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)

[AnOminous]

Slightly off topic, but I was watching the snooker world championship this weekend. It's not even clear to me what physical advantage men have in snooker, but I don't think it's segregated by sex and yet it's still all men. Maybe that is one where women could compete at the top level but they're just not interested? Or maybe there are cultural reasons, e.g. young women don't feel welcome at snooker halls?

Female chess grandmasters are also pretty rare.

 

[JP's_Canadian_Cider]

Female chess grandmasters are also pretty rare.

Nobody knows if there are any deep-rooted differences in intelligence between men and woman. With any such thing you would have to have quite the difference in performance to be able to confidently claim that the difference is biological.

The reason is quite simply that intelligence is product of both nature and nurture, and perfectly separating the two would require controlled experiments. You simply can't do that in humans, you can't ensure that two people are perfectly exposed to exact same influences.

So, that's why studies show some differences, but you would have to be an idiot to conclude on it. Same goes with chess. Yes, it is overwhelmingly dominated by men on a top-level, but it is also mostly played by boys. Whatever biological advantages either gender has, is masked by the amount of male players.

Another difference would be height. Since height is a product of nature and nurture, you can't tell which population is genetically taller, because the effect of especially nutrition masks the exact difference. However, we know that there is an important biological component, and we can make pretty strong assumptions based on that. For instance, in developed nations where boys and girls have the same nutrition, you clearly see a difference. Also, we can clearly see it from nation to nation. There must be something more to it than nurture, anything else would be insanely unlikely.

The ex-prof tries to conflate the argument. Yes, we can't exactly pinpoint the extremely complex factors that make a man stronger than a woman, but just like with height, we observe it in nature.

Hi is trying to argue that "if we can't describe gravity perfectly, then the natural phenomena doesn't exist". If you can't explain why something is, then it isn't.

It's so obviously retarded, and Krasnoff pointed it out for him. The natural world isn't bound by our capability to understand it. Let's say there is a difference in intelligence between woman and men, then that difference would exist even if we are able to understand it or control for it. We shouldn't follow Plato's retarded ideas anymore. Seriously, this is introduction to philosophy stuff.

 

[Treasure Champs]

The ex-prof tries to conflate the argument. Yes, we can't exactly pinpoint the extremely complex factors that make a man stronger than a woman, but just like with height, we observe it in nature.

Hi is trying to argue that "if we can't describe gravity perfectly, then the natural phenomena doesn't exist". If you can't explain why something is, then it isn't.

I mean, yes, kind of. I'd argue that it's worse than that- we are, in fact, able to pinpoint 98% of the reason that a man is stronger than a woman. 98% of it is backed with hard science- more muscle, a different type of muscle, larger lungs, better lung capacity, etc etc. On top of that MAYBE 2% is what Rhys is talking about. Sociological factors like little boys being encouraged to be sporty and girls discouraged from activity.

Fans of hard science would ignore the latter completely because frankly, it is wishy-washy and hard to prove or study, as you've pointed out. Case proven already, they would say, and they'd be right.

Rhys, however, thinks that if you can COME UP with something wishy-washy that MIGHT be a reason and slap it on top of some hard science, you can undermine all of the hard science. Which, obviously, no.

The problem is that a lot of Rhys' audience are hard leftists, academics, and well-meaning people afraid of being called names, and they are desperate for any reason to believe that tranny males in women's sport is fair. They can point to him and say, look, this guy explains all the testosterone stuff and sociological factors and you're just a bigot for disagreeing. Rhys is confusing enough for the general public to think that a good reason exists, and they can hang on to that in order to keep believing they are doing the right thing.

I dunno, we'll see if it's sufficient in current year to assert something patently dumb with conviction and have people back you.

 

[Unpaid Emotional Labourer]

I mean, yes, kind of. I'd argue that it's worse than that- we are, in fact, able to pinpoint 98% of the reason that a man is stronger than a woman. 98% of it is backed with hard science- more muscle, a different type of muscle, larger lungs, better lung capacity, etc etc. On top of that MAYBE 2% is what Rhys is talking about. Sociological factors like little boys being encouraged to be sporty and girls discouraged from activity.

