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. 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
It's not that simple, you need to understand the effects that Hormone Replace Therapy has on the body. Men and trans women physically do not have the same type of body and the studies even shows trans women perform worse than cis women in most areas.
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength.
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function.
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men.
Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength.
There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles. Hemoglobin (Hb) plays a crucial role in athletic performance by facilitating improved oxygen delivery to muscles. Elite endurance athletes may exhibit up to a 40% higher level of Hb compared to untrained individuals. Moreover, heightened levels of Hb typically correlate with enhanced aerobic performance.
I want you to stop and really think critically about what you are trying to suggest. Do you really think it's a good idea for trans men who are regularly taking testosterone should be forced to compete against women who aren't? Do you really think trans women who have lower testosterone levels than cis women (because they are medically surpressing) have some sort of advantage?
What you're saying is at odds with observable facts, scientific studies and frankly common sense.
Sounds like we need trans leagues.
Edit: I thought it was obvious, but apparently it wasn't. This is not a serious comment.
Do away with gendered leagues and put it into a multi-tiered system when people compete for positions in different tiers, and potentially have multiple paths so that people can see games of sheer power or precise technique and there's never a situation like three Pats or the Yankees where money is what buys the best team (all players in a tier would have similar performance).
I've been under the impression that the top leagues NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.. aren't necessarily gendered, but women just can't compete. That's why they have women only leagues so they have a place they can compete. Am I wrong about this?
Ah yes, the Air Bud rule of women in men's sports.
Do you think any woman would have a chance in those leagues? The minute they even tried, they would start getting so much shit.
Jackie Robinson was one of the bravest men who ever lived. He was far from the first to try to break the "unwritten" color barrier in baseball. Everyone else who tried had been driven off before they could even start. And I'm guessing he wasn't getting the rape threats any woman who wanted to try would get.
So you're saying that women just aren't brave enough?
Of course not. Do you think all the black men who tried to break the color barrier before Jackie Robinson weren't brave enough?
Saying, "this isn't worth me putting up with" when you have to put up with death threats or rape threats for something like being on a sports team is not cowardice.
This is like claiming that a black family who moves out of town after a cross is burnt on their lawn are cowards. I sincerely hope you don't believe that.
I didn't make any such claim. You did. Now you're back peddling, so I guess there wasn't any point to your previous comment?
I didn't say you made that claim. Hence my using the word "like."
And how am I backpedaling at all? You asked me if I thought they were cowards and I said no and explained why. That's literally the opposite of backpedaling.
Did you just not bother reading anything I wrote before responding?
I didn't ask if you thought they were cowards. I asked if you think the only reason aren't in major leagues is because they aren't brave enough. That's the implication you made by bringing up Jackie Robinson on the context you did and adding that he was exceptionally brave.
Are you reading what you're writing? What is the point of anything you're writing? What message are you trying to convey?
No. This is what you said:
And I explained why I was not saying that, which you have not accepted. But I do notice you've decided to whine about something I said hours ago as if it were about you, so I don't think you're dealing with a full deck of cards.
Eww, the projection...
Correct, that is what I asked. I never said it wasn't... You made a comment that seemed to imply women weren't brave enough. Which is obviously a ridiculous statement. So I asked if that's what you meant. You then said it wasn't. So, then what was or even is your point?
Okay then. Who was it about? When you replied to the person that was replying to me and you said "people like this", who was the person like that? I think any reasonable person would infer you meant the person that the commenter you were replying to was replying to. So, if not, then who?
You seem way more concerned with being defensive you keep undercutting your own statements. I don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm still waiting for you to clarify that. Until you can, this is pointless.
It was… a person not you because I said it half a day ago.
My god, the ego you have to think someone was talking about you before they ever talked to you.
Also, and I don’t know why you need this explained to you, it was a question I never asked you.
You are a non-issue. You cease to exist to me the second I put down my phone. Get over yourself.
Okay, so it was a strawman and completely pointless. That tracks. Why did you even bother commenting if you weren't going to add anything of substance and refuse to have a conversation? What a waste.
Wow. You think anything not about you is pointless. Amazing.
Nope, I think pointlessly attacking a strawman is pointless. I think making a point and immediately back peddling is pointless. I think refusing to engage in an actual conversation and only being defensive is pointless. I'm still waiting for you to actually even make a point. Why even use social media to not be social? What did you attempt to accomplish? As my logic professor would say, you're just making noise, just squeaking like a door.
