I am not vested at all in this discussion between the two of you but I am unsure of the distinction here as you seem to be trying to equate or at least smear with a broad brush anyone arguing this issue with a "as if the people arguing this care at all about trans sport"

Your argument is quite fallacious because it is local community level sport where these young people play where these fights tend to litigated and that shows they do care even if they are not in to a pro sport like the WNBA.

You should not dismiss the parents and kids who do raise concerns based on how vocal or NOT they are about the WNBA.

It seems to me that on several occasions you have tried to make the association that 'bad people (ie. Republicans) make these arguments disingenuously thus any 'raised concerned' are hollow to you and "funny" because...

"... so few of us know or care about Women's professional basketball "

Ehh. We won't get anywhere on this as I stand by post as a reply and would even bet money on it as appropriate that is how much I stand by it.

YOu seem to think you can discuss this in a bubble without common definitions to certain words. I think those definitions are key and that is why I laid out my definition (which you obviously did not want to see) as that is what informs my view.

If you don't understand what informs my view you cannot assess my view.

But we can agree to disagree on what is required.

Thx. I stopped reading uke and blades a while back when they both drifted into la la land such as me advocating for genocide of trans and stating it. Typically I would just respond by trolling with lies back and smearing them equally post over post, but out of respect for the discussions I chose not to.

I just don't read them.

The definition of competition in no way changes the fact that you have no reason to assert that people don't care about "humiliating women and girls and eliminating them from sport at any serious level". It's perfectly plausible to prioritize other things over a fair playing field and still care about cis women, their sport, and their possible humiliation. We can care about more than one thing, but be forced to choose one over the other. In fact, that would be pretty normal. Just like it's perfectly legitimate for you to prioritize a level playing field over other things, and still care about trans women. You objected when people said you didn't care about trans women, yet you think it's perfectly fine to say others don't care about cis women. That's the issue I'm discussing here, not what the definition of competition is.

You are just factually wrong there. An 'assessment' blind to and devoid of 'actual results' where they simply try to determine if the mechanics is fair is not even possible. Human kind has no ability to draw that type of conclusion between the leg on the left there and the leg on the right there without seeing results in the field.





we would not have the metrics by which to measure them without seeing results on the field.

Perhaps you have no ability to assess engineering but the early porotypes of these legs, with terrible performance due to wrong pitch, angle of coil, and so many factors had to be tested in battle and refined and improved each and every time based on results seeking a better result. A more competitive finish. That is not unique to this. That is TEMPLATE for all tech.

They go from hardly able to stand on and perform on them to now where they are fine tuned.

And at each stage Engineers are looking to increase performance.


If you want to look at this from a Mathematical perspective David Sklansky and ecriture d'adulte (if you could get him to admit it) would explain to you how they use mathematical models to determine if a 'fix' or 'cheat' is by looking at outliers in a population base compared to the model population.

If a graph like this instead measured total number of participants attempting to make 'Elite Status' and the one circled in red was from a comparatively tiny pool of tech enabled or Trans athletes ...



...the bulk of the graph would correctly show you need masses and masses of able bodied to try to compete to eventually get one top able bodied success.


In both transwoman and Tech enhanced we getting these top level successes with probably less then 1/1Millionth of the participation rate.


if you just handed the data to the Mathematician and did not tell him what was underlying subject (someone winning at poker, someone winning at sport, someone getting grades) it they would look at the outlier and peg the certainty range that the person is cheating or at least needs to be examined and excluded for cheating regardless of what the underlying topic was.

And this is the claim, but it doesn't seem like anybody has explained it other than just saying "I'm a trans defender but...."

I don't see why Ted Cruz or Trump or all the state politicians that wanted bathroom bans just can't say the same thing. As far as I can tell you might not consider them trans haters either.

@David Sklansky if you are still reading this would you agree that statistical analysis of both Transwomen and Tech Enhanced athletes getting these top level/tier results so quickly and on such comparatively small participation rates (populations) when examined mathematically and plotted would scream something is amiss?

That, if these athletes do not have an advantage they are winning the genetic lottery in terms of how many of them percentage wise achieve such top outcomes?