Fans of hard science would ignore the latter completely because frankly, it is wishy-washy and hard to prove or study, as you've pointed out. Case proven already, they would say, and they'd be right.

Rhys, however, thinks that if you can COME UP with something wishy-washy that MIGHT be a reason and slap it on top of some hard science, you can undermine all of the hard science. Which, obviously, no.

The problem is that a lot of Rhys' audience are hard leftists, academics, and well-meaning people afraid of being called names, and they are desperate for any reason to believe that tranny males in women's sport is fair. They can point to him and say, look, this guy explains all the testosterone stuff and sociological factors and you're just a bigot for disagreeing. Rhys is confusing enough for the general public to think that a good reason exists, and they can hang on to that in order to keep believing they are doing the right thing.

I dunno, we'll see if it's sufficient in current year to assert something patently dumb with conviction and have people back you.

Every parent who has had a kid playing sports knows that there are definitely a few girls who are super into it and very very good when on the girls team but on a mixed team...the very best girls playing with the boys - in elementary school - are not necessarily a drag on the boys, but very very mediocre. No girl is ever the, or even a, legitimate star on the mixed team. Even when they’re little. The differences are always there. Even the girls who are superjocks and already very unfeminine and who fit in better with the boys, are more aggressive and are bigger. They are still never, ever the star. They’re highly sought after because the mixed team has to endure some girls and that’s the best girl to be stuck with, but that isn’t the same thing as actually being legit competitive.

 

[ChaChaHeels:BlackOnes]

Slightly off topic, but I was watching the snooker world championship this weekend. It's not even clear to me what physical advantage men have in snooker, but I don't think it's segregated by sex and yet it's still all men. Maybe that is one where women could compete at the top level but they're just not interested? Or maybe there are cultural reasons, e.g. young women don't feel welcome at snooker halls?

You'd think that in current year someone would be complaining about the lack of diversity. Maybe they've just not got round to it yet.

The differences in physiology play a part. Women are, on average, smaller and have shorter limbs. If you watch the women’s game you can see that they are much more dependent on using the rest, which inevitably forfeits some of the power and accuracy.

Any woman who spent some of her misspent youth playing pool in bars will tell you that having tits causes an issue too. There is a reason that the myth about Amazonian warriors cutting a tit off to better shoot with a bow and arrow pervades.

Imagine a male midget or a big fat wobbly man trying to play snooker. Women’s frustrations at the table are broadly the same, just on a less amusing scale.
I expect some of the boys club type atmosphere at practice halls does play a role but it’s not the main issue. Especially as the women who get good at snooker/darts etc were often introduced to it as children by their dads or other male family members.
Anywhere where the game is taken seriously, any serious player will be welcomed.
Once you’ve proved talent and/or commitment, no one will care much that you are a girl (although you will probably get your arse pinched/slapped/rated out of ten when you lean over the table. Get your sweet revenge by beating his arse, at the game, obvs).

Equestrian sport is the one arena where sex (of the humans at least) doesn’t seem to make any difference and thus isn’t segregated (it was once presumed it would matter in thoroughbred racing, but women jockeys have proven themselves over and over and a woman won this years grand National).

In ultra, ultra endurance events it’s possible that female fat stores/ slow twitch muscle fibres give women the edge but these are the kinds of sports that not many people compete in and very small numbers of those competitors are female, so consequently there are also small data sets.
www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

Driving sports are an interesting area to think about. Women have driven in formula one but not for some decades, I suspect as the cars become more powerful, driving them has become more and more taxing on the body. We know that women are more likely to be significantly injured in ordinary traffic accidents so it’s not a great leap to think that women are more likely to be profoundly injured in racing crashes (although fatalities in F1 have fallen due to safety measures in car design) but more crucially, women are generally less able to withstand the g force pressure generated by high speed racing (especially on the neck):

A look a the real risks of Formula One driving | PlanetF1

Formula 1 racing is a sport that has been continuously evolving over the nearly seven decades since its inception.

www.planetf1.com

 

[Clem Fandango]

Imagine a male midget or a big fat wobbly man trying to play snooker.

