Dear God these people are mad

Transgender rights in Texas took another step backward last month, when public school superintendents voted 586-32 in favor of a rule that requires schools to use birth certificates to determine the gender of student-athletes.

This law is seen not only as “an attempt to handicap transgender student-athletes’ eligibility,” but it’s also believed to be a clear violation of Title IX.
“The Department of Education has stated that Title IX covers trans students and prohibits discrimination based on gender.

There is actually a reason why we have mens’ teams, womens’, boys n’gals play separately. The male musculature means that, to take one interesting historical comparison, the steroid doped up winner of the female sprints in the Olympics would have placed third or fourth in the boys’ Brooklyn high school heats for the same event in that same year.

And you can’t really claim that Title IX bans gender discrimination when the whole point of it is to make sure that equal amounts of money get spent on the separate events for boys’n’gals. For those musculature reasons.

They’re going off the deep end, aren’t they?

68 thoughts on “Dear God these people are mad”

  1. Give over!
    It’s a laugh – trannies buggering up wimmens’ sports – who nobody except the BBC cares about!

  2. It is the Blitzkreig principle. Push as far and as fast as they can before resistance can rally.

  3. Why don’t all the trannies, genderqueers, gender reassigned, awaiting operations, awaiting hormone treatment etc not have their own special games where they can compete with each other and leave the rest of us the fvck alone.

  4. So anyway, I wonder how all the cisgirls will feel when they find they can’t get on a sports team because they are all transgirls?

  5. So we segregate sports because of musculature? I think the Williams sisters (among very many others) would beg to differ. Almost all sports are segregated because it’s easier to only provide one set of changing rooms, and because of hangovers from the days when boys so much as seeing girls led to, er, whatever it was thought to lead to back then.

  6. After a year of testosterone suppression (i.e. hormone treatment) any advantage that a transgender woman has from her XY chromosomes has vanished.

  7. Dave, don’t be ridiculous. Serena Williams could not beat the men’s no 1000 in the world. And Venus is not particularly muscular. There is no comparison between men and women in any sport.

  8. Dave, if you don’t segregate sports, girls won’t get a look in. And if you don’t segregate contact sports, either girls will get severely damaged, or nobody will be able to play. Put girls against boys in rugby and you’d better have plenty of ambulances standing by.

    There is a reason that males- sorry, cismales- have reinforced jawbones.

  9. Just have one competition irrespective of sex or gender. Or, allow competition organisers to reject any entrant on any arbitrary grounds they like. Those are two possibilities to putting an end to this waterfall of shite.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “So we segregate sports because of musculature? I think the Williams sisters (among very many others) would beg to differ. Almost all sports are segregated because it’s easier to only provide one set of changing rooms”

    So it is not just Jew hatred that you are wrong about? Interesting. Men outclass women so utterly in almost every sport it is not funny. The Williams sisters have wisely refused to play men so low ranking that even tennis anoraks haven’t heard of them. Sports are segregated because women would not win otherwise. I have said it before – in the 2000 Olympics, Marion Jones, then using performance enhancing drugs, won Gold Medals in the Women’s 100 and 200 metres. Had she been a male high school student and competed in the New Jersey state championships those times would have placed her fourth.

    Matthew L – “After a year of testosterone suppression (i.e. hormone treatment) any advantage that a transgender woman has from her XY chromosomes has vanished.”

    I am inclined to doubt that. What is your evidence? The first and second biggest source of injuries for American School students are male football and male Graeco-Roman wrestling. The third is female soccer. Women are not built for sport or heavy physical activity.

    dearieme – “Just have one competition irrespective of sex or gender. Or, allow competition organisers to reject any entrant on any arbitrary grounds they like. Those are two possibilities to putting an end to this waterfall of shite.”

    Or we tell the mentally ill they need treatment, not to harass all the rest of us into making the world agree with their delusions. No one in their right mind has a problem with girls being girls and only girls taking part in female sports. Besides, if you give in here what are you going to do about their next demand?

  11. We should go further than this. There are sports where the musculature does not matter. And those sports are 100% integrated. Equestrianism for example. Not that I can think of any others right now….but I imagine that curling might be a useful possibility?