You don't get to do that. You don't get to crib my quote and place it thus out of context when I deliberately gave an OR situation meaning it is plausible it is the either.

Person 1 - "Bobo hit a person with his car and almost killed them"

Person 2 - "By the nature of the accident I think this was either a really unfortunate or bad accident or he purposely did this"

Person 1 - you need to explain why you are accusing of him of "purposely killing him"?


NO!

@cupee thanks I didnt want to look it up but a few have said similar tings


occurding to you, I guess caitlyn jenner is a trans hater then??

Just as a recap of this thread, the range of opinions given to Cuepee so far have included:
1. There might not be a good solution to this problem, but inclusivity should be at least be an ambition in sport
2. Can we agree it's okay for younger kids where competition is less important and inclusion is far more important, then we can talk about higher levels
3. We already regulate sporting equipment and sports don't collapse with every new invention
4. If some technologies could be tailored accurately enough such that they allowed disabled competitors to run at the kind of speed they would have naturally, we could look to include that

If anyone thinks those aren't reasonable intepretations if their position, please speak up.

But these are roughly what Cuepee thinks is "destroying sport", having a complete disregard for fairness, and not caring if cis women disappear from sport altogether.

You are the one who said some people are trans haters but aren't willing to name any examples. I have already stated clearly that I think Trump, Cruz and states that supported bathroom bans did so out of anti-trans sentiment. It's so obvious you look pretty silly in deflecting on it despite your self proclaimed "trans defender" status.

To the question I am asking David Sklansky just above this would be the graphical representation (ignore the numeric representations on the graphs and see the X axis as 'number of participants' and Y axis as 'top level achieved').

This top graph represents the number of able bodied (X athletes) (ie Soccer players) going through the system to produce a singular top performer that is a stand out in relation to the entire population in the participant pool.


(cis-male representative graph)


This second graph is a representation of comparative success of the Trans and Tech enhanced athletes and their participation pool ratio to achieve top performance success.


(Trans and Tec enabled representative graph)




For those that do not understand what happens in sport (soccer, Wresting, etc) is that you start at age 4 (even earlier) in some cases and immediately the 'best performers' start to get selected out of the pool to compete against 'like' in the belief, steel sharpens steel' and that these 'best performers' will only get better compared to the pool they left.

A 4 year old who excels in soccer may not have an all star team to make but if he is so much clearly better than other 4 year olds he is invited to play with the 5, 6 and maybe 7 year olds. We had one such boy, 3 years younger than my age group who was playing with us 9 year olds as a 6 year old.

At each level the best of the best are separated out as All Stars or other and as the pools of top performers shrinks and it is Best V Best they out gap the rest.

You see this often when the last guy cut who did not make the NHL and his best bud who is very comparable but was the last guy to make it, then start to diverge in skill as one guy is playing and practicing against the best pro's and the other is the best guy practicing against most guys worse then him.

With this intense filtration system we sift millions upon millions of participants and hone them to achieve a super performer. Those who can set World Records, Play Pro, etc.

Trans and Tech enhanced need no such mass pool that is in any way comparable to get similar 'top results'

A mathematical query would make one ask the following question:

'Is it just random luck and is Laurel Hubbard such a freakish powerlifting female competitor and outlier that as a transwoman she has NO inherent advantage and could get silver medals at Top world events, 20 years past her cis-male prime, and now in the women's division as a transwoman? That if she had transitioned at age 20 in a world that was open to that, that she would have not only been the female World Record Holder INSTANTLY but shatter the prior record in such a way as to put it out of reach for 2 decades?


Is that just a woman with outstanding genetics and no unfair advantage who should not be seen as an outlier in performance due to being trans and really any woman cis or not should be able to do it. Laurel just got the good genetics to do so?


OR

Does this extreme outlier performance and so many more like it, in such small relative competition pools speak to something else? Some type of advantage these groups have that the others do not.


I will not speak to what the Math alone in a statistical analysis will point to, as I hope David replies as the expert in this area. But I would be pretty comfortable betting on what this result would be.

