- Messages
- 28,831
- Likes
- 68,304
when he was *exactly* right
Welcome to The Platinum Board. We are a Nebraska Husker news source and fan community.
Sign Up Now!when he was *exactly* right
That's literally the exact context of the discussion lol
"[When the boys HS championship team wins], then my overall point will be made, which is boys shouldn't be competing in women's athletics because boys are bigger, stronger, and faster, even high school boys."
6:12-6:24
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The match was in preparation for Thursday's USWNT friendly versus Russiawww.cbssports.com
You’re right, I had no idea somebody would be dumb enough to veil this ridiculous stunt as an experiment. Lesson learned.Not really, since it would prove exactly what it sets out to prove. If you say that is obvious and doesn't need to be proven, I agree, but then we'd all need to agree that boys shouldn't be competing in women's sports, which unfortunately isn't happening, hence the discussion.
But more to the point, you said @Jim14510 was wrong about the context when he was *exactly* right
Oh, I see. He wants to protect women's sports by taking a shit on them.
It's not shitting on them. It's stating what we all should know is the case.Oh, I see. He wants to protect women's sports by taking a shit on them.
It's not shitting on them. It's stating what we all should know is the case.
It might shock you to believe that many women (real women) actually enjoy the privilege of fair competition in sport. And would like to continue enjoying that privilege.Oh, I see. He wants to protect women's sports by taking a shit on them.
No, the real difference is not only testosterone. That's completely absurd. Put a male MMA fighter in a ring with a female MMA fighter on a testosterone regiment so their T levels are similar and the female would lose badly and/or die.You’re right, I had no idea somebody would be dumb enough to veil this ridiculous stunt as an experiment. Lesson learned.
I love the gender argument though. Because it comes down to testosterone levels, and the real hypocrisy will happen when we just start using that as a barometer for competition. Then we’ll see natural woman barred from competing (like the Nigerian sprinters) in their own sport. Then we’ll have an actual dilemma on our hands.
Of course you can’t put an adult female on a testosterone regimen and expect that to level out the physiological advantage of a man who went through puberty. Same reason no amount of estrogen can cancel out the advantage of going through puberty as a male. A transitioning female who took testosterone through puberty at the levels of a male is a different story.No, the real difference is not only testosterone. That's completely absurd. Put a male MMA fighter in a ring with a female MMA fighter on a testosterone regiment so their T levels are similar and the female would lose badly and/or die.
Just a completely ridiculous argument.
It really is not that complicated. Can you really think of no other metric by which we can divide males and females into two distinct categories for sports, besides their testosterone levels?Regardless, what other metric is there to measure besides testosterone? It’s the only objective, scientific barometer, and even it is flawed.
Especially damning when you consider that women are terrible drivers.I don't know where this fits in, but @Jim14510's daughter has been able to out drive him since she was 11
The problem is simply more nuanced than that, whether you like it or not.It really is not that complicated. Can you really think of no other metric by which we can divide males and females into two distinct categories for sports, besides their testosterone levels?
I'll give you some time to think long and hard about it.
I’m pretty sure it was half the teams in 2012 after the housing market crash and they had to renew tv contracts. The difference is that most NBA teams were still valued at half a billion. The Storm this year were only valued at $151 mill. Teams in the NBA will always be fine because of their profit. If the WNBA wasn’t support by the NBA it wouldn’t exist.Fair. My overall point is, they get way more exposure out of the WNBA than they would donating jerseys to a high school. WNBA numbers are growing, whether they're making money or not. So, for the people on here acting like the NBA isn't getting anything from the $10 mil a year they put into it, and are simply doing so out of charity, is laughable. They get the exposure and the tax benefit.
I know in 2012, 22 out of 30 NBA teams lost money. Some of them as much as $20 mil. Why aren't we dunking on those players for not deserving to be paid millions? Their organizations obviously aren't attracting the eyeballs to turn a profit.
And sentences like this are why Clay Travis' point is relevant.The problem is simply more nuanced than that, whether you like it or not.