun and more of a workout.

On Sunday we had a “race” with no rules, time-keeping, or winners. There was a marked course, a start and finish line, a safety boat, and a horn to announce the start. Anything that floats (without a motor) entered. We paddled around a marker buoy and back. Turn around before the buoy if you want to. Try to get ahead of the boat next to you if your crew wanted to. Or not. Everybody had fun. The boat I was in was effectively last and we all had a blast. There was no announcement of a winner, and nobody I was aware of claimed to have won. There were big smiles all around and nobody was disappointed because they didn’t win. That’s a non-competitive sport. Most days I go out paddling with one of the clubs. Sometimes we paddle hard, other times we paddle easier. Anybody who gets tired can stop paddling at any time. There’s no criticism from anybody. That’s a non-competitive sport. If we see a whale we’re all going to paddle as hard as we can, but there’s still no criticism if someone needs to stop or just isn’t paddling “hard enough.”

The most fun I ever had playing ping pong was with my sister when we were little. Instead of trying to win the point, we both tried to keep the ball going. That was a cooperative sport. Tennis or volleyball could be played the same way with just as much athleticism and enthusiasm but none of the viciousness or rancor.

I used to enter 10K fun runs. After the jocks who were trying to win, all the rest of us were just having fun. Running my own pace and enjoying the company of those around me was a non-competitive sport.

When I was in school there was none of this. Win the game or you were excoriated. There were no opportunities for sport/exercise without competition.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: bimble on December 19, 2018, 01:50:23 PM

The most fun I ever had playing ping pong was with my sister when we were little. Instead of trying to win the point, we both tried to keep the ball going. That was a cooperative sport. Tennis or volleyball could be played the same way with just as much athleticism and enthusiasm but none of the viciousness or rancor.


though surely most of the athleticism in those sports, once you aquire some skill levels, is in the attempt to win the point. I suspect Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal could probably keep a rally going for hours because they have the ability to control the ball and put it right in a nice place for their "opponant" to return, with barely a step or two.

And if they are like any of the elite athletes I know, I suspect they'd rather have a hard game, even if one of them lost.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 19, 2018, 01:55:44 PM
There is a place for sport just for fun or as a form of non-competitive exercise and play.

But to get most sports fans to pay and attend there has to be a competition. Even in "so called" friendlies I expect my sides to play to win and to be competitive.

Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 19, 2018, 04:39:14 PM
Daniel1948 - that is great and I am sure it is fun, just as ride mountain bikes with others and there is no winner. But that is because we are not racing, we are riding. If it was a race, there would be a winner.
What you describe are activities that require a level of exertion or athleticism. It is play or exercise, but it is not a sport.

noun
1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

You describe ping pong you and your sister played, you did not compete against each other, but I am sure you competed with each other against yourselves. Unless the two of you did not keep track of how many hits or how long you kept the ball going, which i doubt. Every time I played like that as a kid we would count, 20 hits, 22 hits, and continue until we beat our record... competing with ourselves. Many people do this, trying to break their own times or distances. It is still competitiveness.

I cannot imagine this world you envision where nobody competes.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2018, 05:05:44 PM
There is a place for sport just for fun or as a form of non-competitive exercise and play.

But to get most sports fans to pay and attend there has to be a competition. Even in "so called" friendlies I expect my sides to play to win and to be competitive.



So to maintain a business that makes money for the owners, we encourage the vast majority of adults to be sedentary and pay to watch others play, and at the same time discourage those kids who need exercise the most from participating.

That’s a bad system.

My system deprives a few dozen or a hundred or so sports team owners of a way to make vast sums of money, deprives adults of an excuse to be sedentary, watching others play, and encourages everyone, kids and adults alike, to be active, and encourages the kids who are good at sports to welcome into their team the kids who are not. Because if there’s no winner, then having the klutz or the fat kid on your team doesn’t hurt you.

My system deprives a few athletes of a job which is dangerous and leaves most of them with injuries for the rest of their life, but provides them and more like them with much safer employment teaching kids to exercise safely while having fun.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 19, 2018, 05:11:01 PM
Ignoring the fact that most people who engage in sports ENJOY the competition is a great way to bolster your argument, but it is still ignoring an important fact.

Do you feel the same about competitive chess? All board games?

Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
RGU: Nope, we didn’t keep track or try to beat our record. Now, ping pong is hardly a very athletic activity, but our way could be just as active as the competitive way because we were kids and not very good at the game, so we often had to reach or run or dive for the ball to keep it in play, because if it went off the table or bounced too many times, or whatever, we’d still keep it going if we could.

Cooperation can be even more fun than competition; it can be just as physical, for the health benefits; and it can be safer because nobody has the attitude that you should injure yourself to make a point “for the team.” We all know plenty of cases of athletes, pro and kids alike, who have injured themselves and been lionized for it, because they “took one for the team.”
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 19, 2018, 05:17:26 PM
So to maintain a business that makes money for the owners,

It makes money for the owners, the logo designers, the concession workers, the athletes, the TV station, the uniform manufacturers, the vendors the people who own the parking garage, the people who own restaurants in the area of the arena, the hotels and a significant number of other people.
It also makes MILLIONS of people happy because they like unscripted competitive entertainment.

I hate the idea that these people shouldn't make  money off of their talent because some people had bad memories of competition when they were children.

Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 19, 2018, 05:19:07 PM


Cooperation can be even more fun than competition;

For you and maybe some others.
Most people enjoy good competition. By and large it is a beneficial experience for those who enjoy it.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2018, 05:21:54 PM
Ignoring the fact that most people who engage in sports ENJOY the competition is a great way to bolster your argument, but it is still ignoring an important fact.

Do you feel the same about competitive chess? All board games?



The people who are good at it enjoy the competition. The rest of us are excoriated by them for our lack of athleticism.

The good of competition: the few who are good at it enjoy it.

The bad of competition: unnecessary injuries, the health effects on the masses who sit on the couch and just watch, and all the kids who get no exercise at all because of the hate they’ve been subjected to for not having the skills.

Chess is not a substitute for exercise. But if you want to argue against chess tournaments, I will not quarrel with you over it.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 19, 2018, 05:26:13 PM
Ignoring the fact that most people who engage in sports ENJOY the competition is a great way to bolster your argument, but it is still ignoring an important fact.

Do you feel the same about competitive chess? All board games?



The people who are good at it enjoy the competition. The rest of us are excoriated by them for our lack of athleticism.


Oh the drama!

The good of competition: the few who are good at it enjoy it.


 Most people become good at it through hard work and practice. The "natural" is a minority. The bulk of the team members are there because they wanted to work for it.


The bad of competition: unnecessary injuries, the health effects on the masses who sit on the couch and just watch, and all the kids who get no exercise at all because of the hate they’ve been subjected to for not having the skills.

Please tell me what a necessary injury is.

Skills are something you obtain through practice, you aren't born with them.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 19, 2018, 06:31:58 PM
So to maintain a business that makes money for the owners, we encourage the vast majority of adults to be sedentary and pay to watch others play, and at the same time discourage those kids who need exercise the most from participating.

That’s a bad system.

My system deprives a few dozen or a hundred or so sports team owners of a way to make vast sums of money, deprives adults of an excuse to be sedentary, watching others play, and encourages everyone, kids and adults alike, to be active, and encourages the kids who are good at sports to welcome into their team the kids who are not. Because if there’s no winner, then having the klutz or the fat kid on your team doesn’t hurt you.

My system deprives a few athletes of a job which is dangerous and leaves most of them with injuries for the rest of their life, but provides them and more like them with much safer employment teaching kids to exercise safely while having fun.

In the USA
Golf - 25 Million people play it
Football - 9 Million people play it
Basketball - 30 Million people play it
Baseball/Softball - 30 Million people play it
Soccer - 14 Million people play it (240 million worldwide according to FIFA)
Hockey - 3 Million people play it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_the_United_States)

Lets take all of those people and tell them, no don't play you sport. Just kick a ball back and forth because it is just as good.

The problem isn't sports - the problem is people who stop playing sports. People need to learn that you can't compete and lose and sit is OK. yes you try to win but too many parent come down on their kids for losing because they think they have the next super star in their house.
Yes there are problems, but it isn't the sport, it is the attitude of too many people. Your view jut swings the pendulum too far the other direction.
Everyone doesn't deserve a medal, and that is OK.

Three out of four American families with school-aged children have at least one playing an organized sport — a total of about 45 million kids. By age 15, as many as 80 percent of these youngsters have quit, according to the Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/05/03/how-parents-are-ruining-youth-sports/vbRln8qYXkrrNFJcsuvNyM/story.html

Just because you had a bad experience and couldn't deal with it doesn't mean everyone should quit.
Competitiveness is good and is fair when you are in the same category as others of your ability (bringing it back tot topic)
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2018, 07:39:58 PM
@seamas: an UNnecessary injury, in the context of sports, is one that would not have happened if people weren’t brainwashed by the competitive mindset into believing that winning a point was so important that it’s worth crippling themselves for life.