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Worstall – “We should go further than this. There are sports where the musculature does not matter. And those sports are 100% integrated. Equestrianism for example. Not that I can think of any others right now….but I imagine that curling might be a useful possibility?”

    Chess isn’t.

  13. Dave – no, no, I can’t be bothered.

    MatthewL – you know that, do you? Know it to be true, I mean?

    It takes *at least* seven years’ real training to be a champion in nearly all reasonably demanding athletic sports. Even if the loss of relative muscle bulk were as complete as you suggest (which is unlikely), I find it just a little difficult to believe that doing most of those years at a man’s intensity, competing against men, would be of no benefit when subsequently competing against women. And in any case, muscles are far from being the whole story.

    If, say, Bruce Jenner had gone into the Heptathlon with suppressed levels of testosterone, I think he might have been able to scrape a win – don’t you?

    Provisions of this sort are on the table for the 2020 Olympics, with a vote later this year: no surgery is to be required…

  14. No, curling is segregated. Similarly bowls. Depends if you call them sports or just games of skill though.

    Think there have been/are female darts and snooker players?

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Tennis is an interesting game because female champions often choke. It is a rare sign of a top class player if they do not. The Williams sisters don’t very much. Martina Navratoliva didn’t. But most of them do. Time and time again they nearly have won, but then they let the other player back in the game. Apart from Andy Murray, men rarely have this problem.

    So it is not that the physical demands are different. It is that women cannot cope with the mental demands either.

  16. Just to rain on Matthew L’s parade a little more, there is more to the body than musculature. The male skeleton is more robust and larger. It has wider shoulders. The contact points for the muscles are further from the joint and offer more leverage. Even if you find a man and woman of the same height and muscle mass, the man has an advantage. Statistically, males as a group will physically dominate over females as a group.

    And this is why the “socially constructed” claims regarding gender roles are nonsense. Males are built to meet out and tolerate physical punishment so that the females don’t have to. That is how we evolved. The fact that we no longer live in hunter gatherer bands with the same demands upon us physically does not mean that we do not have the same bodies as our ancestors who adopted the gender roles which maximised survival of the group.

    Sports are a way of using our physical abilities for amusement rather than survival. Those physical abilities are profoundly dimorphic. This is a fact.

    I was just replying to Theo yesterday about facts and values. Hume demonstrated over two centuries ago that you cannot derive values from facts. You need at least one value to get you going (e.g. “the group must survive” or “my children must survive”) and then you can derive more values from that.

    Progressives attempt to reverse this and derive facts from values. Having chosen an arbitrary value, such as “men and woman are equal in all ways”, they then try to declare that the facts are consistent with the value; therefore in this case declaring that there is no biological difference between males and females, and even that there is no such thing at the factual level as male and female, merely “socially constructed genders”.

    This shifts from “wrong” to “not even wrong”. It is simply nonsense. There are facts, and one is that males and females differ in physical prowess. That’s just how the world is, regardless of preferences in “ought”.

  17. So Much For Subtlety

    And yet I get criticised when I say women should not be soldiers.

    If they cannot cope with playing tennis with the men, they cannot cope with fighting with them either.

  18. SMFS-

    To be fair, women can serve in some military capacities. Even historically, it appears that the Amazon myth was based on fact, in that some Steppe tribes had female warriors. It is at this point worth noting though that they weren’t infantry, but equestrian warriors armed with missile weapons.

    Fuck all use in a phalanx though.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “To be fair, women can serve in some military capacities.”

    Sure. Men get lonely.

    “Even historically, it appears that the Amazon myth was based on fact, in that some Steppe tribes had female warriors. It is at this point worth noting though that they weren’t infantry, but equestrian warriors armed with missile weapons.”

    That is, they have found some women buried with some slings as well as bows and arrows. Sheep need defending against wolves. Especially when the men are away fighting.

  20. They seem to have had general grave goods of warrior burials. It’s unlikely a shepherdess would be buried with her bow and arrow. Since we have ancient attestation, however garbled and mythologised, it seems reasonable to conclude that in those tribes the women did; as I said, on horseback, shooting missiles. We can’t be sure of course, so this probably won’t be a fruitful argument. But I think the evidence is pretty good.

