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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Genetics are predominantly on the favor of the male side unfortunately.
I have a lot of trouble accepting claims like this when Lea Thomas is beaten by cis women all the time.
It’s not a claim, it’s genetics, and what’s wrong with accepting that some people are better than others? It just gives her an unfair advantage from genetics(hormones in this case) helping her. It won’t make her a top athlete, who claimed that?
Would be different if the top male athlete did it, like say Phelps, there would not a be a women who could compete with them. That’s just friggen genetics.
Either genetics predominantly favor biological males, in which case a world-class swimmer like Lea Thomas should win virtually every meet, or it's more complicated than that.
There will always be outliers on both sides yes, but take the top 10% of male and female athletes and put them against each other, and the men would win 80% of the time. Because they are genetically predominately better at the stuff required for athletics. Wider hips aren’t really great for running for example…
Reality of often disappointing.
Lea Thomas is in the top 10% and does not win 80% of the time.
Does Crosby win 80% of the time? Mcdavid? Brady…?
Give your head a shake dude.
Dont try to argue in good faith with someone who doesn't
It's not my fault that your claim does not match reality, at least when it comes to swimming.
It’s not a claim… it’s the result of genetic study….
Wide hips aren’t great for running, not every woman has wide hips, but most do. So yeah some are going to be able to do it.
Now, almost every man doesn’t have wide hips, so they have inherent advantage right there.
She wasn’t the TOP male swimmer, I’m sure if we look at her fastest time as a male it would be slower than the top female. Her going over won’t suddenly make her faster, it just means the competition is easier….
Except her pre-transition fastest 1000 free was faster than the record for female 1000 free.
To add on to that. Her pre-transition time was ~24 seconds slower than the male record and post transition her 1000 free was about 32 seconds slower than the female record. So if anything she was preforming better in her categories before she transitioned.
First of all, she was never male any more than a gay person isn't heterosexual before telling people they're gay. She competed on a man's team before coming out of the closet and was rated sixth fastest "man" in the nation at the time. Now she's being beaten by CIS women. Sounds like whatever advantage she had when she was on that team doesn't exist anymore, which, again, suggests it's more complicated than just genetics.
Why people are so against the idea of "it's more complicated than that" and think anything biological has such a simple answer is just kind of sad because it shows such ignorance of basic science.
Edit: Thanks for proving it, downvoters. Let me guess- you also think a single gene is responsible for eye color.
Pardon my ignorance, what would you call someone preop and refering to them in the past tense? Especially when competing?
If someone was married, it wouldn’t be wrong to refer to them at that time as straight or call it during their “straight phase” and we are simplifying it. Especially if you don’t know their full story.
Sounds like you’re just looking for a fight in the comments, imma bounce.
If I wanted to answer your question, I would tell you that "presenting as" is the preferred term, but since I'm just looking for a fight, I won't tell you that.
Her ranks when swimming against men were 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. Those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.
Her time for the 500 freestyle, where she is ranked #1 against women, is over 15 seconds slower than her personal bests before medically transitioning, and even THEN she was only 65th in the event against men. The same event where she was 65th is now 15 seconds slower and ranked #1. That's the gulf between the two events.
I just pasted this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas
But, you are correct. She ranked those numbers eventually. Do you know when she ranked that low? After she started taking hormones.
Which proves my point that it's more complicated than just genetics.
That's not a very thoughtful argument. This is about comparing the top percentages of athletes. Lea Thomas is not 100% the best woman swimmer in the world, since she does lose sometimes to the best women. But when she competed against men she lost every single time. It's about the top 0.1% of women swimmers not being able to compete with the top 10% of male swimmers. Lea Thomas wasn't even close to the top 10% of men but instantly became the top 1% for women. No, all men aren't instantly the best female athletes. But in a lot of sports the absolute best women's athletes can't compete with even average teenage boys.
That's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas
In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.
Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.
No but taking the top 10% from each male and female athletes and putting them against each other, the men would still be on top 80% of the time.
But like I said, that's fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.
Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.
That’s starting to sound a little like an eugenics competition….
I would say the opposite, in fact.
Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to "improve" the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.
Back to the discussion. It would basically be this if we took the 10% of each and put it into 4 categories.
Group A 85%men 15% women
Group B 70%men 30% women
Group C 55%men 45%women
Group D 5%men 95%women
It just doesn’t work. You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.
On what basis doesn't it work, though? I'm still not sure I understand what the problem is with your example.
Another way of looking at it is that we would in fact be widening the criteria of who would be considered "qualified".
In only one group would the women win a significant portion of the events? You basically created an Olympics with a bottom 25% female category, and 3 male categories. The women can already compete with the men if they want to, but they want medals too, not just to be there…. The best women would be overshadowed by the best men, you would only be showing off the worst of the top female athletes.
Expanding? When you need a d list male to compete with a b list female? Come on.
Ah yeah, I see what you mean. Fair point.
Citation needed.
There is a thousand, but I find this Pretty interesting myself
The conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with what you previously wrote ...
Did you read it all? Or just skip to the conclusion?
The introduction had great links with their why they are doing this study.
I read it. The conclusion tells what the study learned, and it has absolutely sfa to do with the original statement.
Maybe try and stay on topic instead of throwing shit around hoping some will stick.
Please read the entire thing. You would see how it was on topic if you did, that’s how I know you haven’t.
https://boysvswomen.com/#/
That's about as straightforward and easy to understand as it can possibly be. Many times Women's Olympic Finalists wouldn't qualify for the boys high school varsity team!
And again, although that is interesting it still doesn't show the numbers that were quoted ...
I'm not impugning anyone in any way with this comment but the very best biologically female athletes in the world, literal World Record setting Olympians, in many cases aren't fast enough to compete with High School boys.
This is an even worse outcome than "Top 10% female athletes..." because this is the top 1% of female athletes, the crème de la crème, compared to the top *under age male *athletes.
There's a lot of events, such as 100m to 800m sprints, where the female Olympians not only lose they can't even qualify for the race!
In other events, swimming in particular, the biologically female Olympic Champions set World Record times...that were beaten by High School Boys.
You can follow the links to the raw data and do the math yourself if you want a precision answer but there's no real question that the Top 10% of biologically female athletes, the Olympians, would lose to the Top 10% of biologically male athletes 80% of the time or more.
I'm going to quote what you wrote to me on another post: "If you don’t understand, far be it from to educate you.
Go read a book."
The person showed you a citation that shows in track and field the top 0.1% (not 10%) of women would get 6 medals vs the top highschool boys (who are outside the top 10% of men) getting 81 medals. That's young boys beating the absolute best women 93% of the time. In swimming it was worse: 1 medal vs 47 or 98%. In soccer, the US Women's National Team, arguably the best of the best women's team in the world, would regularly lose to highschool boys teams. I'm sure there are some sports where the gulf is smaller, but it's going to be rare.