From a biological perspective, the women being banned here are not just men and as far as I'm aware cannot realistically compete in the men's division any more than any other woman. Practically these changes bar women athletes with certain medical differences from competing in the Olympics.
I'm not an expert so idk whether that's fair or not but that's what this decision is doing.
To be fair, that could be said of many other medical conditions as well, especially chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. Many humans, from the moment they are born and through no fault of their own, have virtually no hope of ever competing in the Olympics let alone winning, just because at such competitive extremes, any significant genetic disadvantage takes you out of the running.
Like most things in biologicy, categorization is a nightmare unless you have a very specific use case in mind. In this case I'm talking about women phenotypically and socially (including self-identity) and especially athletes assigned female at birth. These women are clearly not just "males".
I think you're falling for Sticker Swap Fallacy. The goal is to have fair match-ups in sports. Gender and sex are two possible labels to use to assist with this, but they're imperfect enough that we probably ought to not use them as the primary differentiator.
The solution is simple: class every sport like boxing.
Pick a sports-relevant metric and split into divisions. Some sports will naturally fall into gendered divisions, while others will have varying degrees of co-ed competition among competitors of similar ability.
The way out of this is not to pick a better scissor of sex or gender, it's to pick a better scissor of ability.
This "solution" can really only be proposed by someone who has not played sports. This would simply result in women being unable to compete in sports professionally, outside of a couple small niches like ultra long distance swimming and a couple sub-disciplines of gymnastics.
It really depends on the way classes are divided. Dismissing the general concept demonstrates a fear of change rather than a legitimate openness to fair play.
No it doesn't, and no it doesn't. Proposing this concept demonstrates a profound ignorance of what competition at the top level of sports actually looks like.
The concept is just bad, unless your goal is to prevent women from being able to make a living playing professional sports.
The thing is, we're already using a scissor for ability, just a poor one with the exact problem you describe - it renders trans women unable to make a living playing professional sports. Throwing one group under the bus for another cannot be avoided so long as sex or gender are part of sports divisions.
You are clearly out of your depth. Have you ever competed in high level sports? Please don't speak on things you know nothing about. It takes a lot of gall to tell someone 'please let go of the need for this' when they are pointing this out. I will do no such thing, but I likely will give up trying to educate you.
I won't respond further unless you pick an example sport, and propose how your "scissor for ability" would work, in concrete detail. If you do this, I will be happy to explain why this would result in neither women _nor trans women_ having any chance to make a living as professional athletes.
I have competed in reasonably high level sports, and my wife was US Masters duathlete of the year a few years ago (with me as her coach). I think you're wrong, though it's easy to see why.
Currently, with sex-based categories, a woman can be declared "the best in the world" and most people won't waste much time on the question "yeah, but could she beat the best men?" (granted, some will). They will accept that, e.g. she has the fastest time over 26.2 miles in the world right now, even though a few hundred or a few thousand men worldwide are faster.
If you use performance based metrics to create the categories (the way that road cycling does, for example, though still within gender divisions), that "title" would go away, and likely a woman would only be "the best in the world in division X", other than in (as you noted) some endurance, climbing and gymnastics sports where an elite subset of women could potentially be the best of "top" category.
It isn't completely obvious that this is a negative - how much of a change it would be would depend on a lot of other changes (or lack thereof) in how sport was organized. Certainly if it continued to focus on only the top division, then women would be shut out of most opportunities to be professional. But that's not inherent in the design. I do concede, however, that it is quite a likely outcome of such a category structure.
If we are talking about amateur sports where the stakes are low, the concept of slotting athletes into divisions makes sense.
In elite sports, no one wants to see "best in division X". They want to see the best hockey players, the best golfer, the best skier, etc. The money incentives are considerable.
Implicit in what you're saying is that they want to see the best sex-identified athletes in a given sport. If that wasn't true, women's sports would have no audience and we know now (finally!) that this is not the case.
I personally think that we'd live in a much better world where you compete against others who broadly speaking are in the same performance category as you.
But I do appreciate that the transition to such a world would, indeed, destroy women's professional sports, and thus I do not attempt to really advocate for that transition. If it could happen overnight (it cannot), perhaps I would, but that's not where we live.
WNBA is being sponsored by men's NBA and they would not have survived without.
The merr existence is not an evidence of success.
Kids' little leagues also exist, but can't be compared, with actual professional men's sports.
Where is women's American football? Women's baseball? Crickets...
Women's icehockey is in such a state, that there are only 2 decent countries dominating everybody, and they would get destroyed by men's amateur players.
There are only few women's sports disciplines that are actually popular on their own. Like figure skating and tennis. And the athletes would get annihilated by their male counterparts.
The world's best female ultradistance runners, rock climbers (particuarly sport and bouldering, but lead also), ultradistance swimmers, are all on a par with their male counterparts and occasionally better.
Since I personally don't have any interest in team sports of any type, I have nothing to say about your observations, though I will continue to wear my "I'm here for the women's race" t-shirt whenever I can.
