Actually, I think its quite relevant. Of course he would assume Splenda is a man based on that post, but it shows that he obviously jumps to conclusions based on first impressions. Not a very good way to do things around here.

i.e. me being a kid. Funny. I changed my mind about you boring me bud, you are rather quite amusing.

I don't think you understood my post. I was pointing out that the difference you're focusing on isn't in kind but in degree. But if you specify the degree of difference that is sufficient for an uneven playing field (presumably you'd choose male average-female average), then it will likely turn out that super elite males cannot compete with middle of the road males because their advantage in biological determinants exceeds this threshold difference as well.

Clearly, Ian Thorpe shouldn't be allowed to compete in swimming competitions I want to compete in because his feet are so big and mine aren't?

All of this doesn't even apply to the OP. In that case, we're dealing with a female competitor who is better than some male competitors, and as many people pointed out, the arguments about male and female averages aren't relevant when we have this additional info. What I'm arguing is that your position makes little sense even when we don't have this information.

In sum: You really feel like there's this difference between man and women that makes competition unfair, but upon closer examination, it's hard to distinguish this difference from the factors that allow Bolt, Phelps etc to dominate.

1. Is this supposed to be an argument of some kind?
2. Did you disagree with my statement?
3. How does your statement carry over into the real world?
4. Would you say that your statement contains no hidden assumptions?
5. If there are hidden assumptions, do these assumptions carry over into the real world?
6. Is what you think of any considerable empirical value?
7. Why should I be sure, I see no argument to that effect?
8. Why is is certain that there will be exceptions?
9. Why is it that there will not be many exceptions?
10. Does this in any way or form invalidate what I wrote?

Please inform me, so I can know what I am supposed to respond to.

Finally, your last sentence proves your first sentence false. This is generally a problem when presenting an argument.

Why has the discussion turned to the skill level of the female wrestler? That has nothing to do with the kid's stated reasons for not wrestling girls. Whether she's terrible or the best wrestler in the state (male or female) makes no difference here.

You guys can attack me from any which angle you like, but you're still wrong...and here's why...

I've given you all sorts of different information and examples in regards to why mixed gender competition is unfair. Now as for you folks, you base your whole argument that it is fair on a "qualified" female wrestler in a high school wrestling tournament, which is just outright stupid. She has no long standing record of being able to compete against men (yes fully grown hairy men). To see this and assume that now because she has a few wins under her belt against high school kids makes her qualified? She lost the tournament and got crushed at the end. Thats how the story ended....sadly. In fact, i'll go to the extreme in this argument and say i don't believe there is a woman in the world that can compete in professional men's sports. Prove me wrong.

Lolz.... I think everybody has just assumed you are trolling or too deficient to continue with. But nobody is saying that this girl should wrestle professional men. 99% of high school male wrestlers should not either, at any point in their lives. The fact that no female is good enough to wrestle with the top males in the world (which is almost certainly true) is irrelevant to whether a few females can be allowed to compete with boys if they want to at very amateur levels. At levels where they are clearly not worse than all other competitors.

This seems like a pretty simple question.

Yes, males are statistically larger and stronger than females.

Wrestling normalizes competitors for body weight which removes some of that bias.

A female who can compete by the same rules and can earn her place on a team and in a tournament should be allowed to compete. How is that unfair? What possible basis do you have to bar her participation?

A male who feels for any reason that he cannot or should not wrestle the woman can default. What right do you have to force him to wrestle? If all the men withdraw, she wins. Not that that will happen.

Im not saying that she should wrestle men. Im saying dont use her as a reference point in your argument, because she has no competitive resume yet. And the only thing that is irrelevant in this whole discussion, is whether she was any good or not. Again we are talking about why he forfeited. He forfeited out principle. And i think its kind of cute when some of you go off on your tangents about "well now we need to ban white guys or mid level guys because they'll never compete with Bolt or Phelps based on your logic". Its not like we're comparing apples to oranges, or anything. I have had some great apples in my life and i have had some great oranges, but i don't say things like, i won't buy this bag of apples because it doesn't measure up to that bag of oranges. I also don't expect every apple or orange to taste the same. I would expect certain athletes in their primes to be much better than others, thats the nature of sport, be it on a even playing field. Your suggestion that white males be banned is a pretty extremely perverted exaggeration of a point your trying to make. Must be some wimpy defense mechanisms you all have when you're being proven wrong. You all sound like the catholic church and i pity thee.

Why he forfeited is not what we are arguing about. We know why he forfeited. He clearly said why in the article. I don't really see any point in responding to the rest, as it seems pretty clear you don't know what our argument even is.

Well then why don't you tell all of us what our argument is about instead of just implying that you know.

You started your post with

Tell us what you mean by "your argument". I can't really tell you what we are arguing about because it takes 2 parties to have an argument and I am not sure what (if anything) you have understood ITT.

Let's examine all the reasons:

a) He is a sexist
b) He is afraid to lose to a girl and is afraid if he beats the girl feminists would be upset (lose lose situation argument)
c) He is a gay choir boy
d) He truly is religious and chivalrous and does not want to harm this girl
e) both b and d

You argument states it is appropriate for men to accept mixed gender competition if the opposing female competitor is deemed qualified by whatever media or authority. Right?

The argument is that this particular guy was unjustified in refusing to wrestle this particular girl.

It's not about the general case. It's about the specific case.

So he's acting unjustifiably in applying his general moral convictions to a specific case?

To a specific case toward which those general moral convictions do not apply.

...so throw morality out the window when you are faced with a specific issue that challenges your convictions and or faith?

The fact that I don't believe in killing people doesn't mean that I won't kill in self defense.

Well maybe you don't believe strongly enough in not killing, since it is conditional for you. Do you believe in love, madnak? or is that conditional for you too?

I see nothing but pure integrity from this story, and i think its sad that people jump to critique this kid, throw out the big american isms, and label him a sexist right off the bat. It just shows a lack of spiritual maturity and understanding on their part.

I never labeled the kid a sexist. I labeled the kid an idiot for allowing his "religious values" to keep him from competing against a competitor that had proven herself worthy of the spot.

Sometimes the things you value outweigh personal glory and ego

Its not about personal glory or ego, the kid signed up to play a sport and compete. If he didn't want to do that, then he shouldn't have signed up in the first place. And unless his values are to not compete against those weaker than he (thus expelling him from competing against most competitors, and essentially ruining the idea of competition in the first place) then his logic is terribly unsound. And if his religious values tell him "hey, you can't play sports with girls" then yeah, at the very least his religious teaching is highly sexist, and the fact that he chose to follow such would lead me to believe he is as well.

If the kid won't compete against a woman in sports, would he:

Vote for a woman running for public office?
Hire a woman to work for him?
Take orders from a female boss?

And would not doing any of the above be seen as the kid having 'pure integrity' by those who salute him for not wrestling against a girl?

Is winning not the purpose of competition? And...obviously he signed up to wrestle; however, this may have been an unforeseen circumstance for him.
Good german people signed up for the Wehrmacht during WWII, do you think their moral beliefs were challenged upon realizing what was really going on?

Why is it, that you complain more about him being a sexist then the female opponent, who took no offense to the incident? I mean, ****, read through some of the responses on cnn by other female wrestlers, who fully supported his decision and even labeled him a "man of honor".

Oh here comes off tstretch armstrong again.

What does this have to do with physical competition between men and women? I would vote for a woman, hire a woman, and i've worked for a woman before. Yet, i still don't believe in mixed gender competition? What the hell are you trying to prove? Weak.