  21. A tiny proportion of women chess players are International Grandmasters (about 30 out of 1500) and they can and do take part in open tournaments. Much the same is true of Bridge. But there have to be tournaments restricted to women, otherwise most female players would never win anything.

    Famously, Victoria Coren(-Mitchell) has won major poker tournaments, but doesn’t get into the top 400 lifetime earnings list.

  22. Endless argument about the male/female capabilities is pandering to SJW scum.

    Don’t pander.

    Smash them.

    Purge the Unis/end the BBC/ sack the SCS/purge the apparatus of the scummy state of all SJWs.

    It needs to be fixed so that it is not your career at risk for having dared to speak back against CM bullshit but their career that is in danger for having spewed their tripe in the first place.

    That is how to win.

  23. “equestrian warriors armed with missile weapons.”

    It still takes strength to draw and fire a bow though. Probably even more on horseback, as you aren’t braced against the ground. The greater the strength, the further the range, and range meant everything to lightly armoured cavalry. If you can’t fire without getting inside range of the enemy’s own missile troops, you are buggered. Horses are a big target.

  24. Depends what you’re doing. If you’re raiding, you ride in, shoot your load, then ride off again. Different thing to your pitched battle where you all turn up at 8am then run at each other in straight lines.

    Talking of which, Greeks used lightly armed missile detachments to harry the enemy phalanx. They didn’t generally do much damage but obviously had some use or they wouldn’t have bothered. There was one battle I think where they were decisive, but I’m too lazy to look it up.

    Anyway, pastoralists are normally raiders. As with the Arab camel jockeys who were so effective because they could rush out of the desert, do a bit of raidin’ and pillagin’, then melt back into the desert again. Women on horseback with bows would be pretty effective as raiders, particularly against unmounted agrarians, I’d hazard.

  25. Also, I seem to remember that the Huns (or possibly Mongols, I get them mixed up) were legendary for being able to hit targets with arrows while riding at full tilt. Since women tend to have better fine motor control than men, if anything they’d probably be better at that.

  26. @SMFS

    Can’t actually think of any major finals where Andy Murray has choked. He hasn’t gone into any as the favourite, so I wouldn’t call being beaten by the better player choking.

    He’s underperformed in some, yes, but I would call a choke when a player throws away a winning position. Has he done that? I might have forgotten if he has.

  27. Also, I seem to remember that the Huns (or possibly Mongols, I get them mixed up) were legendary for being able to hit targets with arrows while riding at full tilt.

    Both I think, although it was the Partians which gave the tactic its name. It was probably the Huns who invented the stirrup for this purpose.

  28. Matthew L, yes it does have some effect. That is not the same as producing an equal outcome. Hence my reference to skeletal differences.

  29. Womens’ hips stop them running as quickly as men. Women have a lesser ability to use oxygen than men. Women cannot compete with men in any sporting discipline which involves strength or hand-eye co-ordination. This is fucking beyond obvious stuff. The record books don’t lie. Do they??? Why people persist in stating such obvious lies is beyond me – though I’m glad they do, because without this kind of stuff it might be harder to persuade the man in the pub of the more esoteric untruths.

    SMFS – we’ve been over this. It depends on the roles. Women soldiers are beyond useful in places like Afghanistan if you want to keep the civilian population onside. You may not want them fixing bayonets and going all hand to hand, but that’s just stating the obvious. They’re still soldiers, carrying rifles, under the military chain of command/discipline, for very obvious reasons. You’re as bad a bullshitter in your own way as the tranny enthusiasts are in theirs.

  30. IanB

    “Hume demonstrated over two centuries ago that you cannot derive values from facts.”

    He argued for it: he didn’t demonstrate it. And it is disputed by numerous moral philosophers. Some argue that there are no ‘brute facts’, that all facts are value-laden. Others argue that moral imperatives can be derived from facts about human nature. In short, the is-ought distinction is not as sharp as you imagine.

  31. Returning to the context, the decision was made by SCHOOL supervisors. Dealing with youngsters under 18, and dealing with sometimes reluctant amateurs.
    And needing a simple answer.
    Unless we collectively decide that segregated shower and changing facilities are no longer required and simply let the boys shower with the girls, and I think we’re way short of reaching that consensus, we need a simple definition of who is and is not allowed into the girls changing room.
    Checking whether an apparent boy has actually been taking testosterone blockers and oestrogens for a period is not simple.
    Birth certificates are.

