Women's World Cup 2023

I think taking anyone's personal perspective as authoritative is dangerous...whatever the context. Of course a conversation about the views broadly held across society is essential to provide a fair and representative social framework. I add some notes to this, for consideration.

Opinion. Elite developed classification sports achieve substantial media coverage - womens athletics, tennis, golf, as examples. There is an argument for developing other classification sports further, so that they do too - but the sports media marketplace is a competitive one, and not based purely on a willingness to do good as is the case for many other aspects of headline media coverage (you might look to science, finance, objective truth). Golf, for example, does not achieve the mainstream recognition that football does, but that's because golf is a shit spectator sport, and if you filled the screens with it people would not pay hundreds of pounds a month for television subscriptions. It's not discrimination against golfers, it's just that fewer people like it compared to the alternatives. That's numberwang, and it will always add to the mix.

Not in my echo chamber. Never heard of her.

Personally I don't see an issue in regard to level of participation in a classification sport. However good someone not qualified for the classification is, or isn't, they are denying the participation of an actually qualified participant. They should consider an open category, or a classification for which they are qualified. It is for both sport and society to develop fair classification to encourage the participation of all who wish to be active in competitive sport. This is, of course a crowded and competitive space. It is incredibly difficult to ensure that there is funding or opportunity for all...because there are always limits to the possible, based on funding.

Opinion mixed with undoubted consensus, with more than a smattering of hyperbole.

I strongly doubt that there is any fair minded person who does not wish to see fair classifications that allow elite sportspeople of all types, to compete on a fair and equal footing, with equivalent sportspeople, to achieve their sporting and participation goals.

There is some devil to the detail, and not just the funding issue previously noted.

Again I find this a combination of assumption (off the incorrect variety), what might form a broad consensus (of course advantage or otherwise is a function of the attributes required to succeed in a specific sport - men and women can fairly and equally sit on a horse, or in a car, for example. They compete equally in these events in the actual real world), and hyperbole.

There is a focus here on puberty and testosterone which may be misleading. There are also physiochemical differences, chromosomal (people born female will on average be physically smaller than those born male, and physical size can be a determining factor in many elite sports), genetic and biological differences that may convey an advantage based on biological origin, before and beyond the advent of puberty and testosterone or otherwise. Depending on the sporting discipline and it's physical, spatial, and mental requirements.

Again I find this a combination of assumption (off the incorrect variety, in part for the reasons last explained), what might form a broad consensus (the need for social development), and hyperbole.

It's certainly conflating different issues - those of sporting integrity, and social equality. Sporting integrity is important to encourage the broadest possible range societal participation in sport, and social equality is important for us all in a wider sense, even though a lot of time, money and effort is poured into persuading us otherwise. For reasons.

It also hints at what I would hope to be a fair way to proceed. Where no advantage is conveyed by birth and developmental biology, sport should be open...at those points where developmental differentiation occurs classification sports should be made available to ensure continued participation, the opportunity for elite progression, and a 'fair playing field'.

I see this argument as being equally applicable to all sports, where all participation is valuable. There is a danger that you reach individual classification on a per person basis. Where do you start, where do you stop? This is a social consideration. There are some categorisations that are comparatively straightforward (needs a wheelchair, doesn't). There are many others far more complex (should someone like me, with a birth restricted lung capacity, participate in the same category as those who have a high natural VO2 max capacity? Should I be allowed asthma medication, should they be denied it?). I do not have the answers to these, but I think a fair place to determine these is in sports administration, given that we have a system where individual sports are responsible for their participation levels, integrity, and funding. Of course the values of society should inform that.

Contrived false jeopardy/thought experiment, depending on your perspective. Undoubtedly hyperbole though.

This is a social problem, not a sporting one. That it exists...and that the author feels this specific way about it.

This is to a large extent social...I think there is a social war that needs to be waged to preserve our hard won freedoms and rights, and to extend them to other groups that have traditionally been denied them (women, the gays, racism, disability rights, and yes also trans...I am in favour of freedom and equality in general, not restricted to entitled groups only).

But I don't want to see sporting integrity castrated on the altar to win a token battle, when there is no real commitment in trying to win the actual war.

This argument is demonstrably complete bollocks. We wouldn't be happy to let a man standing on his own two legs compete in the wheelchair tennis events, just because there was only one of him.

So trans inclusion in other classifications isn't working for the trans community? We should look to fund and encourage an appropriate classification recognising some of the specific problems that they face (physical, mental, and transitional) that gives them a fair platform for their elite participation. Of course recreational/training participation should be encouraged in all open groups, as for all classification groups (female tennis players may train with male hitting partners, disabled footballers may participate in community football clubs...etc).

The world is a different place, we should look to progress. Not look back. For reasons the author themselves aludes to, this is not a pertinent modern day example. There are different drivers (social and financial) in the modern world, and how media and popularity rewards the notable. As opposed to competing for a very meagre prize, and unrenumerative notoriety, and having to have your balls chopped off for it.

(p.s. we did sort of see this with elements of the state sponsored east european doping of athletes, and the disproportionate world records, that in part required a reset)

I see this as an example of the sort of mistakes that can be made if we fail to confront the social war that is in front of us. Of course a no mark administrator in some backwater hick town can make a bad decision, without society addressing the issue as a whole and providing guidance. You may have noticed that I have repeatedly been at pains to point out that none of us, me very definitely included, are correct about a majority of things. It's exactly why socialisation is key in the development of us as a species. We treat that lightly at our peril.

It's also a failure of categorisation and sporting integrity.

A civilised society tries to fix problems, they don't stand pointing at them, and blaming each other, like some sort of satirical 'how many people does it take to dig a hole' skit.

Pointing. Shouting. Nothing of constructive value here.

Incorrect (in the sense that it is certainly incomplete).

...so completely irrelevant. 8 year olds should not be participating in elite competitive sports, and they should be participating in sports development only in such a way that reflects their ability and developmental needs, irrespective of gender or other considerations. In my view....and non-adults, like gymnasts (as I have previously argued) should not be allowed to compete in elite competitive sports until the age of majority, just because they have an advantage in those sports.

Once again...we are all wrong about most stuff. We are ushering in the downward spiral of our society/species if we focus on pointing and shouting at those who are wrong, rather than focussing on the pertinent and good, and trying to build a positive social consensus, rather than embracing argumentative chaos.

Addressed above...but also....when I was born it was totally inconceivable that every individual would have a combined ultimate communications device, and repository of almost all human knowledge, in their pocket long before I died.....and that we would have global institutional tracking and 24/7 access to strippers on it.

We don't need the authors, or my, ideas of what will be pertinent long after we have gone, we need to engage and empower the people who will frame the society that they and their children will need in the forthcoming fiery hell that we have thrust them into.

....oh for fucks sake look forwards instead of backward, and try to have some vision and concept of fairness, rather than single interest group bias.

---edit---

perhaps I should have said (rather than flipping the bird): Totally facile argument - not least on the single basis provided by the authors own entirely shady and unsubstantiated statistical argument. We really shouldn't be surprised that there are no elite trans athletes, if there is no elite trans participation (within the margin of error).

It was a nice strike on the move, decent height for the keeper, who I thought maybe should have done a bit better.

A little bit. I genuinely believe it's part of an intentionally planned and funded attempt to drive division though society, and remove agency from a moderate and fair majority, in order to undermine democratic power and achieve minority interests. A conspiracy, if you like, but your mileage may vary on that. Which of course doesn't mean that 'everybody is in on it'...the nature of people is that they can be easily derailed and co-opted into individual acts of gross fuckwittery. The technical appellation is 'useful idiots'. You can see this process at work, in microcosm, with the british governments creation of an 'immigration crisis', and the constant anguish, (in)action, and vacillation around that, rather than actually getting on with things in the best interest of the society that they allegedly represent. Which is why they employ more experts in psych-ops (nudge) units, than medical experts, in the midst of a global pandemic.

If you look into the background of the funding/development of religious groups, and organisations like the NRA, and the ownership of media organisations (and latterly the large social media companies - not necessarily through invention and initial growth - but in terms of later investment and control), there are clear handprints on them. As there are on pivotal political movements like brexshit, and the extreme interest groups that attained prominence around that. Who gave these fledgling organisations support beyond their initial base? These are not as the result of a groundswell of support resulting in a move for social change from society...these are top down organisations/campaigns created with the express intent of preventing such democratic change. If I attempted to promote my values and views on a society wide stage, I would be ignored and excluded. Why are these individuals and groups, who are far more nutty and dangerous than me, afforded the opposite treatment? My belief is that it is because by the creation of diversion, division, and lack of socially cohesive direction, well directed power can insert itself (even if it is objectively nobodies first choice, if you step back and think about it) to succeed and profit.

As defectors put on record as the kgb's method of destabilising the south american states in the 50s, 60's, and 70's.

As Putin's team used in Russia to gain and solidify power, through the strategy of funding all extreme groups - irrespective of political leaning.

As has more recently escalated into influencing the distracting debate in major democracies and leading financial countries.

So while i think that it's important to have the debate and find a socially inclusive accommodation that reflects wider values, it's also important to be mindful that there's a lot of funding and effort going into preventing that from happening. You need to have an eye on addressing the latter, if you are to have any hope of achieving the former. In this sense taking extreme positions, and demonising compliance with those, is serving the wrong masters. It's the clear and present danger, not the solution.

There are wider questions here. We all have what we believe to be knowledge, beliefs, and values, accumulated over time and experience from, in most of our cases, membership of privileged and entitled groups. It's quite hard to persuade people to give those advantages up...just on a normal human instinct to protect and nurture what is yours. We all believe them to be 'correct' - it's why we hold them. We are all wrong. So it becomes, for me, a question of how willing we are to discuss, test our views, and change if we learn things that we feel merit it - and critically go on to use a consensus view to frame societies rules and values.

There are mechanisms put in place to prevent the setting of societies values against the existing entitlements. Civilised debate around that is the only effective tool for societal consensus and change...anything that curtails that, through dogma, extremism, intolerance, or intentional Machiavellian design, is doing what it's meant to. Which is not in the interests of the likes of you and me. But a fact of civilised debate is that people will hold values and views different to yours...and you need to find a level of common ground to make effective change.

There are people who say they are for free speech..when what they mean is the freedom to promote an existing orthodoxy and entitled views, and demonise those with other progressive views. There are those who say they are for free speech, when what they mean is that everyone should comply with their stated polarised view of things. Real tolerance and honest debate towards progress is extremely difficult in this environment. As intended.

In the context of the issue actually being raised by an individual participating in the women's world cup, talkback has rarely been so bang on topic.

The issue that we have come to discuss is participation and fairness in elite sport, where the difference from recreational sport is the notion of achievement, recognition, potentially monetisation and the impact that has on encouraging (or otherwise) participation and sporting integrity. This is of course massively hard, and wherever the lines are drawn it will leave many people disadvantaged and deeply unhappy. It's a perfect issue for evading civilised debate. Particularly where we live in an environment where 'stories' become substituted for 'sport'....in the sense that most interest in sport is not a pure understanding and love of the sporting action in itself...but the storied, simplistic, uniting, narrative promoted instead of it. Join our group! Have opinions! Boo your foes! Worship our icons! (pay a lot of cash for the privilege)

I would hope that participation is really not subject to the same pressures. Sport, on a participation level, is generally extremely welcoming and democratised. All ages, genders, political ideologies, and backgrounds, compete together, and work to help and develop each other. I have friends who work and participate in elite category sports (disability, women's, mens). I play, and have played, with people from all social groups and backgrounds, genders and sexualities, totally without issue. Although it's not really a conversation that is had. I have played with people for many years and don't even know their 'real' names, never mind their intricate thoughts on personal or societal matters.

So I don't really see sport as the issue here. It's a question of how society wishes to promote and reward elite sportspeople...and society needs to find a way to work that out. Dogmatic extreme opinion is the enemy to that, and the servant of exclusion. If we could find an agreed equitable way forward...many people would be unhappy about the solution. Whatever it was. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Especially where perfect doesn't exist.

Sweden vs Italy was, ahem, a bit men against boys.

Watching Canadia vs Aussies. Canadia a bit more possession based, and technical/buzzy. Aussie bigger stronger and more traditionally structured.

Aussies two up at half time, plus one marginally disallowed after cupboard committee review.