@RGU: I’m not telling people not to play sports. I’m saying that we should not institutionalize competition to the extent that no other physical activities are available in schools, and we should not make heroes out of Olympic gold-medalists or professional ball players.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 19, 2018, 08:33:03 PM
Ignoring the fact that most people who engage in sports ENJOY the competition is a great way to bolster your argument, but it is still ignoring an important fact.

Do you feel the same about competitive chess? All board games?



The people who are good at it enjoy the competition. The rest of us are excoriated by them for our lack of athleticism.


Oh the drama!

Please take a look at my previous posts in this thread. I was relentlessly and continuously verbally bullied throughout high school because I wasn't good at sport. Not a single day went by when someone said something hurtful. I came to hate everyone who was good at sport, and to hate the sport because of it. I withdrew into books and roleplaying games and a small circle of similarly-inclined friends and went about my day trying desperately to not call attention to myself. "Excoriated" is a mild word.

I'm a lot older now and over the course of another thirty years I've come to understand that not all sport is inherently hateful, but I'm still a fat introvert with social anxiety. What I went through during my school years because I wasn't good at sport has affected my whole life.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 20, 2018, 01:51:12 AM
Sport isn't for everyone, but it gives some of us enormous joy. I have played, taught children to play sport and spectated sport of some description my entire life.

2014, 15 & 16 were the worst 3 years of my life for various personal reasons. Several close family deaths, relationship breakdown, job loss and difficulty getting back into the workforce, health issues etc.
Watching my sports teams compete (and win) gave me happiness at times that nothing else could.

I'm not afraid to admit that when my AFL side (Richmond) won the Premiership in 2017 I cried. Sport can be that emotional.

I get that a few of you don't get how important sport can be to us rabid fans. Sport isn't a matter of life and death. It's more important than that.  ;) To paraphrase a famous sporting quote.

I don't know how we get obese kids and sedentary adults to exercise more and eat less, but getting rid of competitive sport is not the answer.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 20, 2018, 02:36:20 AM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 20, 2018, 03:21:31 AM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.

It's not an either/or choice, we can have both.

Many professional sporting bodies put a lot of money back into junior sport and school sports. The AFL and Cricket Australia pour millions into Australian schools and local amateur competitions (male and female)

I would be happy to have more of my tax dollar go back into school sports and programs to fight childhood obesity.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 20, 2018, 12:01:36 PM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.

By who? Are you talking govt money (taxes) or private money?
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: The Latinist on December 20, 2018, 12:31:04 PM
I don't think this is as easy as some people make it out to be.  It's not simply a matter of fairness in sport versus fairness in society because fairness in sport is essential to fairness in society.  There are lifelong benefits to sports--especially through high school-- that it is vital to protect.  Sports build skills of teamwork and determination as well as physical fitness, and they provide opportunities for success to young people who do not excel in other areas. It is in recognition of this that Title IX was created to guarantee sporting opportunities to girls, and I believe it has had a great leveling influence in society that I do not think we can lightly toss aside.

Do I know the answer? Not at all. A complex and difficult question often requires a difficult solution, a fact with which I think we're seeing the sporting world genuinely struggle. But I don't think we come closer to a solution by pretending that it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 20, 2018, 05:21:49 PM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.

It's not an either/or choice, we can have both.

Okay, let me rephrase. I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport.

By who? Are you talking govt money (taxes) or private money?

By everybody.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 20, 2018, 06:58:51 PM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.

It's not an either/or choice, we can have both.

Okay, let me rephrase. I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport.

By who? Are you talking govt money (taxes) or private money?

By everybody.

OK, why?
What is an acceptable amount of "less" in your opinion?
I assume you are including all sports from bowling to football to NASCAR to tennis and so on?
How many less billions would you like and what will all those lost jobs go to?
How do you regain the lost interest in sports when you have less professionals influencing young people?

I am just curious as to how you support your opinion and what the reasonable alternative is?
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 20, 2018, 07:13:53 PM
Personally, I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport and more spent on school sports programs.

It's not an either/or choice, we can have both.

Okay, let me rephrase. I'd like to see less money spent on professional sport.

By who? Are you talking govt money (taxes) or private money?

By everybody.

OK, why?
What is an acceptable amount of "less" in your opinion?
I assume you are including all sports from bowling to football to NASCAR to tennis and so on?
How many less billions would you like and what will all those lost jobs go to?
How do you regain the lost interest in sports when you have less professionals influencing young people?

I am just curious as to how you support your opinion and what the reasonable alternative is?

You think I've got a whole business plan worked out? I expressed a general opinion. You don't have to jump down my throat about it.