  32. Commonwealth-style long-range prone Target Rifle is unsegregated, and there are some ladies who perform at an extremely high International level.

    Still male-dominated, though, largely as a factor of more boys wanting to start it than girls (and the Cadet Forces – also male-dominated – being a major source of new blood).

  33. And this does raise the interesting question of why ablutions are sex segregated. If it’s because of sexual interest, what should we be doing with teh gheys and lesbians? If that’s not the reason, what is?

  34. Theo-

    He did demonstrate it, nobody has ever been able to refute it (because you cannot), but many people choose to ignore it, because it undermines their own certainties. It’s just a fact.

    Ironically.

  35. BC:

    Dave, don’t be ridiculous. Serena Williams could not beat the men’s no 1000 in the world.

    As Karsten Braasch proved 15 years ago.

    SMFS:

    Tennis is an interesting game because female champions often choke. It is a rare sign of a top class player if they do not. The Williams sisters don’t very much.

    It was, however, glorious to see Serena choke against Roberta Vinci at the US Open last September.

  36. It all comes from allowing sociologists to introduce this worthless idea of gender as against sex which is a reality. You can cut off what bits you like and stick others on, you can use whatever cocktail of hormones you like but the sex will remain the same, it’s a more expensive version of dressing up.

    What happens with one of these “transgender” people’s DNA? Not surprisingly it remains the same.

  37. ‘Transgender rights in Texas took another step backward last month, when public school superintendents voted 586-32 in favor of a rule that requires schools to use birth certificates to determine the gender of student-athletes.’

    Birth certificates indicate the SEX of the student. Gender is a political construct of fluid meaning. The schools are doing the smart thing – just not going there. Using biology, not politics.

  38. Sebastian Weetabix

    @Matthew L: an article by some fucking dozy churnalist in Shape magazine is facts?? What fucking planet are you on?

    Clearly you are are a sad cis-mangina.

  39. IanB

    As usual when challenged, you retreat into dogmatism. Among modern moral philosophers MacIntyre, Searle, Putnam, Phillippa Foot, Mary Midgley and others have provided convincing rebuttals of Hume’s position. You are committed, as part of your cod philosophy, to a subjectivist view of ethics, which Hume’s distinction is designed to support. But any moral philosophy that identifies an end or goal for human life – whether simply human thriving or something more grand like obedience to the will of God – makes the transition from is to ought.

    Hume, of course, did not like Aristotelian or Christian ethics, so he decided to declare the is-ought transition a fallacy. However, if the alleged fallacy leads to moral subjectivism – which means that substantive moral discussion is impossible – then it strongly suggests that the is-ought transition is not a fallacy after all.

    I suggest you do some serious reading on the subject.

  40. Theo,

    I have and those rebuttals I’ve read all fail. You forgot Ayn Rand’s failed rebuttal as well. I’m only being dogmatic in stating a fact as a fact.

    What Hume did or did not like is neither here nor there, what matters is whether he was correct. Which he was.

    Moral subjectivism- the recognition that morals are simply some group’s intepersonal behavioural code- does not make moral discussion impossible. It does however refute the popular but unjustified belief that there is one single moral code which applies to all peoples, places and times which can somehow be derived from the facts of nature. Which upsets a lot of people- Proggies and Conservatives tend to be similar in this regard- who want to believe there is.

    Here’s some more facts: the most universal moral/behavioural code, which all our ancestors followed until relatively recently in human existence is the tribal one. Human nature is to live in small bands. All other bands are fair game; to plunder another band is not just acceptable but admirable. Killing them, stealing and/or raping their women, stealing what stuff they have, this is all the most moral thing you can do. The “moral” sense evolved as a means of moderating ingroup interactions. There is no universal humanity, no sense of “they have rights like us”.

    Furthermore, this moral code will enforce a strict status order. Young males are expected to be plunderers. The murder rate is upwards of 20% due to (a) raiding (b) being raided (c) ingroup feuds (d) challenges for status.