I said that I would only abolish them if we could get to the endpoint overnight. Which clearly is impossible, ergo, I would not happily abolish them at all.
I'd happily wear a "I'm here for the D2a race" shirt in such a system.
Most people's paths as sports participants (not spectators) is that they enter a tiered system and remain there. Only a tiny percentage of people rise through that system to become truly national or internationally competitive.
One of the central problems here is that there are conflicts between what's good for the participants and whats good for fans/spectators. They are not always in conflict, but in several important ways, they truly are. 99.99999% of people who run marathons are not Eliud Kipchoge, and are not interested in a system that is designed around his level of performance and competition. But 90%+ of the people who would pay to watch marathons have little interest in a system that isn't built around talents like his. The same is true of almost all sports - solo or team - but it doesn't show up for 80% of them because there is no market for paid viewing of them. Or rather ... there wasn't until YT became what it is today. "The Finisher", a film about Jasmin Paris, the first woman to finish the infamous Barkley Marathons, has had 1.8M views, something it would never have achieved in "legacy" media.
Why would you name it "division 2"? If you're going to test for SRY as the way to assign participants, then you should name the divisions "SRY-pos" and "SRY-neg". At least that would be correct.
That's the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting up-thread.
Categories would be assigned based on performance criteria for the sport in question. One simplistic approach, loosely modelled on how road cycling works, would be to have categories based on race performances - you enter an "open" category, and after N finishes above a certain level, you are required to move up to "division 4". After N finishes above a certain level in div4, you are required to move up to "division 3". And so on. The idea is that you're racing against your performance peers, regardless of their gender (or age).
Let's use the present scissor and the current state of affairs, which at present excludes some women for the sake of others. Which, I'll remind you, comes with all of the problems we currently experience.
His proposal is to make divisions by whatever way it would be the justest way. If that would be the man/woman division for a given sport, than keeping it is part of his proposal. His proposal is not going to be less just than the current rules by definition, but it IS a bit vague.
Men are stronger, faster, have more dense bones, have bigger lungs, bigger hands, etc, etc, etc. Men and women are different in hundreds of ways it's not just 'lean body mass'. Men are better at sports than women. Do you even live in reality? Have you ever completed in anything in your life?
For what conceivable reason would you want to recreate the male and female division using a dozen or more proxies for sex instead of just using sex, to wind up with people being placed into the same buckets they would have been if you just went by sex in the first place? This seems ideologically motivated.
The controversy in these comments answers that question nicely. It seems likely that such a change would obviate these edge cases, though they may introduce their own; that seems worthy of consideration.
Really, the question seems better turned around: why use a known bad proxy for physical ability when another one might be better?
Those divisions already exists. Most sports have different leagues. There are international leagues, national leagues, regional leagues, all the way down to hobby leagues or beer leagues. If we assign everyone into a league independent of gender, the highest leagues (the most popular and most lucrative ones) will be exclusively men and women will only be present in the lower leagues. No one can want this outcome.
And then you get a situation with as many divisions as there are people and everyone get a gold medal, everyone is a winner. The true woke paradise.
Fortunately, most people don't like to live in this hell and are against clear attempts to destroy women's sports by the clueless and/or purposefully malicious activists.
Good lord. Absolutely nobody is going to watch boxing divisions based on lung size and bone density.
Did you actually think that lean mass would be a sensible way to separate divisions in a gender neutral fashion? That would, again, just result in women being unable to compete professionally in virtually any sport. They would be relegated to Division N, for some very large value of N. Competing alongside multitudes of biologically male amateurs, where nobody cares and nobody pays to watch. To even entertain this idea betrays a total lack of understanding of the matter at hand.
Right now you are acting like Elon Musk storming into the government and having 20 year olds cut everybody's budget. You may think you're coming in with fresh outsider perspective and an open minded way to look at things and improve them, but everyone actually involved in the domain can see a trainwreck in progress. It's not a good look.
I am quite certain it's not your intention, but you're really coming across as someone who hates women's sports, and doesn't want them to exist. On behalf of my wife and sister and a lot of the women I've known in a lifetime of playing sports - kindly keep your awful ideas to yourself. Women fought tooth and nail for the right to have their own professional sporting opportunities. Don't you dare try to take it away from them.
Wow, had no idea. Was it a partial fingerprint match? I wonder if 2 people exist that match exactly all 5 fingerprints, seems close to impossible to me.
The definition of "match" is complicated, and not just for issues like partial fingerprints and blurring. The FBI says they had a "100 percent match" in the Mayfield case. The judge says this assessment was "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ".
"When police retrieve a print from a crime scene, they consult an FBI computer database containing millions of fingerprints and receive several possible matches, in order of the most likely possibilities. Dror found that experts were likely to pick “matches” near the top of the list even after he had scrambled their order, perhaps because of the subconscious tendency to overly trust computer technology.
“People would say to me fingerprints don’t lie,” Dror says. “And I would say yes, but it’s also true that fingerprints don’t speak. It’s the human examiner who makes the judgment, and humans are fallible.”"
