I don't get it, Rip. It's a bit too subtle for me.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
TMPHBITEU
Member
I don't get it, Rip. It's a bit too subtle for me.
Member
A worthy effort to counterpoint the absurdities of the situation that you have outlined in this thread. I look forward to watching men with low T performing the beam and uneven bar routines in women's gymnastic competitions, or "gymnastic competitions" as they will come to be known.
After all, what teenage boy in the early seventies did not secretly want to be Olga Korbut ? ... just me then ?
Even the subjective judging will not be a bar so long as someone can afford a lawyer.
Will people want to see it, maybe, it might be the next big thing.
The deciding factor is money.
Ms Olympia is no longer held and it appears that it was simply because people didn't want to buy tickets for the event. In weightlifting, spectators presumably attend events to see competition. I imagine that the supporters of the losing teams in the Womens' weightlifing event that started this thread, might look at future events and wonder if it is worth attending.
A lot of sports teams in the UK are funded based on their performance. No medals, no money. I think this applies to other countries too. If the choice is between giving up international competition or recruiting a re-identified woman or two to redress the balance, what choice do you have ?
Will people pay to see it ?
What are the actual determining factors for the continuation of a sport ? So long as competitors can turn up and compete, then it continues. If they can't afford the venue or the equipment or the travel, then it doesn't. If competitors continue to fund it themselves then it will go on. Amateur runners pay fairly large sums for the chance to come 5,000th in a marathon and get a T shirt and a plastic medal. So long as competitors are willing to stump up the cash to be resoundingly beaten after years of training, then all is well and good.
If the athletes rely on public funding, then it gets put to a committee and a vote. This is at the whim of public bodies. Sponsors need to decide if they want their brand associated with the sport. Will the makers of Atomic Nutri Blast X protein powder be taking out full page ads in the Women's Fitness with glossy picture of a trans woman strength athlete ? "I owe my success to Nutri Blast X protein powder and definitely not to being a man for over thirty years"
Can women decide to make it stop ? there have been protests and threats of strikes in branches of women's sport where they thought that the rewards were not sufficient. I don't recall how that ended up, but I don't think we have parity in the prizes at Wimbledon. (Mens trophy, a big drinking vessel. women's trophy, a plate, you know, flatware).
I take issue with the title of this thread.
This bullshit will continue until nobody wants to pay for it any more.
Member
TMPHBITEU
How is this relevant, flush? She's a kicker.
Member
It is more relevant to the other thread that there should just be sports, not women's sports and men's sports.
TMPHBITEU
What is your position on the issue?
Member
That either you eliminate single gender sports or decide it is tough shit for those who believe they were born in the wrong body when it come to competing in single gender sports.
I doubt this girl will win the starting job for her college team, but this girl is just doing what you suggest in the PJ article which is the only thing that is fair to everyone.
Member
Or you let a few market actors try out different definitions of gender/sex, or eligibility rules around the subject, and see which ones the people with money care to pay for. Bikini football was a noble free market experiment in some ways. Sport isn't some philosophically pure undertaking that makes the world better by it's purity.
Posting Permissions