Shaun Murphy? Stuart Bingham? Being a chubster doesn't seem to stop you becoming world champion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ChaChaHeels:BlackOnes]

Shaun Murphy? Stuart Bingham? Being a chubster doesn't seem to stop you becoming world champion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ha! No, but it does mean they have to factor their physiology into how they approach the game (which is what the women also have to do).
Maybe an all-fatties competition is required to test out my theory?

 

[JP's_Canadian_Cider]

I mean, yes, kind of. I'd argue that it's worse than that- we are, in fact, able to pinpoint 98% of the reason that a man is stronger than a woman. 98% of it is backed with hard science- more muscle, a different type of muscle, larger lungs, better lung capacity, etc etc. On top of that MAYBE 2% is what Rhys is talking about. Sociological factors like little boys being encouraged to be sporty and girls discouraged from activity.

Fans of hard science would ignore the latter completely because frankly, it is wishy-washy and hard to prove or study, as you've pointed out. Case proven already, they would say, and they'd be right.

Rhys, however, thinks that if you can COME UP with something wishy-washy that MIGHT be a reason and slap it on top of some hard science, you can undermine all of the hard science. Which, obviously, no.

The problem is that a lot of Rhys' audience are hard leftists, academics, and well-meaning people afraid of being called names, and they are desperate for any reason to believe that tranny males in women's sport is fair. They can point to him and say, look, this guy explains all the testosterone stuff and sociological factors and you're just a bigot for disagreeing. Rhys is confusing enough for the general public to think that a good reason exists, and they can hang on to that in order to keep believing they are doing the right thing.

I dunno, we'll see if it's sufficient in current year to assert something patently dumb with conviction and have people back you.

Yes, you are right. It was a poor representation of the point. It should have read more like: If one brother is 1% taller than another, it would be really hard to know if that is because of genetics or something else. That is, as that dude on twitter said, because you have already adjusted for differences in the general population. Two brothers would normally be closer in height than two random strangers.

This is actually what Rhys is missing. An elite female powerlifter would be stronger than an average male, because they aren't from the same population. The former is from a group that is exclusively for extraordinary strong females. He's saying that since extraordinary strong woman are stronger than males, therefore it wouldn't be discriminatory to exclude biological males from female sport. Since the average female doesn't stand a chance against the extraordinary female anyway, they haven't suffered a loss, and the biological male is within the theoretical limit that a female could be (I even lose sometime, tehee), it doesn't matter.

As that dude said (was it Tucker his name was), nothing Rhys says makes logical sense. The basketball analogy was pretty good to explain it. The average height in the NBA is about 2.01 metres, but both Micheal Jordan and Kobe Bryant are only 1.98. Does that mean that being short is an advantage in the NBA? Of course not, that is retarded. Now apply that to T-levels.

 

[sperginity]

Nobody knows if there are any deep-rooted differences in intelligence between men and woman. With any such thing you would have to have quite the difference in performance to be able to confidently claim that the difference is biological.

The reason is quite simply that intelligence is product of both nature and nurture, and perfectly separating the two would require controlled experiments. You simply can't do that in humans, you can't ensure that two people are perfectly exposed to exact same influences.

So, that's why studies show some differences, but you would have to be an idiot to conclude on it. Same goes with chess. Yes, it is overwhelmingly dominated by men on a top-level, but it is also mostly played by boys. Whatever biological advantages either gender has, is masked by the amount of male players.

??? The differences between IQ scores in male and female populations has been studied to death, the info is out there. Males as a population have more geniuses, but also WAY more retards. Women as a class have way more average IQ scores because of the smaller share of outliers. Females have genetic health advantages that follow a similar pattern, their 2nd x chromosome seems to make up for a lot of mutations that are mostly bad, but sometimes beneficial. The majority of fetuses that are miscarried due to genetic defects are male, even.

The thing that hasn't been figured out very well is the preference for different topics of study. A female genius is unlikely to be a chess grandmaster because girls are less interested in chess in general, she is going to pay attention to other shit and no one knows why. The processing power of the human brain isn't usually much different between people with the same level of intellect, but the motivation to focus on any specific task can't really be controlled. You can't force anyone to care about any specific thing, and it is really hard to over state the gain in human knowledge achieved by getting extremely intelligent people to focus on a topic for a lifetime. You can only focus for a life time if you actually care.

The ex-prof tries to conflate the argument. Yes, we can't exactly pinpoint the extremely complex factors that make a man stronger than a woman, but just like with height, we observe it in nature.

Hi is trying to argue that "if we can't describe gravity perfectly, then the natural phenomena doesn't exist". If you can't explain why something is, then it isn't.

I have heard people with autistic relatives complain about this exact deficit in thinking. Like say a (non autistic) wife complains she finds mold somewhere in the house and she cannot reach to clean it, she asks the husband to clean it because he is taller and can reach. the autistic husband is stopped in his tracks by being unable to explain the location of the mold and won't do anything unless the wife explains it to his satisfaction. Chaos ensues. I have seen it explained as a failure of empathy, their own curiosity about a topic gets treated as more important than what the other person needs. Situations like that make it very confusing for people to parse out if they are experiencing narcissism, or autism, or a weird mix of both. A lot of barb and chris's arguments look like this now that I think about it...

Anyway- physiologists can and do explain male sports advantages at pretty much every anatomical level. Exercise physiologists specifically know exactly what rhys claims is not knowable. Its very old news, so it isn't like there is much need to republish what everyone in the same industry knows as a baseline of knowledge. Its just that rhys is a philosopher and has no medical training so he is unlikely to be able to understand what is known. Also it would hurt his feelings to get educated enough in medicine to understand any of it, so he won't do it and then will claim theres no evidence.

 

[valis]

Driving sports are an interesting area to think about. Women have driven in formula one but not for some decades, I suspect as the cars become more powerful, driving them has become more and more taxing on the body. We know that women are more likely to be significantly injured in ordinary traffic accidents so it’s not a great leap to think that women are more likely to be profoundly injured in racing crashes (although fatalities in F1 have fallen due to safety measures in car design) but more crucially, women are generally less able to withstand the g force pressure generated by high speed racing (especially on the neck):

A look a the real risks of Formula One driving | PlanetF1

Formula 1 racing is a sport that has been continuously evolving over the nearly seven decades since its inception.

www.planetf1.com

Apparently one of the big barriers to women getting into F1 is the lack of power steering in the lower formulas. How a driver can take corners is a huge part of outperforming other drivers - especially in the lower levels when the cars are very, very similar - and women just can't produce the bursts of physical strength to be competitive. Tatiana Calderon raced in F2 a couple of seasons ago and was consistently second last despite being a very respected driver She's a test driver for one of the F1 teams so is clearly an extremely good, trusted driver. Without good performances in lower levels you won't get a superlicence to race in F1 - and even if you could, F1 is still such a physically demanding sport even with power steering that it's hard to imagine women consistently performing at the same level as men.

I guess there's also the whole boys like cars girls like ponies stereotypes. And even getting into karting which is the first step for most drivers when they're tiny kids takes an awful lot of money that parents might be less willing to risk on a daughter than on a son. And rich girls tend to be horsey.

It's a shame. I'd love to see more women in the sport, and able to be competitive.

 

[REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!]

Apparently one of the big barriers to women getting into F1 is the lack of power steering in the lower formulas. How a driver can take corners is a huge part of outperforming other drivers - especially in the lower levels when the cars are very, very similar - and women just can't produce the bursts of physical strength to be competitive. Tatiana Calderon raced in F2 a couple of seasons ago and was consistently second last despite being a very respected driver She's a test driver for one of the F1 teams so is clearly an extremely good, trusted driver. Without good performances in lower levels you won't get a superlicence to race in F1 - and even if you could, F1 is still such a physically demanding sport even with power steering that it's hard to imagine women consistently performing at the same level as men.

I guess there's also the whole boys like cars girls like ponies stereotypes. And even getting into karting which is the first step for most drivers when they're tiny kids takes an awful lot of money that parents might be less willing to risk on a daughter than on a son. And rich girls tend to be horsey.

It's a shame. I'd love to see more women in the sport, and able to be competitive.

