Political Roundtable Part XXX

[Zonkerbl]

I don't know how to verify this statistically. Anyone know how to get detailed competitive swimming times?

I think your average trans female athlete/swimmer/wrestler/whatever is going to 1) be a mediocre athlete on average and also 2) once the drugs start working properly will not have any physical advantage other than perhaps being tall

There is basically zero chance that even the best trans swimmer in the world would be able to beat an olympic quality cis female swimmer. Maybe at lower levels of competition, maybe early on in the transition, but generally speaking this is a non issue.

Trans college swimmer crushing records:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/10/lia-thomas-penn-transgender-swimmer/

Temporary, the treatment is making her weaker and she's kind of the exception that proves the rule. It's not like she transitioned in order to beat people at swimming.

[Zonkerbl]

I don’t know why Americans act like they’re the only capitalistic country and free market country in the world. There are several examples of capitalistic countries that have met their climate goals, reduced income inequality and have a number of social safety nets. The problem with the U.S. is that it practices crony capitalism and legalized bribery in the form of lobbying and dark money. Getting rid of that is one way to address the issues, but the other issues are that public service should actually be serving the public, not making side deals and securing favourable connections for when you’re out of office.

And the problem with TGW’s analysis is that he acts like Democrats are a monolith. His talking points are straight from Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Breaking Points and all the clowns that try to paint both parties as the same. The Democratic Party is the definition of a big tent, I reject the premise that they’re only for academics and big tech. You can’t claim that people like Bernie, Sherrod Brown, Katie Porter are the same as Republicans. Where have Republicans wanted to reform the tax code, or ever been pro worker rights, or cut child poverty in half? The problem is that people expect instant results and instead of voting in better politicians (**** Joe Manchin and Cinema) they give up and let Republicans win (cough Virginia) and then when things get bad want Democrats to clean up the mess, but never take proactive action and keep Republicans from getting into power.

We don't have a centuries long history of periodic peasant uprisings and it shows

Maybe it’s because human beings learned that a constant cycle of uprisings and violence does not generally leave people off better in the long run. Any system that replaced capitalism would eventually also succumb to the same revolution and it rarely makes it better for the people on the bottom. It’s not that I don’t believe a collectivist ideology couldn’t work, it’s just that for it to work would require a selfless, benelovent dictator which to my knowledge has never existed in history.

If we had a constant cycle of uprisings and violence we would have... France. Germany. Britain. What are you even talking about. Those countries are just as well off as us, and the working class is *definitely* better off than ours. Guillotines are good for the working man, don't buy that plutocrat propaganda. That's just game theory baby, without a credible threat of an uprising there's no reason for the plutes to leave any money on the table. It's called the "grab the dollar" game, if the plutes play "I take 99 cents" it's the *rational choice* to take the penny rather than nothing and that's where America is at right now. Working class has to say "I take 50 cents or heads will roll" and the other player has to believe it.

[Zonkerbl]

Hm can't find any examples on the intertubes, it is usually mentioned in passing in introductory game theory texts. The game is, two players sit on opposing ends of a table. There's a 100 pennies on the table. The referee counts to three and each player grabs a predetermined number of pennies. There are 100 subgame perfect equilibria in this game. Player 1 grabs 1 penny, player 2 grabs 99 is one, both grab 50 cents... If I expect my opponent to grab x pennies, my rational response is to grab as many as I can ... 100-x. And x can be any number from 1 to 100.

It's used as a simple example to show that while maximization theory in good circumstances gives you a nice clear unique answer - "The invisible hand of the market allocates resources efficiently" </white guy voice>, game theory reveals to us that in the real world all sorts of bad outcomes can result from "rational" behavior. The worst possible outcome being, for me as a scientist, the inability to predict a unique outcome to a game. Almost all negotiating strategies you see in real life are repeated versions of the grab the dollar and there is literally no way to use economic theory to predict the outcome. Also any collusion between more than two players is also impossible to predict the outcome of. So a huge portion of the transactions we observe in real life have no predictable outcome - well, except we can predict it - the guy with the bigger guns and pricier lawyers wins.

[doclinkin]

I don't know how to verify this statistically. Anyone know how to get detailed competitive swimming times?

I think your average trans female athlete/swimmer/wrestler/whatever is going to 1) be a mediocre athlete on average and also 2) once the drugs start working properly will not have any physical advantage other than perhaps being tall

There is basically zero chance that even the best trans swimmer in the world would be able to beat an olympic quality cis female swimmer. Maybe at lower levels of competition, maybe early on in the transition, but generally speaking this is a non issue.

Trans college swimmer crushing records:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/10/lia-thomas-penn-transgender-swimmer/

Temporary, the treatment is making her weaker and she's kind of the exception that proves the rule. It's not like she transitioned in order to beat people at swimming.

If Bruce Jenner had transitioned to Kaitlin and competed in the heptathlon, you don't think she'd have won?

The alterations that puberty makes between men and women are significant. It is why there is real debate over the question of how early in life to allow hormone treatments. There are no hormones that will shrink your skeleton, give narrower shoulders, decreased lung capacity, wider less biomechanically efficient hips, etc. Swimming is the one sport where you could imagine even getting close (vs, say, basketball, or you mentioned wrestling? Yeah, no). But even in sprinting the times between even average men and the top women are stark and real. I don't think people would transition solely to win a sport -- though given the insane things people do to their bodies in high level athletics, when it think about it, maybe -- but it is pointless to pretend that there is no biological difference between genders aside from hormones. A trans woman would be no more handicapped by estrogen than a cis woman is. She would simply have had a head start. Muscles that you still use will not weaken or decay. The splits between women's and men's world records are large, in a sport where the gap between gold and bronze is measured in milliseconds.

https://swimswam.com/records/womens-world-records-lcm/
https://swimswam.com/records/mens-world-records-lcm/

When it comes to high level athletics any advantage is magnified. At an elite level, the gap between peak men vs peak women's performance is generally 10-12%. No amount of hormone treatment will provide a 12% reduction in performance. The gap is due to size more than anything.

On average american men are 5 inches and 28lbs larger than american women, their frame has built in leverage etc. The minimum height of sprinters is said to be 5'9"-- below that you don't have the stride length to keep up. Women average 5'2" worldwide. Our sexual dimorphism is not as pronounced as other primates, but it exists, by the time you are an adult there is no stalling or reversing it.

Yes, of course trans-women have an advantage. Consider the East German women who entered the olympics every year bigger, stronger, heavier after years of training under steroid and testosterone regiments. A biological male who transitions to female had the advantage of their whole life on that testosterone regimen until they transitioned. A friend of a friend is a famous Navy SEAL who transitioned. Better believe she still has the advantage of strength over most men even after decades of hormones.

What to do about that advantage, if anything, is the sticky question. I'm agnostic on this. I dunno. I'm all for inclusion in general. Sports is one of those strange areas though where fairness means something different than the rest of society. We don't have a different league for Men's tax attorneys or a different hospital for Women doctors. We make that distinction in sports because otherwise it, you know, isn't fair.

That said I always thought it would be interesting to see the steroid olympics. Lets really see the limit of human achievement, enhanced by chemistry or what-have-you. Everything short of cybernetics. I want to see how fast a human being can possibly run, for real. The times of the Enhanced Olympics would destroy the Natural Olympics, but I'd still be as likely to watch them both. I dunno.

[Zonkerbl]

It's just not true that you retain your muscle mass on estrogen. Yes you get to keep your height and shoulder width. But you're making an argument for letting trans people transition earlier, not that they should be kept out of sports.

I object to the Bruce Jenner example - it's like every time someone mentions decarceration they go "what about the Boston bomber? are you going to let him out?" I'm making a statistical argument - the chances of the very small sample of trans women having members who are athletically talented enough to win consistently is very small. Yes there will be a few.

I have a trans friend who is 6'2" and husky and plays rugby and kicks ass at it - at the amateur level. What, she's not supposed to be allowed to play rugby, something she's good at and enjoys?

[dobrojim]

I was fortunate to be able to attend a talk, actually a conversation, last night in Reston
featuring Ibram Kendi. He was amazing. Extra grateful for getting called on at the end
of the night to ask what was the final question of the night.

[dobrojim]

My son, a trans man, authored this piece in Slam online in 2019. He played
3 years of college (D3) hoop at Hollins as a woman before having to give up
basketball when he began the treatments for his transition. He worked as an
intern at Slam. There's some food for thought here.

https://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/start-the-conversation-issues-facing-transgender-athletes-in-the-ncaa/

[doclinkin]

It's just not true that you retain your muscle mass on estrogen. Yes you get to keep your height and shoulder width. But you're making an argument for letting trans people transition earlier, not that they should be kept out of sports

I object to the Bruce Jenner example - it's like every time someone mentions decarceration they go "what about the Boston bomber? are you going to let him out?" I'm making a statistical argument - the chances of the very small sample of trans women having members who are athletically talented enough to win consistently is very small. Yes there will be a few.

When we are talking about elite athletes, we are talking about a statistically tiny slice of humanity in general. But at that level any advantage is not insignificant. It's a matter of hundredths of a second difference.

The best women's 800 meter run in 2021 was 1:55:04. Compare with the men:

https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/middle-long/800-metres/outdoor/men/senior/2021?page=42

I'm at page 42 of the top men's time, and already there are 4169 men who beat that time last year before the table stops. From other sources I understand the number of men who beat that time year after year is over 10,000. Is it probable that some year there will be 1 among those elite 10,000 who may be emotionally misgendered. 100% chance at some point there will be. It is estimated that .1 to as high as 2% of the population consider themselves misgendered. If that held true in elite athletes, that is 10 of those 10,000/year who start out faster than the fastest woman, if they choose to transition.

Of course Kaitlin Jenner is relevant. We are talking about an elite athlete who transitioned. But that is what we are talking about: elite athletes. Yes it is harder to retain muscle mass on estrogen. That is why women, who naturally have estrogen, have difficulty competing with men. A transitioning athlete may lose muscle mass, but they start with a stronger base to lose. They literally start with a larger heart in their chest. Yes that transitioning athlete may no longer be competitive with men. But suddenly runner #9999 in the rankings is dropped into the top of the chart against those who, by happenstance of genetics, were born with ovaries instead of testes.

Sure an elite female athlete will beat a biologically male person who is not elite. They are still at a disadvantage against a high level athlete who now is competing in the women's events. They have *the same* estrogen as the transitioning athlete on artificial hormones. It is the same handicap for both of them. The difference is, like the East German women who were raised on testosterone, the transitioning athlete will have had a head start. The question is: is that an unfair advantage? Biology says, yeah probably.

At the elite level the people deciding on the rule set have to decide if Biology should be taken into account when we are discussing fairness. It is why Title IX exists. To level the gender playing field. I'd consider elite to include D1 athletes, personally. Anyone whose $ is affected by the rules distinctions. If your daughter is the last scholarship on the team and the last scholarship on the men's team has been mis-gendered their whole life and choses to transition, your family bears the weight of however that rule is decided by the powers that be.

Me, I am not saying what should or should not happen. Yes, the age at which children would need to take hormones in order to stave off the effects of puberty is below the age at which the law lets them make adult decisions. That is between them and qualified doctors and, often complicating everything, their parents. I know personally I had many opinions about myself at age 10 that had no relation to who I became as an adult. This is a societally complex conversation that should be handled delicately by qualified professionals.

I'm saying in the case of sports alone: it is a fair question to raise. We are talking about fairness and a level playing field. There is no point trying to pretend that no physical difference exists. It simply does exist. What to do about that fact is a reasonable topic of conversation.

[Zonkerbl]

Well that was my original question, which you've answered - how many men currently can beat the women's best time, and what percentage of them might transition.

But you raise an interesting point about leveling the playing field for gender. Strictly speaking, a trans woman's gender is female. Gender is a social construct. It's misunderstanding what gender means that got Dave Chapelle into trouble recently. You can make a slightly better argument that you are trying to level the playing field for sex.

Gender is like the position you play on the court - point guard, center. Sex is like your height. Most short bball players play pg, most super tall players play forward or center. But there are famous exceptions, at least at the PG position.

Are there any pg sized players who successfully played center in the NBA? Nothing springs to mind. [edit: shortest center ever was apparently Wes Unseld at 6'7"]

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=vtZgIIANpHaHkG4WVvuIUg&s=19

[Benjammin]

Since we're supposed to follow the science, here is one paper. Like it or not, larger hearts, larger lungs, etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

Sent from my motorola edge plus using RealGM mobile app

[Zonkerbl]

Since we're supposed to follow the science, here is one paper. Like it or not, larger hearts, larger lungs, etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

Sent from my motorola edge plus using RealGM mobile app

The numbers in the second paper seem to support my thesis. If we assume only one in 10,000 people is misgendered, the number of athletes 18 years or younger who are better than the top women and are misgendered will be very small. That supports a rule that adults who are already professional athletes cannot expect to transition and be allowed to continue to compete. But rules applying to boys 18 years or younger can be more lenient. They're still growing and haven't developed a big advantage yet.

[Benjammin]

Not worth it.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using RealGM mobile app

[Benjammin]

Still not worth commenting.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using RealGM mobile app

[Zonkerbl]

I admitted you were partly right, take the win

gloat a little, I don't mind

[doclinkin]

That supports a rule that adults who are already professional athletes cannot expect to transition and be allowed to continue to compete. But rules applying to boys 18 years or younger can be more lenient. They're still growing and haven't developed a big advantage yet.

Seems reasonable to me. High school athletics: let everyone play, there's no money involved, teams can be inclusive. College and up, maybe not.

Interesting, I would watch a (semi-?) pro league of mixed gender athletes, playing some sport. The background stories on the players would be interesting as hell.

[Pointgod]

I was fortunate to be able to attend a talk, actually a conversation, last night in Reston
featuring Ibram Kendi. He was amazing. Extra grateful for getting called on at the end
of the night to ask what was the final question of the night.

OMG are you okay? According to Republicans just saying that racism is bad causes irreparable harm. How did you manage to survive this vicious attack?

[dobrojim]

I was fortunate to be able to attend a talk, actually a conversation, last night in Reston
featuring Ibram Kendi. He was amazing. Extra grateful for getting called on at the end
of the night to ask what was the final question of the night.

OMG are you okay? According to Republicans just saying that racism is bad causes irreparable harm. How did you manage to survive this vicious attack?

I think most of us know GOP objections to teaching accurate history are not good faith arguments.
Kids are much smarter and more resilient than these GOP pols are giving them credit for.
But it riles up the base.

The pols (IMO) simply are trying to prevent or deny the evidence that would lead
to the conclusion there is a moral imperative to address racial inequity. One sad thing
about it is that the measures/policies meant to address racial justice would help the
entire country, particularly poor white people which gets us back to the end stage
capitalism topic.

[doclinkin]

Well that was my original question, which you've answered - how many men currently can beat the women's best time, and what percentage of them might transition.

But you raise an interesting point about leveling the playing field for gender. Strictly speaking, a trans woman's gender is female. Gender is a social construct. It's misunderstanding what gender means that got Dave Chapelle into trouble recently. You can make a slightly better argument that you are trying to level the playing field for sex.

Gender is like the position you play on the court - point guard, center. Sex is like your height. Most short bball players play pg, most super tall players play forward or center. But there are famous exceptions, at least at the PG position.

Are there any pg sized players who successfully played center in the NBA? Nothing springs to mind. [edit: shortest center ever was apparently Wes Unseld at 6'7"]

Thanks for the correction by the way. At this point I have had hmm 5 students over the past 20 years who have transitioned. More that identify as non-binary. It's not an excuse to say hey, I'm from the 1900's, it is still something difficult for me to wrap my head around. But I'm always willing to learn and become better at whatever I suck at.

[Pointgod]

I was fortunate to be able to attend a talk, actually a conversation, last night in Reston
featuring Ibram Kendi. He was amazing. Extra grateful for getting called on at the end
of the night to ask what was the final question of the night.

OMG are you okay? According to Republicans just saying that racism is bad causes irreparable harm. How did you manage to survive this vicious attack?

I think most of us know GOP objections to teaching accurate history are not good faith arguments.
Kids are much smarter and more resilient than these GOP pols are giving them credit for.
But it riles up the base.

The pols (IMO) simply are trying to prevent or deny the evidence that would lead
to the conclusion there is a moral imperative to address racial inequity. One sad thing
about it is that the measures/policies meant to address racial justice would help the
entire country, particularly poor white people which gets us back to the end stage
capitalism topic.

Isn’t this more of a racism issue than capitalism issue? Capitalism is merely an economic system. If there’s money to be made in racial equality, capitalism would take advantage of that. In fact one could cynically point out that corporations jumped on the BLM, anti racism as part of their marketing corporate branding.

The problem is that politicians exploit racism and the backlash against antiracism for political gain and mostly white people, reward them instead of punishing them for it. Now imagine how much different political conversations would be if white voters forced Republican politicians to answer how they’d help poor white voters while addressing racial inequality.