It almost sounds like you’re admitting this PPS business is just another way of sorting people by biological sex. But maybe I misreading you here.
How about this as a solution? We keep female leagues the way they are and have males and transwomen sort themselves using your PPS approach? That way, ciswomen won’t have to worry about losing out on opportunities.
? I don’t see what’s wrong with “the binary system that we have now” as long as it ceases to overtly exclude athletes on the basis of gender identity. (And as I just said, I think competition might be more interesting if the system had more levels than just “A” and “B”.)
But if you’ve got a two-level A/B PPS system that uses birth sex as a proxy for measured physical characteristics, and you’re not requiring athletes to identify or present as “boys” or “girls” in order to be allowed on the B or A team respectively, then I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Sure. You are assuring me so vehemently and convincingly that biological sex is a reliable proxy for fundamental and significant PPS-level differences that, if we’re willing to have a competition-category system with only two levels B and A, I am very ready to concur that we could use biological birth sex to calibrate it.
But, again, we mustn’t use those biological-birth-sex categories to force people into gender-identity categories. ISTM that some people here are not so much interested in using biological birth sex differences to ensure competitive fairness as they are in making sure that, say, transgender girl athletes have to accept the gender designation “boys” in order to be allowed to play sports. Call the two teams B and A instead of “boys” and “girls”, and that concern is eliminated.
It doesn’t cease to exclude athletes on the basis of gender identity.
It segregates athletes by biological sex. Gender identity <> biological sex.
Well, as filmore pointed out, there are numerous sports that further segregate athletes into competition categories by physical characteristics other than biological sex, such as wrestling and boxing. Does that “dilute interest” in the “lower tiers” because of the lack of “clarity”? I’m not a wrestling or boxing fan myself, so I don’t know.
I don’t think that is the general feeling at all. Why not simply say that one group is restricted to biological females and the other is “open” (which it pretty much is anyway)
name me 10 famous bantamweight boxers
They may track quite well in ordinary men and women, but that doesn’t mean they will in those taking artificial hormones, or indeed in intersex people (who are another problem for the current classification system).
This is the solution I would suggest. Base teams on birth sex or chromosomes and don’t require anyone to identify or present a certain way to play. Make sure uniforms can accommodate different gender presentations, too. It doesn’t solve the problem of competitors on HRT, though.
Here:
But thinking about it, the Para-Olympics would be a better comparison, since they classify disabilities into groups who are supposed to be of comparable ability and who compete against each other, and there are generally several versions of the same event to accommodate them.
However, I still think your suggestion has a massive PR problem, since it’s essentially dividing people based on athletic ability. “Watch people with artificial legs compete in the 100m” is appealing. “Watch people who are innately bad at sport X play sport X” just isn’t.
I get the distinct impression that Kimstu isn’t a big sports fan, which may help explain why she doesn’t see the obvious reasons her idea wouldn’t work in practice.
For example, let’s consider soccer. The best female soccer TEAMS (not just an assembly of various pro women, the actual teams they’re used to playing with) in the entire world get easily and soundly beaten by high school boys. As in, get trounced to the tune of 0-7 by an under-15 boys team. So women will only have a shot at the lowest tier no matter how you slice it. Also the tennis example of the 300th ranked man easily defeating two of the greatest women tennis players to ever play the game.
As a non-sports fan you may not realize this, but the tiered aspect will make all the money and endorsements and fame and stature go straight to the top tier. A tiny fraction of that interest would go to the second league, maybe, and zero money or interest will go to anyone else.
Think of it this way: The top tier will be the equivalent of the NBA in terms of fame and money. The second tier will be the equivalent of the WNBA in terms of (a complete lack of) fame/money/fan support but will still be all dudes. (The WNBA only exists because the NBA pays for it. It is not profitable in and of itself.) The bottom two tiers in your plan will get zero interest, attention, or money. And that’s where all the women will be, and even with that they still might have to compete directly with men.
It’s just fundamentally not a viable idea.
Yes. To an extreme extent in most cases.
They aren’t excluded. Transgender athletes can compete against members of their sex. The issue is that they don’t want to do that, but “don’t wants” are not equal to “cannots”.
So the problem that you’re trying to fix doesn’t exist. Asking society to come up with complex technological approaches for sortIng humans into bins—that, by the way, have roughly the same predictive value as just using sex—is not doing anything except wasting time, money, and value.
This isn’t really the goal of women’s divisions. The goal of women’s divisions is to give women an opportunity to compete in athletics.
Your PPS divisions give the best 500 women in the world at sport X the opportunity to compete with 50,000 pretty average men at sport X. If the WNBA is just Category A pro basketball, I guarantee that there are local gyms FILLED with guys at that level of fitness who would LOVE to play at Madison Square Garden.
Personally, to square this circle, we confirm that the purpose of the restricted division is to exclude anyone whose physical development was affected by having XY chromosomes, or a hormonal/medical condition that was provably equivalent to having XY chromosomes. Regardless of your gender identity, if you grew up with XY chromosomes, your body will reflect that, and you have the exact benefit that the division was created to exclude.
Well, you and YWTF are very earnestly arguing that it’s very easy to tell what the “natural” differences are on at least one level, namely between the biological sex categories. I would think that height and similar skeletal differences between individuals are also pretty much built in. I readily concur that, for example, overall weight and muscle mass can fairly easily be changed from their “natural” levels. But then, as I said, I don’t think that really matters in the context of assigning one of just a few basic PPS category levels.
Hell, I can’t even name 10 famous heavyweight boxers. Probably not even 3.
But I can’t name any famous female soccer or basketball players either, so I don’t think my ignorance level is a reliable indicator of the effect of multiple competition categories on “dilution of interest” in sport.
Once again: In my proposed PPS system, even the most unskilled cisgender men would overwhelmingly be DISQUALIFIED ON BASIC SIZE/STRENGTH GROUNDS from competing at the PPS levels that even the most skilled and well-trained cisgender women would qualify for.
So the scenarios that you envision of very low-ranked male athletes easily defeating even the highest-ranked female athletes simply wouldn’t occur.
I’m not going to spend more time re-explaining what I’ve already said to somebody who’s complaining that my idea “wouldn’t work” without even having bothered to read or understand what it is.
I just found out that stimulants used to treat ADHD are among the drugs that athletes are forbidden to take. They can take caffeine but not the prescription drugs that provide the most relief from their symptoms.
Does this mean that folks with ADHD are discriminated against in sports? I think so. And as someone who is challenged by neurological issues, I find this messed-up. It’s a shame that folks with ADHD have to sacrifice their well-being just to play. They have to choose between having optimal well-being or playing a sport and then hope that whatever decision they go with results in few regrets. But I suspect there are good reasons why this rule is in place.
So I guess that’s why the struggle of the transwoman athlete registers as a big pile of “big whoop” to me. Not saying my feelings are righteous and that I couldn’t try to have more sympathy, but that’s where I am coming from. Would it be ideal if everyone had a chance to play a sport without having to give up anything? Yes. But are transwomen athletes alone in having to decide what’s more important–optimal well-being or playing within the rules of a league? No, they aren’t.
I wouldn’t go that far, we are the same species. There is overlap between male and female abilities; this article shows that in weightlifting, one of the sports where males have the biggest advantage, women in the heaviest weight category (+90kg) are able to beat men in the 62kg category. In other sports the differences are less stark. As far as I can see, @Kimstu’s new categories would benefit men who are smaller, lighter, or otherwise have traits that give them a disadvantage at their chosen sports, and penalise women who are bigger and stronger, and otherwise athletically gifted. I’m really not convinced this is a desirable outcome.
point taken, that wasn’t a fair question for you but the wider point won’t be lost on those who do have even a passing interest in sport. The dilution would be real and severe.
If membership on team A requires a player to be female, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling this the girl’s/women’s team. Everyone will always use the typical terms we use for female people when discussing all-female things. Try to police people into use sex-neutral language all you want, but this is the shit that makes progressives look stupid.
In other words, “A” and “B” teams? Fine by me, with the caveats previously stated.
Fair enough.
Have you heard about this controversial new idea of providing more than two fundamental competition categories to provide for finer gradations in physical size/strength/etc. than just “Male” vs. “Female”? I believe it’s called a “Physical Prowess Score” system, or something. 
Well, folks, make up your minds: are human males and females so different that there will be essentially zero overlap in their basic physical capacity, and therefore in practice no mixed-sex sport competition categories? Or are a few of the strongest human females physically quite comparable to a few of the weakest human males and therefore able to fairly compete against them in a sport competition category that includes them both?
Your defensiveness isn’t helping us to understand anything. You’re just writing in italicized bolded caps and acting like this is providing useful information. It isn’t.
Well, you and YWTF are very earnestly arguing that it’s very easy to tell what the “natural” differences are on at least one level, namely between the biological sex categories.
It is easy to tell males and females looking at biological indicia. Biological indicia are how we are initially assigned gender in the first place. The differences are stark to any three-year-old who is paying attention and has enough brain cells to rub together.
Are you positing that it is difficult to tell males apart from females just looking at their biology? I can’t believe that it is what you’re actually saying, so I’m confused by what you are saying.
This response was a little harsh, so let me apologize.
While I don’t think there is anything wrong with calling a team the girl’s/women’s team, I can make this concession if it means we retain female-restricted sports.
Talk among yourselves, mesdames.
If a transgender male athlete has biologically female birth sex and thus qualifies for membership on team A, but identifies as male and uses male pronouns and the nouns “boy” and/or “man” to refer to himself, then yes, I do see something wrong with calling this the girls’/women’s team. It is deliberately and unnecessarily erasing this boy’s/man’s gender identity.
If we call it team A, on the other hand, then we know what that means in terms of the birth biological sex and consequently the basic physical capacities of the players, but we’re not implying any denial of any individual’s personal gender identity. Which, as monstro just pointed out, is not the same thing as their biological sex.