The problem with these things is that the police are on the one hand of course doing their best to nail the actual criminals but on the other that when they get it wrong lives are ruined and there are zero repercussions. If you have an otherwise functioning legal system without plea bargaining and other 'efficiencies' then you at least stand a chance to fight the system. But here that is not the case and the combination of those two is extremely dangerous.
The Shirley McKie case was in Scotland, which doesn't have US-style plea bargaining. McKie accepted £750,000 in full settlement. There was a public inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry .
How was she saved by her bank records when they already arrested her like she was proven to have done it? How little evidence do cops need to go arrest a woman 1,200 miles away and fuck up her life? And then not even apologize for it? That's fucked up.
I feel like there will be a difference between a handful of large corporations owning a majority of properties vs thousands of dentists and software engineers. Are you saying that all of these property owners are also soulless profit-optimizers?
I remember watching some video of tenants being priced out of their rental apartments so when they tried to contact the property owner, they found layers upon layers of managers and companies. It just seems better when there are more thousands of owners than just a handful of corporations.
Small businesses are often just as ruthless as large ones, just less competent. In any case, most rental properties are managed through agencies, who are soulless profit-optimisers.
In short, the appalling treatment of renters in Australia is due to the chronic undersupply of housing; if landlords had to compete for tenants it would not be possible to mistreat them in the way many currently do.
There is also scope for better regulation of tenancies and indeed the Victorian government has passed some reforms in this area.
It's the opposite in the UK. Most landlords are individuals, own one or maybe a couple of properties.
It's awful, rogue landlords who do everything they can to not do repairs or improvements and when they do it often comes after a long time. Often as they have underestimated all the expenses they're liable for and find that the profit is not very much.
Give me a company that owns a whole block every day, they've modelled the risk better, have economies of scale, and you have more recourse against them.
IME companies are worse: professional investors highly focused on maximizing profits - driving up rent and minimizing costs - rather than a long-term investment by someone with another job, a sidelight and retirement plan.
I don't see how you have more recourse against a company with lawyers that can ignore you, and mom-and-pop. The latter are much more likely to respond to reason.
> I feel like there will be a difference between a handful of large corporations owning a majority of properties vs thousands of dentists and software engineers. Are you saying that all of these property owners are also soulless profit-optimizers?
Do we want to trade crazy high prices in the American real estate market for absolutely crazier high prices in the Australian real estate market?
That is a bit simplistic though, there could be other things going on in Australia, and all the other rich countries (e.g. Switzerland, England, China) where American prices look like a good value. I'm sure at the end of the day supply is the main factor, and not having a hot economy also helps, so I'm sure the USA will get there fairly quickly.
And, everywhere, it's about people wanting to live in some specific cities. Even a bit outside of those specific locations isn't necessarily particularly expensive. (Leaving aside ski resorts, especially nice college towns, and the like).
I don't know...some countries are just expensive full stop. Lausanne for example, and since public transportation is good enough, you can live outside of the city and still get to work...so those places just get expensive also.
Australia I assume you mean the few places where people actually live in the country vs. the undeveloped outback?
I don't really have specific knowledge of Australia but within an hour or so radius of Boston/Cambridge (expensive cities), there are reasonably priced exurbs. (Also expensive suburbs/exurbs of course.)
Australia is so big that there's still plenty of land available where you could build new cities (and not just in the desert).
It's just that everyone[1], given a choice, would like to live near the beach in Sydney's eastern suburbs[2], and there is most definitely no more land available in those suburbs. So the only alternative is to build up, and the boomers sitting in their multi-million dollar houses that were originally bought for $3.95 don't like that prospect one bit.
[1] Not everyone, but you get the point.
[2] and Melbourne's inner east, and the desirable parts of Brisbane and Perth.
Regardless of the pay, I just can't imagine people really being excited to drive all day alone. I hate driving and I do it as little as possible. People like to be around other people when they work too.
To each their own. I’m not a driver either but I could see how trucker life harkens back to the American mythos of the solitary pioneer calling their own shots and working hard as they see fit.
Modern trucking is nothing like that, and often they are independent contractors in name only, driving someone else’s truck and being evaluated against strict performance criteria.
This reminds me of how ATMs created more banking jobs because people started to use the bank more along with ATMs. ATMs handled the simple transactions and tellers dealt with the more complex tasks.
We'll see. There will be a loss of little industries that depended on truckers though, like truck stops and inns.
I also hope that this results in more jobs that are fulfilling.
Your little credit union lacks the capital to have automated systems handle more complicated stuff... for now.
Used to work at a bank that had a few local branches as a teller when I was a senior in HS. Had old, antiquated technology but had a "person on the phone whenever you needed help".
I'm going to guess that the bank that bought them out was quite a bit more advanced, and the banks that do the same will be buying out the less advanced ones.
And there's like hardly any branches anymore, used to be one in every major village/small town per bank, now there's double the people and a third the banks
reply