Trans "women" athletes have advantages over cis women

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's very interesting here how much Yukaphile, Worffan101, and Fuzzy Necromancer are basing their arguments on the desire for physical equality between the sexes rather than on reality. Fuzzy resorts to name-calling, and Yukaphile to point-and-splutter accusations of bigotry.

Really... I would expect this behavior from Slash Gallagher, but not these three.

[Yukaphile]

Well, look at G-Man's words. He outright says the two sexes aren't equal, even though I literally pointed out body shapes are as diverse as anything else, and that a woman properly motivated with enough willpower in a random fight, assuming there's no backup like going up against a gang, could put up a DAMN good fight against any man. Even if it's just biding your time. Men are not Superman. A punch to the nose will FUCKING HURT as much as anything else. Get her scared and angry enough to wanna fight for her life... and well, it'd be like Lucy in Live Free and Die Hard.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, look at G-Man's words. He outright says the two sexes aren't equal, even though I literally pointed out body shapes are as diverse as anything else, and that a woman properly motivated with enough willpower in a random fight, assuming there's no backup like going up against a gang, could put up a DAMN good fight against any man. Even if it's just biding your time. Men are not Superman. A punch to the nose will FUCKING HURT as much as anything else. Get her scared and angry enough to wanna fight for her life... and well, it'd be like Lucy in Live Free and Die Hard.

How would you explain Serena Williams and subsequently Venus Williams losing to the 203rd best male tennis athlete?

[Yukaphile]

A competition, with rules in place, thus women are going to have a, and this cannot be emphasized enough, "slight" disadvantage. Though I bet some women could beat men at tennis too. Come on. This isn't even wrestling or something, where most people would think men probably win. Though I'd contend if you're really gonna insist on "separation of the sexes," then... some studies suggest women excel better physically in other areas men don't. I can't recall what, I but I think it'd said they'd be better swimmers and runners. I don't buy that either, though. Do you REALLY wanna subscribe to gender roles like that?

[Yukaphile]

G-Man accused us of egalitarian fundamentalism, but seriously, if you're never gonna treat women as TRUE equals, then complete equality is a myth and can never happen. Oh, someday, we'll treat every other national or ethnic native on this planet as the same... except women. That's inherently flawed and I think flies against the face of human nature. You can't cite genetics because... we defy nature. Ten thousand years ago. Did people think a flying machine or traveling to the moon was possible? Hell no. We're a mutated abomination that can rewrite reality to suit our needs, thus... no, I still don't see any reason not to treat women as total equals.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A competition, with rules in place, thus women are going to have a, and this cannot be emphasized enough, "slight" disadvantage. Though I bet some women could beat men at tennis too. Come on. This isn't even wrestling or something, where most people would think men probably win. Though I'd contend if you're really gonna insist on "separation of the sexes," then... some studies suggest women excel better physically in other areas men don't. I can't recall what, I but I think it'd said they'd be better swimmers and runners. I don't buy that either, though. Do you REALLY wanna subscribe to gender roles like that?

Having a specific set of rules doesn't really address the circumstance. Serena's arguably #1 in women's tennis.

Saying that they might best them with a particular set of skills is arguing for circumstances. Might as well say, "well she might bring a knife to a fight, then you could compliment her intuitiveness over her strength, so there's no real difference in the end." You're really not even talking pound for pound, but apples to oranges, when we're talking about a severe drop off on innate physical characteristics.

[Madner Kami]

A competition, with rules in place, thus women are going to have a, and this cannot be emphasized enough, "slight" disadvantage. Though I bet some women could beat men at tennis too. Come on.

What you and others are consistently failing to realize is, that noone here is saying, that a woman is worse at sports than a man. Obviously, any woman can beat any man in a given discipline, if she has an advantage in terms of training.
What this is about is, that if you pit a man and a woman of a similar background against each other, the man is going to physically outperform the woman. The fastest man runs the 100m sprint in 9.58 seconds. The fastest woman takes almost an entire additional second, at 10.49 for the exact same track. The furthest javelin throwing man lobs the thing 98.48m away. The best woman gets to just 72.28m. And I can keep listing world records that will keep showing the same over and over again. There is a physical divide between the two sexes and it's heavily tilted in favour of the men.

This is the type of inequality we are talking about and this is nothing you can overcome with fancy words and tilted policies, unless you want to disallow men to train at all, while women get all the support one could get and then pit them against each other (which, if someone would advocate that, I honestly wouldn't be surprised about anymore in this day and age).

[G-Man]

Because I don't underestimate women. Never have, never will.

And you think your method is any better? I hate to employ a slippery slope argument, but that could all too easily lead to eugenics of the kind Hitler was fond of.

I doubt that. You are really saying that our science should be guided by fears that if reality says a certain thing, it could lead to bad outcomes, so science cannot say that. That's a call for ignorance.

Calling me a religious fanatic just because I don't think of men and women as being fundamentally any different, except by cultural indoctrination? Well, science doesn't always agree on everything, and it's not the be-all, end-all answer to everything either. And as I said, it's being conducted by people. People make mistakes. They could be wrong. Science is trying to understand the laws of our universe. It does little in helping us interrelate with other human beings, so you could start out with a flawed premise in your methodology. As I said, we're people. People make mistakes. THEY COULD BE WRONG.

But you are not really being skeptical. You are insisting that we operate on the assumption that there is no physical difference between men and women on average, not just that we consider it a possibility.

I don't want to hear any more complaints about climate change, then. If science COULD BE WRONG about differences between men and women, then it could be wrong about climate change, so we should just ignore it.

[Admiral X]

Honestly, the stuff about ignoring all the well known facts about the physical differences between men and women just illustrates that the regressive left is every bit as anti-science as the regressive right, in spite of their claims otherwise.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

We will let exceptional females compete in male sports, but not males compete in female sports, and really the same principle applies here.

Really? I honestly haven't heard of that happening. Is it an established Best Practice or just an occasional quirk?