I think the lack of women on F1 is more about the insane requirements to win a drive at that level. There are no middle class F1 drivers. You need to come from a family that has the resources to get you into racing as a toddler and then take your prepubescent ass all around the country, then world, racing every single weekend. Racing is unbelievably expensive and if you don't start very, very young there really is no chance of getting a drive in F1.

Sure there are outliers like kid who Nissan found on GT who killed all those people at the Nurburgring. I think he got to drive the GTR LM Nismo FWD P1 car at LeMans, but he was never an F1 driver. Still, that is a unique story and not one that is repeated often. If you want more women driving in F1, you need more insanely rich people willing to raise those drivers from the cradle.

 

[Chapstick4Lyfe]

Apparently one of the big barriers to women getting into F1 is the lack of power steering in the lower formulas.

This makes sense. Doesn't the old stereotype of "women are terrible drivers" come from lack of power steering back in the day? Like, of course women are going to be shittier drivers when they don't have the same upper body strength. I'm sure Rhys will blame that on socialization or whatever though.

 

[REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!]

This makes sense. Doesn't the old stereotype of "women are terrible drivers" come from lack of power steering back in the day? Like, of course women are going to be shittier drivers when they don't have the same upper body strength. I'm sure Rhys will blame that on socialization or whatever though.

Does an athletic adult need power steering on a 1700 pound car at even 50 mph? I don't think that's a legitimate argument but I'm open to being wrong. A more pressing issue would be holding up a helmeted head at 3g through a corner.

 

[valis]

I think the lack of women on F1 is more about the insane requirements to win a drive at that level. There are no middle class F1 drivers. You need to come from a family that has the resources to get you into racing as a toddler and then take your prepubescent ass all around the country, then world, racing every single weekend. Racing is unbelievably expensive and if you don't start very, very young there really is no chance of getting a drive in F1.

Sure there are outliers like kid who Nissan found on GT who killed all those people at the Nurburgring. I think he got to drive the GTR LM Nismo FWD P1 car at LeMans, but he was never an F1 driver. Still, that is a unique story and not one that is repeated often. If you want more women driving in F1, you need more insanely rich people willing to raise those drivers from the cradle.

I agree, and it makes the pro-diversity line F1 has been promoting the last couple of years ring hollow because financial inequality is one thing they're definitely not interested in addressing, or even acknowledging. Calderon is from a racing family, as is Juju Noda, Sophia Flörsch is rich enough to have been racing since she was five; but money and family still don't make up for lack of male strength. Noda looks exciting though.

 

[Cycleye]

Does an athletic adult need power steering on a 1700 pound car at even 50 mph? I don't think that's a legitimate argument but I'm open to being wrong. A more pressing issue would be holding up a helmeted head at 3g through a corner.

With the modern seats in racing saloons, and endurance cars, that have the 'wings' either side of the helmet, there isn't a great deal of head holding required. The same with modern single seaters that have the removable padded thing, either side of the helmet. If it is all fitted well there is alot of head resting that can be achieved. It is still a requirement to have strong shoulders/neck but there is less of a need for bull necks. Top end helmets weigh alot less, these days, too and of course a fat man head weighs more so I would say it isn't as bad for women as it once was.
As far as injuries in crashes goes there is an advantage, in some situations, to being of a slighter build. Heavier internal organs are more prone to shearing , especially during fast rotation multiple spins, and heavier built drivers require more restraining by harnesses so that is another area for injury. It always amazes me that a human body can snap big wide shoulder strap webbing in extreme situations. The net is full of almost NSFW images and vids of theterrible Georg Plasa crash, back in 2011. You will see what I mean.

There are quite a few women working as engineers in F1 and there are even more doing that, and driving, in endurance racing which is great to see. In the UK there are quite alot, to be honest, at grass roots and club levels. Autograss (all women races/lots of girls in the junior class) and Hillclimbing(women sharing cars with partners mostly), and rallying(drivers/navigators/both) especially. Karts not so much but I think that is because of the type of dad that gets involved. They are usually not the kind of dad a girl wants to spend time with!

 

[JY's Tampon]

It's over guys. Oh, wait...guess what DOCTOR said so.

CORRECTION: No Evidence Trans Girls Perform Better In Sports Than Cisgender Girls, Says Doctor

CORRECTION: This article originally published May 4, 2021, contained misleading information. It has now been corrected and updated. The claim that there is no evidence trans girls perform better in sports better than cisgender girls was put forward by Dr Veronica Ivy, a doctor of philosophy...

www.unilad.co.uk

https://archive.ph/gfIXF

 

[Popoto]

Slightly off topic, but I was watching the snooker world championship this weekend. It's not even clear to me what physical advantage men have in snooker, but I don't think it's segregated by sex and yet it's still all men. Maybe that is one where women could compete at the top level but they're just not interested? Or maybe there are cultural reasons, e.g. young women don't feel welcome at snooker halls?

You'd think that in current year someone would be complaining about the lack of diversity. Maybe they've just not got round to it yet.

Several reasons: Men have bigger wingspans than women, and men have better grip strength, which directly translates to strength in throwing and wielding pool cues.

Men and women also have different visual focal ranges, which is why shit you'd reckon wouldn't be sex segregated are (shooting, archery).

Another important factor to consider is some people just think women look bad at doing things. This is particularly prevalent in music, where blind auditions account for a 30% increase in successful female applicants.

Female chess grandmasters are also pretty rare.

This also translates to pretty much any "game", because women don't gamble as much as men.

What allows women to have lower insurance premiums holds them back in competitive gaming. Sad!

Does an athletic adult need power steering on a 1700 pound car at even 50 mph?

Yes. Before power steering came about, most cars needed 3-4 full revolutions of the steering wheel to completely turn.

Cars without power steering are still made today, but they all have extremely narrow wheels.

 

[Aegir]

It's over guys. Oh, wait...guess what doctor said so.
View attachment 2145339

CORRECTION: No Evidence Trans Girls Perform Better In Sports Than Cisgender Girls, Says Doctor

CORRECTION: This article originally published May 4, 2021, contained misleading information. It has now been corrected and updated. The claim that there is no evidence trans girls perform better in sports better than cisgender girls was put forward by Dr Veronica Ivy, a doctor of philosophy...

www.unilad.co.uk

https://archive.ph/gfIXF

Not being forthcoming about what kind of doctor is making a given claim is one of the hallmarks of internet activist "journalism". All those appeals to authority fall flat when the person highlighted has no real credentials so they just run misleading language to try and convince you the person is more credible than they really are.

 

[AnOminous]

So, that's why studies show some differences, but you would have to be an idiot to conclude on it. Same goes with chess. Yes, it is overwhelmingly dominated by men on a top-level, but it is also mostly played by boys. Whatever biological advantages either gender has, is masked by the amount of male players.

Chess is pretty autistic, too, and autism is more prevalent in males.

This also translates to pretty much any "game", because women don't gamble as much as men.

Evolution can deal with the loss of the majority of males in any generation. We're quite literally disposable. In warrior societies, it was quite often the case that exactly this happened. Polygyny was the solution, because the surviving males were generally superior.

Women are the ones who are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the species.

So men can afford to be reckless and do crazy, dumb things and fight wars with each other. This is true of any other mammal species, but humans take it to a whole new level of murderous insanity. With most animals, it's just a duel of dominance displays and then one backs off, but with humans, it's kill them and everyone they know and everyone they're remotely related to, and just random people who happen to be in the same place.

Troons do not shed this basic male nature by just suddenly claiming "I'm really a kawaii waifu now." Instead, being cowards and weaklings, who couldn't compete with other males, they turn their aggression and hostility toward actual women.

 

[Old Fart]

It's over guys. Oh, wait...guess what doctor said so.
View attachment 2145339

CORRECTION: No Evidence Trans Girls Perform Better In Sports Than Cisgender Girls, Says Doctor

CORRECTION: This article originally published May 4, 2021, contained misleading information. It has now been corrected and updated. The claim that there is no evidence trans girls perform better in sports better than cisgender girls was put forward by Dr Veronica Ivy, a doctor of philosophy...

www.unilad.co.uk

https://archive.ph/gfIXF

He's. Not. A. Medical. Doctor, you unadulterated bint.