    This is your human nature. These are your basic morals. None of this would be acceptable in our society in this day and age; a man murdering others and keeping their shrunken heads as trophies would not be considered admirable, but criminally insane.

    And if you want to mention Aristotle, bear in mind that the Ancient Greeks, driven by the same behavioural codes, no longer exist because they exhausted themselves by mutual plunder between the city states.

    It is completely unremarkable to observe that every culture has its own values, which are highly variable. The ludicrous thing is to assert that only one of these value sets is objectively correct and quelle suprise it’s mine!

  41. I’ve also tended to find that in general people who denounce Hume really don’t understand what he said.

  42. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “It’s unlikely a shepherdess would be buried with her bow and arrow.”

    People are buried with the tools of their trade.

    “Since we have ancient attestation, however garbled and mythologised, ….. But I think the evidence is pretty good.”

    We have some legends and we have a few graves. These things never happen in well documented cultures with lots of evidence. They always happen far away where people can’t go and where there is no documentary evidence.

    Women warriors is nonsense on stilts. But even if it weren’t the idea that this is good evidence is bizarre. There is better evidence for the Spartans being homosexual.

  43. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “Women soldiers are beyond useful in places like Afghanistan if you want to keep the civilian population onside.”

    Yeah because they have been so successful in keeping the population on side so far. How is the real estate market in Helmand these days? I do not deny that I would prefer female prisoners dealt with by female police officers and screws. That doesn’t mean they belong in the Army.

    “You may not want them fixing bayonets and going all hand to hand, but that’s just stating the obvious.”

    It is not obvious any more.

    “You’re as bad a bullshitter in your own way as the tranny enthusiasts are in theirs.”

    Yeah? To me it looks like you know what is true but you are too intimidated to say it. I would prefer to be a bullsh!tter than gutless.

  44. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “For people with a supposed reverence for facts you lot sure put out a lot of bullshit.”

    You know, while reading that life-style-lite piece of [email protected], I couldn’t find a single word that supported your case. I might have been distracted by all the serious academic articles on keeping my vagina young. Would you mind telling us why you bothered to cite that article?

    What it does say is this:

    Whether male to female or vice versa, a trans person’s bone structure is unlikely to change in a significant way. If you were born female, you’re still more likely to be shorter, smaller, and have less dense bones after transition; if you’re born male, you’re more likely to be taller, bigger, and have denser bones. And therein lies the controversy.

    Savannah? Seriously?

  45. I think peeps are looking at this the wrong way..

    While it’s obvious that at the extreme end of human strength and endurance, as “tested” in the various aspects of sports, male capacity far outstrips female capacity, so that it makes sense to separate the genders for competitive purposes, the main reason to separate the genders is for a completely different reason.

    Which becomes obvious when you realise *when* most humans are engaging in more or less mandatory sports activities, often under the leadership of the local closet Nazi : Highschool and ( for nations that have student leagues/scholarships) College.
    The separation of genders in “sports” has very little to do with peak performance, and *everything* with hormones. Quite a lot of them if you’re not careful…

  46. So Much For Subtlety

    Grikath – “The separation of genders in “sports” has very little to do with peak performance, and *everything* with hormones. Quite a lot of them if you’re not careful…”

    So ….. you think we should segregate homosexuals from heterosexual? After all, if the aim is to prevent people having wicked thoughts and performing sinful deeds with each other.

    Of course we would then have to segregate homosexuals from other homosexuals. This could get complicated.

  47. Which becomes obvious when you realise *when* most humans are engaging in more or less mandatory sports activities, often under the leadership of the local closet Nazi : Highschool and ( for nations that have student leagues/scholarships) College.The separation of genders in “sports” has very little to do with peak performance, and *everything* with hormones. Quite a lot of them if you’re not careful…

    You couldn’t be more wrong. If US high schools had unisex sports teams – whether it be basketball, track, swimming or whatever – girls would be hopelessly unable to compete. Google some high school track meet results if you don’t believe me.

  48. IanB

    Which refutations of Hume’s distinction have you read? (Ayn Rand was a nutjob, so hardly counts.)