See, this is what we non-sporty people are subjected to every fucking day of our lives.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: RGU on December 20, 2018, 10:23:20 PM
You think I've got a whole business plan worked out? I expressed a general opinion. You don't have to jump down my throat about it.
First, I didn't jump down your throat. You made a statement and didn't provide a reason as to why or explain what you thought would happen good or bad. I asked questions about your opinion, that I suppose is based on feels and nothing else considering your response.?
Quote
See, this is what we non-sporty people are subjected to every fucking day of our lives.
WTF?
Do not pretend your response to this has anything to do with sports or "being sporty".
You know you are not attacked on a daily basis for not being able to kick a ball as well as someone else or because you don't know the difference between a touchdown and a home run.
You were asked to support an opinion, nothing else.

*If you are actually attacked daily, you need to get the fuck away from the people you surround yourself with.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on December 20, 2018, 10:27:24 PM
You think I've got a whole business plan worked out? I expressed a general opinion. You don't have to jump down my throat about it.
First, I didn't jump down your throat. You made a statement and didn't provide a reason as to why or explain what you thought would happen good or bad. I asked questions about your opinion, that I suppose is based on feels and nothing else considering your response.?
Quote
See, this is what we non-sporty people are subjected to every fucking day of our lives.
WTF?
Do not pretend your response to this has anything to do with sports or "being sporty".
You know you are not attacked on a daily basis for not being able to kick a ball as well as someone else or because you don't know the difference between a touchdown and a home run.
You were asked to support an opinion, nothing else.

*If you are actually attacked daily, you need to get the fuck away from the people you surround yourself with.

I just got through explaining that I was attacked on a daily basis all throughout my school years because I couldn't kick a ball. Do you think I was lying about that experience?
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on December 21, 2018, 10:14:13 AM
My best school sports experience was with an elementary school Little League baseball coach for my son's team who sat the parents down at the beginning of the season and said "If we don't lose half of our games then I am doing something wrong. At this age, the key is to encourage positive participation and gentle coaching so the kids both learn and have fun. If you don't like that philosophy, find another team for your kid."

I ran into the guy by chance recently, 35 years later and thanked him for that approach.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: seamas on December 21, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
I was relentlessly and continuously verbally bullied throughout high school because I wasn't good at sport.

Same here.
I understand my experience to be anecdotal and excuse me for extending that thought to yours.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: haudace on December 31, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
Its sad how people bully others... It's so easy to leave people alone but someone always has to try something.


Now on topic of this thread, I am curious how transgenders fare in the military... Everyone in the service is subject to fitness requirements and undergo frequent tests plus training. OECD countries may be liberal about these issues, I suspect they are not so wishy washy around fitness of military members. They may have found the answers to the hard questions being asked in this thread.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: stands2reason on December 31, 2018, 11:06:32 AM
I tend to see most sex-related differences, so much hashed over in societal conversation, as overlapping normal curves on sex-related characteristics for XX and XY people (not to mention the other combinations). While the adult XX height curve has a mean of less than the XY adult height curve, there is still huge overlap, meaning millions of women are taller than millions of men. You can even take that logic to breast size. There is considerable overlap of the size curves, but for some reason, we make a big deal about this as being a male-female thing.

I think it is an indication of our gendered thinking that it is even considered a solution.  Sports should be segmented strictly by size class instead of gender. That might include weight, height, and/or body fat percentile depending on the sport. This means the gender representation in different size classes would likely be different, but everyone has the same opportunity to play with others of same build.

I believe the choice as presented is "make society fair and if that makes sports less fair sometimes, so be it" as directly opposed to "make sports fair, and if that makes society less fair sometimes, so be it".

Here's the problem with using the word "fair" in sports: whether or not you have the opportunity to succeed at any given sport is basically the genetic lottery (actually, it's the genetic lottery based on your parent's income and school district where you live, but biology probably also has an effect). Just look at all the nonsense over HRT in trans-male athletes: it is OK for a cis-women to naturally have genetic variation that basically gives them endocrine levels closer to that of a male, but it is not OK to do the same thing synthetically.

This means superstition—somehow, "natural" variation doesn't count. Maybe it is some kind of eugenic agnosticism where we don't want to admit that we are basically rewarding athletes for having superior genes (only superior in a limited sense, but still). Allowing someone to make millions a year just because they have the right genes for it is the kind of thing everyone says that don't support.

If we actually wanted to make sports fair, we would make hormone therapy (including HGF or whatever) mandatory so that every participant has the same body type, at least as much as that can be artificially controlled.
Title: Re: The right to compete?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 07, 2019, 01:36:56 AM
This doesn't mirror my experience exactly, but it does show how an aversion to sport and fitness can come about.

https://theovertake.com/~beta/how-school-pe-lessons-can-cause-a-lifelong-aversion-to-exercise/