What did you attempt to accomplish by accusing me of talking about you hours before you joined this post when it was a question I never asked you?
You're still squeaking.
You were literally replying to a comment that was replying to me. Therefore I was already in that conversation even before you joined...
That was the point. Instead of just letting your assumption stand (I made the assumption you were actually trying to have a conversation not just attack a strawman) I offered my actual opinion.
Why are you so defensive? Have a conversation or don't. What you're doing now is pointless.
There are sports where women have reached or surpassed men's records, for example long-distance endurance races or some accuracy-based competitions. Anything where raw explosive strength or size isn't the main deciding factor. There are examples in history where women have been banned from participating in specific sports because they have been able to win in competition with men.
I think, for the leagues you listed, size, strength and speed are often key, and as such most men have an advantage over most women. I don't doubt there could be exceptions to that rule.
I have asked people like this multiple times if the best WNBA player is better than the worst NBA player, and they usually say yes without having any possible way to know that.
I mean, you could ask me instead of assume. I would respond I have no idea about that specifically because I don't like basketball and don't pay attention to it at all. However, I do watch the NHL and the PWHL. Do I think the worst NHL player is better than the best PWHL player? Yes. I don't even think the PWHL is at the AHL level of play. Just watching the speed of the plays, the structure of the plays, they're not close. The PWHL play is more like men's collegiate play. So, if you're asking me if I would rather draft someone at that play level that is in their prime playing at their peak, or someone that is playing at that level who is a young player with room to grow, it's an obvious choice.
Here's the other part of that. The PWHL is an incredibly young league only 2 years old and with only 6 teams. It takes time, generations even, to develop the interest and the infrastructure to support young women/girls in hockey (or anything). You don't wave a magic wand and suddenly have a vast pool of women that can play at that level. Do I think that league will mature and get younger women interested in playing more and fostering even better future talent? I really hope so, I would love to see it. At that point, will my answer change? It's very possible. Circling back to your WNBA question. The WNBA is a much more mature league, 28 years old with 15 teams. We're probably just now seeing the true "fruits of the labor" of that league. I'm just entirely unqualified to make that kind of judgment because I have zero interest in that sport. But even I know of Caitlin Clark, and that speaks volumes.
Assume what? I wasn't even talking to you.
Or is this a "I forgot which sockpuppet I was using" situation?
Very clearly referring to me as the person... I guess you wanted to keep it a strawman instead of actually asking what I thought.
Turn your ego down about a billion notches. I have no idea who the fuck you are.
Okay, you're back peddling again. If you weren't referring to the current conversation, what was the point of commenting at all?
I said that eleven hours ago.
Dear god.
Do you think I predicted our conversation in the past? Do I have amazing psychic powers?
I never even asked you that question, for fuck's sake.
Only thing that is fair imo.
Fair to whom?
Everybody. It eliminates any sort of discussion.
Discussion about what? And what is wrong with discussion?
About gender and strength and everything.
What's wrong with discussing such things?
I don't know what you're trying to do here but it doesn't feel nice. The comment was "Sounds like we need trans leagues." And I said that's the only thing that's "fair".
Because I don't think it's fair to have trans people play with the cis genders. On the other hand, I want them to have the ability to play. Although with the current landscape of hate and useless discussions, that seems to be only possible in their own leagues.
Compromises need to be made and people don't realize that.
Why?
Which specific sport do you want them to play? There are not enough trans athletes for any team sport to make up a league. Should they all be forced to play a singles sport or no sport at all?
Unfair regarding to strength and endurance.
I don't care.
And now the truth comes out. You don't actually care about whether trans people can play in sports.
But do go on and explain how trans men have an unfair advantage in men's sports.
Edit: Sorry, downvoting is not an explanation for their advantage. Quite cowardly though.
How nice of you to put words into my mouth.
I meant I don't care about what sports they play. You ask stupid questions. Never did I imply I don't care about them being able to play in sports. You made that up because it enforces your prejudice. As I said, these discussions are stupid.
I will not go and explain why trans men have an unfair advantage, because I believe they do and whatever argument you have I don't believe. I don't have to explain myself. The only value I hold myself to is that I believe everybody should be able to play, which I think would be possible by going halfway having some sort of all genders league.
I haven't downvoted your comment yet. But I will. You're starting yet another useless discussion and are putting words in my mouth.
If you won’t explain it, all I can assume is bigotry. Feel free to change my mind. I am open to any explanation.