You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dr. Rachel McKinnon / Dr. Veronica Ivy / Rhys McKinnon / Rachel Veronica McKinnon / Foxy Moxy / SportIsARight - failed out of a tenured job,man who competes in womens sports, gained like 100 lbs in 2022 (page 813), comically fell off bike before a race (page 830)
This is an anomaly. For a woman to be excessively tall and large framed isn't the norm. For a man to be tall and large framed is the norm. They are grasping at straws.
If I was better at the maths I'd love to do a study.
LOL, he's still seething over that 6'0ft woman. While she does have a natural advantage, she's still a woman. Unlike Rhys, who is and always will be a man and as such has no place in women's sports.
This is just so..."bad." As someone who has been the periphery of cycling, no champion, woman cyclist LOOKS LIKE THIS. They are all muscular and, well, fit. There are women who have been in some sort of real sport since middle school (NOT badminton, Rhys), like track or soccer or cross country. He looks just so dumpy. If this were any other person, I'd feel really bad for him/her. Not Rhys though. Not Rhys.
This is an anomaly. For a woman to be excessively tall and large framed isn't the norm. For a man to be tall and large framed is the norm. They are grasping at straws.
That giant woman only played for like one season on the Black Ferns. It was a novelty/gimmick strategy, like "What if you got a really fat guy to guard the hockey goal by filling it up", "What if you had a basketball player who was 8-foot-6 and could just reach up and put the ball in", "What if a baseball team sent a midget to bat and no one could pitch to his tiny strike zone".
Turns out there's more to the game than that.
Our good ex-doctor, however, consistently gravitated to sports that minimize the "more to it" effect - first badminton, then road biking, then bike sprinting. That's not a coincidence.
Except Peak Transing people. He's really good at that. And I suspect that the USA Today article with him as the poster boy is going to do that quite well indeed.
This is an anomaly. For a woman to be excessively tall and large framed isn't the norm. For a man to be tall and large framed is the norm. They are grasping at straws.
If I was better at the maths I'd love to do a study.
Hey. So here are some graphs. The underlying assumptions are from data I got about American adults heights, stating male mean = 70 inches and sd = 3, female mean = 64.5 inches and sd = 2.5. Those sound pretty familiar and the source was reputable enough, so I went with it since I'm writing a shitpost, not a research paper.
Keep in mind these graphs are P(Male height >= X)/P(Female height >= X), notP(Male height = X)/P(Female height = X).
The first one is just to illustrate what I mentioned many pages ago about
Like I said, by the time we start talking about male basketball player heights, NBa average height is about 77", the probability of a man being at least that tall (even though it's VERY LOW overall) is tens of thousands of times higher than the probability of a woman being at least that tall (which has actually happened, the tallest woman on record was 91 inches tall).
But those are pretty extreme numbers, let's get back to something a little more reasonable. How about comparing tallish women to fairly average men?
This should give you some idea about the relative sizes of the "pools" that we're looking at, here.
As you can see, by 5'10", there are already ~36 times as many man at least that tall as women at least that tall. By 6 feet tall, it's about 187 times, and there are just about 500 times as many men at least 6'1" tall than women. Going back to the means and standard deviations, you'll notice that 73" tall is 1 standard deviation above mean for a man, so not even that tall.
So yes. Even though they're only ~1% of men, even the 100% sincere true and honest woman type of trannies are a mathematical threat to women's sports. And obviously, if there's any real money to be had, there will be cheaters. There's a LOT of middling male athletes at least 5'10" out there.
I'll do a less headache inducing version of this later for the cheap seats, but I need to get some yard work done while the weather's nice.
ETA: Oh, fine, I hate leaving a job half done.
That one is P(Male height between X-0.5" and X+0.5")/P(Female height between X-0.5" and X+0.5"), but it should be a point graph with way more points and smaller intervals, not a trend line graph like this. I'll fix it later.
Hey. So here are some graphs. The underlying assumptions are from data I got about American adults heights, stating male mean = 70 inches and sd = 3, female mean = 64.5 inches and sd = 2.5. Those sound pretty familiar and the source was reputable enough, so I went with it since I'm writing a shitpost, not a research paper.
Keep in mind these graphs are P(Male height >= X)/P(Female height >= X), notP(Male height = X)/P(Female height = X).
The first one is just to illustrate what I mentioned many pages ago about
Like I said, by the time we start talking about male basketball player heights, NBa average height is about 77", the probability of a man being at least that tall (even though it's VERY LOW overall) is tens of thousands of times higher than the probability of a woman being at least that tall (which has actually happened, the tallest woman on record was 91 inches tall).
But those are pretty extreme numbers, let's get back to something a little more reasonable. How about comparing tallish women to fairly average men?
This should give you some idea about the relative sizes of the "pools" that we're looking at, here.
As you can see, by 5'10", there are already ~36 times as many man at least that tall as women at least that tall. By 6 feet tall, it's about 187 times, and there are just about 500 times as many men at least 6'1" tall than women. Going back to the means and standard deviations, you'll notice that 73" tall is 1 standard deviation above mean for a man, so not even that tall.
So yes. Even though they're only ~1% of men, even the 100% sincere true and honest woman type of trannies are a mathematical threat to women's sports. And obviously, if there's any real money to be had, there will be cheaters. There's a LOT of middling male athletes at least 5'10" out there.