It's been a couple days, so I assume you've forgotten what you posted. I already covered exactly that, with it all in its proper context, so I'll repost it here:

Yes, you offered two possibilities. And you said you absolutely believe that the first choice applies to many people. It wasn't "it's either A or B" for each person. And as I've said before, there's no reason for you to believe that about a single person, let alone many.

Edit to add - here's the entire paragraph, complete with proper quote tag so you can check for yourself if you'd like:

okay going back and reading it I could have been clearer or put a break between points.

This was the original statement i hit reply to which is not solely about this forums posters. So the beginning of my address you quote above was written directly as a response to this...

I then went on to say 'not very clearly that I think forum posters here (I would say 3 for sure and maybe 4, ALSO don't gaf OR accept that risk as I think the potential gain is worth any loss here in CIS girls competitive athletics'

I don't understand what you are asking. Are there people in this thread who deny that any one of at least a million men could outlift any female even after going through transition and being past their prime?

Oh yes.

The biggest part of the argument I have been involved in hinges around whether or not allowing "Transfemales' or 'Tech Enhanced Amputees' to 'compete' against cis-woman or able bodied person does distort (tip, destroy) the 'competitive' aspect of Competitive Sport and thereby make outcomes (who gets 1st, 2nd, 3rd, New World Record) meaningless.


There is an ongoing attempt to deny the above by a few measures. One is to say the "Competitive" part of Competitive Sport is not simply defined by the measurable outcomes when Person A tests themselves against Person B, under the rule set to get a result. That "Competition" includes many other aspects such as 'Fun', 'Inclusiveness', etc and thus if you decline the physical ability to compete (transgender power lifter) but increase the 'fun', 'inclusiveness', etc, then it is still a Competitive and Fair playing field.

The are making a 'weighting' of components argument (wrongly).

The other is an attempt to basically say "Competitiveness" is basically what a rules commission says it is. We continually get "I am ok letting the Commission decide that".

They are loath to admit or in denial of the fact that the "Competitive" aspect of the sport was always based on best efforts attempt to 'Segment' groups as narrowly as possible to ensure 'like only competed against like', in an attempt to 'create a level playing field' where no individual competitor or one group as compared to the other could bring any type of advantage (physical, biological, drug) to the playing field that the other participants did not have access to (testosterone natural or drug, technology, age, weight, etc).


But to answer my question one need not consider any thing I say above.

I am just asking based on statistical analysis ONLY of population charts measuring some outcomes where you are told the two populations are for all intents and purposes the same in terms of following the rules and no one having any non-competitive advantage, and no one has an advantage over the other and where you have mass amounts of life long data showing you need 'X' amounts of participants to achieve a 'Y' top outcome, and then a new cohort or group enters the field and they are achieving the highest results with 1/1000 or 1/1,000,000 or even less of the participants what would that, at a minimum make the statistician report to the body asking "what does the data suggest".


This question could be about the existing pool of all poker players, and then a group from Country 'A' starts playing and is achieving these outlier Top results.

Wouldn't the obvious corollary here be that it's not possible to determine it's unfair? Which is presumably a proposition that Cuepee does not hold to. Hard to say given I don't understand logic.

And since I am asking you to answer my question I will address your question or what I see that has been divulged in this thread as the main reason to not debate it.

It has become clear in this thread that many will deny there is "harm" or any 'unfair playing field" and thus they would deny the premise of your argument.

They would use good debate tactics and attack your foundational premise rather then ignoring that and arguing how to 'determine fair compensation' where they would argue you have built an argument on a faulty foundation.

The reason for this seems to be that if you come to the conclusion that Trans should be allowed to compete against cis-women (whether it be for social engineering purposes, an ideal of inclusion over competitiveness, etc) and you then allow them, but at the same time you are providing monetary compensation to those 'harmed' you are defacto admitting to an 'unfairness' that needs to be addressed via compensation.

If your original goal was to 'include them' for the reasons I cite prior in an attempt to improve happiness outcomes, reduce suicide, etc, then 'including them but telling them they have an unfair advantage' is a clear line back to those challenges around happiness, suicide, etc. Arguably it could make it worse, as the Transathlete celebrates her big win, but some reporter (person) points out it came at the expense of the prior top woman who had to be damages due to the advantage you brought to the table.

So there is an ongoing attempt to reverse engineer a stance that says 'they should compete' and 'the playing field is fair if they do'. This is by denying basic facts or getting Sporting Commissions to adjust rules in a way to define it as 'fair'.

What do you even think he's saying to compensate them for if he thinks there's no "harm" or "unfairness"?

I think his position is a bad one but you still didn't seem to understand it.

Yes, absolutely and those who understand logic know that is inherent in my position. That you are MAKING my argument.


You are correct. When faced with this evolving tech from the Terry Fox prosthetic to this...




... and as that tech evolves early versions do not necessarily improve results. They are unusable, designed with unusable features, etc.

It is by testing RESULTS and OUTCOMES in ACTUAL use that a baseline of performance is determined (can the person ACTUALLY walk on it and for how long, can they run on it, and how long and how fast, etc) .

It is only once you have good representative base line DATA and user feedback that you then make improvements.

ganstaman (perhaps not understanding the scientific process) has made a completely wrong argument suggesting this tech can evolve in a lab, the scientist can be told 'make it fairly mimic human physical performance such that they can be in a 'competitive range'' and this can be done without a continual process of looking at the OUTCOMES of real world testing results and then tweaking and improving or pulling back the Tech's capabilities. That somehow scientists will just calculate this and deliver it as a complete product not designed in an interactive process with users where use and performance are integral to the evolution of the tech.

The physical real world testing and benchmarking are required outside of one instance where you would tell the scientists 'you have one chance and one chance only to try and replicate X and whatever you do then becomes the standard we live with'. Meaning they create it in a bubble devoid of real world results, and they proclaim it 'this is our normal human function like replicant limb' and if the result is the person can run 3 times faster than any human ...or they can hardly walk on it due to an unforeseen flaw, the Commission accepts it anyway as it WAS designed to 'replicate normal human function' and 'here is the result'. Thus done.

IN any instance where they go back to the drawing board, to tweak results my argument then becomes the proven correct one.

So you're saying:
It's impossible to determine it's fair
It's impossible to determine it's unfair

If those were true, that would actually be tantamount to saying there were no observable difference between performance of the groups.

Do you see where the problem is yet?

And you really don't need to keep spamming the same photos.

Interestingly, not only do you still not understand what I've been saying, but you also don't even know anything about me. I guess you could just keep making things up, but you might find that if you assume the people your arguing with actually know some things and then ask questions with that in mind, you might actually be able to learn something or at least advance the conversation. Instead, you just keep making the same arguments and posting the same pictures to who knows what end.

WITHOUT human observation.

WITHOUT real data.

Yes that is what I said.

And no I do not see any problem at all as you keep saying what I am saying but pretending I am not saying it.

My comment is that scientists on a drawing board, devoid or real data from the field and tweaking performance (a persons ability to ACTUALLY walk or run, and for how long and at what speed) is assessed in the field and adjusted based on that.

You cannot simply say to scientists, 'see that Terry Fox leg' we want something else designed that will mimic human abilities and also allow for Olympic type range performance but not beyond' and think that happens without real world testing and constant adjustments.

Now one might reply 'we don't specify 'competitive Olympic outcomes'' in the belief it is just coincidence but then my statistical approach detailed above speaks to that and debunks it.

The obvious question you seem unwilling/unable to answer is if you like the women's game now, why would you support the unnecessary, exclusionary changes the GOP is pushing other than simple anti-trans sentiment? Everybody else seems to be saying "women's leagues are handling this fine, they can keep doing it without the government interfering".

Question for those concerned about trans women getting female sports scholarships, would you agree with a law that mandated equal money for college sports by gender and indeed specifically equal scholarships? Or is the concern about women not being able to get scholarships limited to the potential that a trans person on hormone suppression might plausibly receive one?

I asked you a question and you said yes. Maybe I've misunderstood you then. I'm sure nobody wants to do science without data.

So is it possible for us to determine what is unfair about the blades?