    You clearly don’t understand the nature of moral subjectivism, but this link might help you:

    http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethical_subjectivism.html

    Also, if you had read Hume, you would know that all he does is call for caution against inferences from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements.  He provides no “demonstration” that the transition is always fallacious. See the Treatise, book 3.1.1.

  49. @SMFS

    ‘Yeah? To me it looks like you know what is true but you are too intimidated to say it. I would prefer to be a bullsh!tter than gutless.’

    Why would I be ‘too intimidated’ to say something under a pseudonym on the web? For fuck’s sake.

    Some 450 British soldiers died in Afghanistan. Many, many lives were saved because villagers said, ‘Don’t go down there, the Taliban spent all last night digging bombs in to that alley.’ Many lives.

    Now, you may not like this kind of warfare – you may prefer scorched earth, kill everyone, level the place. That actually has its merits, too. But we don’t fight like that, at the moment, and until we do we actually do need to have those villagers onside. The way to keep them onside is to recognise that they belong to a nutty fucking culture where strange men talking to their womenfolk, never mind searching their rooms and even clothing, creates blood feuds which will last until the man of the house is dead, or you are. And to send female soldiers in to deal with the dorises instead.

    It’s really not hard, and you’re not stupid, so I wonder what your agenda is?

  50. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “Why would I be ‘too intimidated’ to say something under a pseudonym on the web? For fuck’s sake.”

    Yeah. I don’t know either.

    “Some 450 British soldiers died in Afghanistan. Many, many lives were saved because villagers said, ‘Don’t go down there, the Taliban spent all last night digging bombs in to that alley.’ Many lives.”

    And how is the property market in Helmand doing these days? A stunning success was that British operation?

    The problem is that we cannot know the counter-factual and we cannot really be sure what Afghans really think. However I am pretty sure that if a foreign Army turned up with some tattoo-covered Bull Dykes taking a break from doing animal-related porn, and they said that this is what they wanted for our daughters, we might not be best pleased. Which is pretty much a watered down equivalent of what the Afghans probably thought about our female soldiers. But who knows? We can try to tell by, for instance, looking at the stability of Helmand today. How is the property market doing? Any chance of buying some nice retirement homes for old people with a mountain view?

  51. SMFS, endlessly repeating the same words about property prices in Helmland doesn’t make it any better as an argument against female soldiers. The end result of a war (not that we yet know that in Afghanistan; there have been *multiple* reversals of fortune so far) does not make every tactic used by the losers good or every tactic used by the winners bad. After WWII the British consciously copied the officer selection methods of the defeated Nazis.

    After saying all that, I still think women as front line infantry is a bad idea for reasons of bodily strength, unit cohesiveness and the (in this context) unfortunate protective instincts of men towards women. There are other roles where women are as good as or better than men. The USSR had some awesomely effective female snipers in WWII.

  52. So Much For Subtlety

    Natalie Solent – “endlessly repeating the same words about property prices in Helmland doesn’t make it any better as an argument against female soldiers.”

    We lost. The Taliban very nicely allowed us to negotiate a deal where the British Army and the Taliban agreed to withdraw. But they didn’t. We did. Repeating the obvious is important. We lost. Bringing our female soldiers did not impress them that much. It is hard to see how anyone can argue that our loss proves that female solders were a good idea. Perhaps *more* Afghan men would have supported us and told the Army where the bombs were if we were not so obviously decadent.

    “After WWII the British consciously copied the officer selection methods of the defeated Nazis.”

    I don’t think they did actually.

  53. SMFS – look up the difference between tactics and strategy.

    Also try to stick to the point. I would think property prices in Helmand are about identical to what they were in 2001, but they are irrelevant to the tactical question of how to fight a war which is lost (or not won, it’s ongoing) for strategic reasons.

    As for ‘counterfactuals’, no. British soldiers’ lives were undoubtedly saved by cooperation with villagers. Villagers’ cooperation was undoubtedly affected by the military’s attitudes to them.

    I know you have a strong man fantasy of the world, but no-one can win any sort of war, outside a carpet-bombing/nuke affair which leaves effectively everyone dead, without keeping at least some of the locals onside. Just not possible.