I'll do a less headache inducing version of this later for the cheap seats, but I need to get some yard work done while the weather's nice.
It does not matter if a troon is below average, above average, passes to look at by some miracle, or is more saint than sinner because they will take a place away from a natural born female woman be it first place or last place. These cunts have had thier day.
Hey. So here are some graphs. The underlying assumptions are from data I got about American adults heights, stating male mean = 70 inches and sd = 3, female mean = 64.5 inches and sd = 2.5. Those sound pretty familiar and the source was reputable enough, so I went with it since I'm writing a shitpost, not a research paper.
Keep in mind these graphs are P(Male height >= X)/P(Female height >= X), notP(Male height = X)/P(Female height = X).
The first one is just to illustrate what I mentioned many pages ago about
Like I said, by the time we start talking about male basketball player heights, NBa average height is about 77", the probability of a man being at least that tall (even though it's VERY LOW overall) is tens of thousands of times higher than the probability of a woman being at least that tall (which has actually happened, the tallest woman on record was 91 inches tall).
But those are pretty extreme numbers, let's get back to something a little more reasonable. How about comparing tallish women to fairly average men?
This should give you some idea about the relative sizes of the "pools" that we're looking at, here.
As you can see, by 5'10", there are already ~36 times as many man at least that tall as women at least that tall. By 6 feet tall, it's about 187 times, and there are just about 500 times as many men at least 6'1" tall than women. Going back to the means and standard deviations, you'll notice that 73" tall is 1 standard deviation above mean for a man, so not even that tall.
So yes. Even though they're only ~1% of men, even the 100% sincere true and honest woman type of trannies are a mathematical threat to women's sports. And obviously, if there's any real money to be had, there will be cheaters. There's a LOT of middling male athletes at least 5'10" out there.
I'll do a less headache inducing version of this later for the cheap seats, but I need to get some yard work done while the weather's nice.
That one is P(Male height between X-0.5" and X+0.5")/P(Female height between X-0.5" and X+0.5"), but it should be a point graph with way more points and smaller intervals, not a trend line graph like this. I'll fix it later.
There was an AMA a while back from a "woman" who was 7'4"+, seeking attention for being big as hell, but of course the buried lede was that he was male- so instead of being the 14th tallest recorded woman ever, he was just a regular ol' 99th percentile dude. It really demonstrated how appealing transition can be as a means of artificially inflating achievements - being 99th percentile for height is cool, but it doesn't set records unless you decide you're a woman when you do it. Which just circles back to Rhys, Laurel, and company and their screaming denial of there being any problem with it.
And the male puberty that comes along for the ride with the testes, of course. Anyone who looks objectively at this fucking troon is going to see a man who is just straight up cheating, only the wokerati are seeing a STUNNING and BRAVE transwoman just trying to make it's way thorough Xir's world as a "female" athlete... I can't wait until these fuckers eat their own and all of a sudden what was in vogue is out of vogue, and ol' Troony McTroonface will have to be forced to defend his particular bullshit.
Now that Rhys is unemployed, at what point is his Green Card invalid? It would give me a sense of symmetry to know exactly when he's become an illegal. The once-mighty haven fallen and all that, you know.
Oh God, why does this utter arse think "I'm tall and dumpy, and you object to me in women's sports; but this athlete is tall and dumpy too, yet you've got nothing to say about that!" is some killer argument?
This athlete has XX chromosomes and therefore is by definition a woman. You have XY chromosomes and are therefore by definition a man. All trans women have XY chromosomes and are by definition men.
It's called "women's sports", not "anyone under 5'11" and under 200lb sports". It's called "women's rugby" not "who doesn't hurt you when they tackle you rugby".
Oh God, why does this utter arse think "I'm tall and dumpy, and you object to me in women's sports; but this athlete is tall and dumpy too, yet you've got nothing to say about that!" is some killer argument?
This athlete has XX chromosomes and therefore is by definition a woman. You have XY chromosomes and are therefore by definition a man. All trans women have XY chromosomes and are by definition men.
It's called "women's sports", not "anyone under 5'11" and under 200lb sports". It's called "women's rugby" not "who doesn't hurt you when they tackle you rugby".
This is why I think any sport where troons are taking over should immediately be swarmed by plain old male actual athletes who just claim to be women, because that's how it works now, and completely ignore the female opponents and just beat the holy fucking shit out of the troons and send them to the hospital.
Let's see how long their dedication to that rule lasts.
Women would have their sports back real fucking quick.
To clarify, I'm in full agreement that height is one of the least of the problems with allowing males into women's/girl's sports. I'm not saying that it's the most important difference between the sexes for the purposes of athletics, I'm saying that Rhys's claim that it's fine because troons are rare and tall women exist is a bunch of bullshit because troons would in fact numerically outnumber tall women.
But hey, this is a shitposting forum, let's stop flogging the obvious and do something fun, right?
Here's a graph about when you can safely assume that American "woman" is packing a dick based on height alone (no other factors necessary):
The blue line represents parity (1:1) assuming average prevalence for blue states, the green line is about average for America overall, and if you're out in Wyoming you might want to wait another inch before jumping to conclusions. But overall, if the object of your affections is 6'1" or over, you should proceed with EXTREME caution.
I'll make one for the gay guys later about when you can assume that pube-bearded manlet isn't just a tubby closet case. The FTM version is much less useful and I won't bother post it:
