• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    While I do agree (much to the dismay of many of you all here) that it is absolutely unfair to biological women to allow non biological women in competitive sports, due to the advantages that can’t go away by chemical means such as larger lungs, longer arms, and bigger hands with more stable hip bones; if I were this kid, who is apparently quite strong and athletic, I would try and have loads of fun screwing with the system they’re forcing upon him. He could really screw with them on policies. I’d imagine he could get loads of classmates to go along with helping him out, too.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s fine to disagree with us here, but you also “disagree” with everyone who knows anything about the subject, and that is why your head is stuck so far up your own asshole.

    • Bunbury@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      The idea that women need “protection” from competing with men was always more about control than it ever was about fairness. The argument of women somehow being physically worse at sports is just not accurate in many cases. Actually there are a lot of sports in which women have an inherent advantage over men.

      Yes, men on average have higher bone density, greater muscle mass and larger lung capacity. However women tend to on average have a more efficient fat metabolism, better cold tolerance, a lower center of gravity, higher flexibility and more stable fine motor control. Also some people tend to beat the odds and win despite supposedly being at a disadvantage.