    You may wish to make the case that eventually we will have to have such a war. Who knows? But the war we have had/are having is not that kind of war, and we need to employ the kinds of soldiers required to fight this war, not your imaginary one.

    A small number of those soldiers actually do need to be female. It’s really not a big deal.

  54. There is actually a reason why we have mens’ teams

    I’m not aware of any law of cricket that prevents women playing. Rule 5 provides for a different size ball for ‘womens cricket’, but I don’t think there is actually such a thing as mens cricket.

    I don’t know about any other team sports. However I note there is no rule against women entering the snooker world championships.

    Are there actually any ‘mens’ sports or are there just unisex sports and ‘womens’ sports?

  55. The skill in horse archery is not the actual shooting, it’s fairly easy as the target will be close, it’s the lining up the arrow with the string whilst galloping on a horse. Needs a lot of practice!

  56. SMFS: “So ….. you think we should segregate homosexuals from heterosexual? After all, if the aim is to prevent people having wicked thoughts and performing sinful deeds with each other.”

    Heh… “Wicked Thoughts” are a given at that age range, whatever Nannying you apply.. The separation of the sexes for school sports is but one form of this nannying, which incidentally rarely happens anymore in this here country.
    The dressing rooms, however, are wisely separated by an electrical fence, a Berlin Wall, preferably the complete width of the school ground, and several chaperones though.. because.. well… Teens 😉

    As far as homosexuality ( or general LGBTrainbowhatever) is concerned.. It simply isn’t much of an issue here in schools in these Lowlands.
    Either because you’re talking senior years in top-range of highschool, where kids are expected to behave more or less like adults instead of screaming ninnies, or trade school, where something like “phys ed.” mostly has gone the way of the dodo, along with the closet Nazi’s perpretating it on innocent bystanders.

  57. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “look up the difference between tactics and strategy.”

    So you start out with an insult, you end up with glib irrelevancies.

    “Also try to stick to the point. I would think property prices in Helmand are about identical to what they were in 2001, but they are irrelevant to the tactical question of how to fight a war which is lost (or not won, it’s ongoing) for strategic reasons.”

    I am. So basically the British intervention did nothing. We are probably agreed on that. We lost. So it seems odd that anyone would claim that having female soldiers was vital to the success of that failure, given it was, obviously, a failure.

    “As for ‘counterfactuals’, no. British soldiers’ lives were undoubtedly saved by cooperation with villagers. Villagers’ cooperation was undoubtedly affected by the military’s attitudes to them.”

    Undoubtedly. That is not the question. The question is whether bringing women that the locals probably found more offensive that a bunch of Julie Bindel-impersonating bull dykes helped. I would think not. We may have got more co-operation if male soldiers talked to male villagers.

    “I know you have a strong man fantasy of the world, but no-one can win any sort of war, outside a carpet-bombing/nuke affair which leaves effectively everyone dead, without keeping at least some of the locals onside. Just not possible.”

    You know this in what sense? Because I don’t think that is remotely close to anything I have said. Ever. Let us agree that keeping the locals onside is important. My point remains you do not know what kept the locals onside, in the end they were not onside, and it is likely that female soldiers played a part in making sure they were not onside.

    “A small number of those soldiers actually do need to be female. It’s really not a big deal.”

    You keep saying this. But your only evidence is a campaign we lost. We lost because we could not win over the locals. You are really insisting we would have lost even faster if we only had real soldiers who the locals could, at least, respect? I don’t think undermining Afghans’ honour and social system is likely to be successful if we also want them to support us. You think that showing women in uniform, in a country where talking to a woman is an insult to her family’s honour, is likely to win their respect?

  58. @SMFS

    “So it seems odd that anyone would claim that having female soldiers was vital to the success of that failure, given it was, obviously, a failure.”

    As ever, you distort what I said. I didn’t say “having female soldiers was vital to the success of that failure”, I said having female soldiers was vital to the already limited ability of troops to manoeuvre, and that local women often gave intel to female Int Corps/others about the locations of bombs and caches etc that they wouldn’t have given to men ( indeed, had men tried to talk to them it would have ended in tears).

    To put it in your terms, which I probably shouldn’t, it made the failure a lot less bloody. Keyboard warriors don’t need to worry about this; others don’t have that luxury.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *