On no, my inexperienced friend, let me assure you, men are simply more physically, and as a result socially, capable of carrying out nefarious desires. — Outlander

That's a good point. But you think physicality is a big factor in the vast discrepancy between the numbers of men and women sexual predators? How does that work? Are women physically less able to chase down and/or overpower a little kid?

I said we should not trust men to be around kids as much as we trust women. — RogueAI

You didn't just say that. You also said:

Also, the fact that he's 50 makes me suspect he's perving on them. — RogueAI

I'm a teacher and I'm always a little suspicious of male teachers in elementary school settings (and the priesthood). I think the reasons are obvious. I would not let a man or teenage boy babysit my daughter. I am equally suspicious of gay and straight men. — RogueAI

Yes, I don't entirely trust men who choose to hang around with/educate kids. They should not be trusted as much as women.

On the flip side, a bunch of men deciding for women something that those women don't want seems unfair as well, in case those women DO want to allow trans to compete with them — flannel jesus

That's a good point, but as mentioned, people are very finicky and likely dishonest in such a culturally tense arena. I have two female friends who have abstained from opinions on a trans woman joining their Stand-up paddle boarding team (lmao) and have just quietly exited the team insteaed, to avoid 'offending' a clearly mentally unstable male from living out some twisted delusion (that's not derogatory - that's what it is. I have sympathy).

I suppose one of hte main things we can see is that it is clearly open for manipulation. Lia Thomas seems an absolutely prime and perfect example. From 400-something in male swimming to top 5 or 1 in female. Her detractors have suffered to the point of being physically assaulted and detained by fellow citizens. This case is another example of it being far beyond 'being kind' to allow this to happen. it is, in fact, infringing on the rights of children and women that we protect in every other avenue.

We also know, as the comments subsequent show, that males are far, far, far more likely to abuse children and women sexually and otherwise. Obviously, other males are more often the victim - but then we get odd statistics that seem to show trans women are more likely than non-trans males to abuse. In the UK, the population of trans women convicted of sex crimes represents a 0.16% portion of their overall population (in and out of prison) versus 0.4% for non-trans males. We can calibrate for the obvious distinction between abuse and arrest for, lets say prostitution. Call it 50%. That's extremely generous.

That's still a 2:1 ratio. It's a tricky subject for all of these reasons. I just find it way too hard to think its 'fair' that a male who is by their very nature highly, highly likely to have immutable attributes conferring disproportionate advantage in comparison to an over-developed female can in fact compete with females.

To some degree, yes, that's the case. This is why fathers tend to be disciplinarians. But, this is changing. It's, imo, a socialisation issue. Women are far less likely to be prepared to do this. Its not necessarily a difference of immutable capacity.

Yes, I don't entirely trust men who choose to hang around with/educate kids. They should not be trusted as much as women. — RogueAI

I think that's a little unfair. I very much enjoy spending time with children because I am a father and have learned to appreciate so much of what I see in children - though, i have the added psychology of missing a lot of that in my own childhood. As a made-up analogy, 1/1000 isn't a high-enough ratio to have my ears up to every male teacher - but compared with like 1/100000 for women, it seems to be a red flag. I just don't know that it is - kind of like the Satanic Panic.

Your apparent suggestion that transgender people have some nefarious motives for being transgender is straight up transphobia. — Michael

It's not in any way 'transphobic' (though, ill be honest - i don't take that term very seriously). I noted that a 50 year old male wanting to swim with, and change with, 16 year old girls (or younger, as the case often is) is concerning. Never mentioned transness. If you don't think so - I am unsure you're in a position to have this conversation. Your response to a concern which is live in every other situation in which this occurs, other than when 'trans' is claimed is basically 'bigot'. This indicates to me you are not being honest or reasonable. I have also outlined, fairly clearly, why its concerning, with no reference to the transness. Its the maleness. If you can't see the stark difference between those two concepts, we can just stop here. You've embodied a cliche determined by stupid people trying to impress other stupid people with their virtue.

If you are someone who blindly believes that a 'claimed identity' is more important than safety, historical knowledge and statistical consideration, we plum live in separate worlds. A man claiming to be a women is incoherent to me, and a seriously indication we have other things to discuss than their identity. Call it what you will - i just don't care.

if those things arent the case, I'd appreciate not having you misread my position and then charge me with some kind of bigotry. Because that indicates the above descriptions.

I like this thread because it went from asking whether a 50 year old transsexual MtF should swim with young women to whether men dressed as women as a ruse so they could get into young womens' locker room and catch a glimpse of their young nakedness.

As to the first question, a 50 year old person, born as a man, with all genetic coding consistent with being a male, is at a distinct advantage physically in that sort of competition.

Policy does not dictate science and science does not dictate policy.

By comparison, the fact that climate change might cause environmental change that cannot be changed without affecting the economy does not mean we can just deny the science away so that can maintain the status quo. The policy we want cannot change the science we have.

By the same token, science does not tell us that we can't let the environment change and it does not tell us how we ought to react. That is, the science can be as it is, but we can still decide to maintain the status quo, but we just have to decide that's the policy we wish to advance, taking into consideration all the pros and cons of what we want to acheive.

Moving back to the transsexual question:

That we want transsexual MtF women to be physically the same as CIS women doesn't make the science mean that they are. They aren't, so let's stop (just as the climate change deniers need to stop) pretending the science is different from what it is.

By the same token, science does not dictate policy. That is, just because MtF women are distinct in important ways when it comes to competing physically, science cannot demand policy. That is, if you want to say that MtF women get to compete with CIS women, you can, but just realize the impact of what that policy will be.

That is, if I'd rather maintain the economy as it is and let the tides rise, then that's my judgment call. If I want to let MtF transsexuals compete against CIS women and let the winners and losers be as they are, then that's my judgment call.

All of this is to say, admit what your goal is and stop trying to proclaim what science requires us to do. It requires nothing of us, but just informs us so we can decide what we want to do.

As to the second question, sure, in a world of billions of people there are no doubt a handful of nutjobs that would put on a dress to catch a glimpse of something otherwise off limits to them. But that's too uncommon an exception to build a policy around and is a ridiculous red herring that gets everyone running around.

My opinion is that MtF women should not compete with CIS women and that's my vote. It's my vote because I want to preserve CIS female sports so that CIS women can continue to win. Allowing in MtF women won't do that. If that doesn't bother you, vote the other way.

There is a small irony here, although if you didn't live through the eras you might not appreciate it: When I got into gymnastics in the 1950s it was primarily a men's sport. There may have been 200 men's teams in the NCAA, and just a few women's teams. Then, with adoption of Title IX, that changed. Nowadays there are perhaps 15 men's teams and around 80 women's teams.

And this is a sport where it is conceivable women could compete equally with men on some apparatuses, like the high bar, parallel bars, floor exercise, and side horse and vaulting horse. The still rings would not be feasible for women.

As things stand now, USA Gymnastics allows participation to all trans, non-binary, and CIS males and females in the category they identify. Except at the Elite and Olympic levels, where different, more stringent rules apply.

However, I have thought for years males vs females is perfectly reasonable provided grading policies are altered a little to diminish the value of pure upper body strength. That's the reason the still rings would not apply.

Then, with adoption of Title IX, that changed. Nowadays there are perhaps 15 men's teams and around 80 women's teams. — jgill

I'm not seeing any irony lol

And this is a sport where it is conceivable women could compete equally with men on some apparatuses, like the high bar, parallel bars, floor exercise, and side horse and vaulting horse. The still rings would not be feasible for women. — jgill

It is not particularly conceivable, imo, having done Gymnastics for some years and continue to do fairly high-level calisthenics. There is absolutely no comparison.

grading policies are altered a little to diminish the value of pure upper body strength. — jgill

Would that be one where there's a handicap for doing well? I ask as there is no possible way women are doing the same skills men are in on pommel horse, floor routines, high bar.

There is also the issue of team results. The fact a team has no born males shouldn't handicap them. But it will.

males vs females in physical sports would result in a top 500 of males and hten some females in the next couple hundred and parity only appearing through either misuse of hte word 'female' to denote trans women, or around the 1000 mark. This seems clear in almost every sport ever looked at. High school males destroy most world-level female athletes.

It is not particularly conceivable, imo, having done Gymnastics for some years and continue to do fairly high-level calisthenics. There is absolutely no comparison. — AmadeusD

I ask as there is no possible way women are doing the same skills men are in on pommel horse, floor routines, high bar — AmadeusD

Simon Biles on the uneven bars, or is she on two high bars? I say she could compete with men on the high bar.

At the U of Chicago in 1959 I worked out with the men's team and attended (watched) the Pan American Games at Navy Pier. I was astounded at the strength moves the Canadian female gymnast did on the balance beam.

My friend, never say never.

uneven bars, — jgill

Uneven bars - different set of skills imo, rather than just two high bars. Very different, imo. Though, I would personally assume females would clean up on UEB against males at least half the time. High bar, though? Requires far too much explosive power to be compared, imo.

I was astounded at the strength moves the Canadian female gymnast did on the balance beam. — jgill

Absolutely. I have never intended, and should not be taken as, in any way knocking elite female skills per se. But the average strength of an elite female gymnastic is just not on the same level of an elite male. They just aren't at all comparable pound-for-pound. My point has more to do with disparity than anything else. They are all incredible athletes.

Though, as you say - never say never. But, until the time its not obviously an extreme disadvantage to females, I'm going to probably be fairly hard-line on this i'd say.

High bar, though? Requires far too much explosive power to be compared, imo. — AmadeusD

My event was the 20' rope climb, which disappeared from competitive gymnastics in the USA during the 1960s. It had vanished from the Olympics during the 1930s. The record is 2.8 seconds (from seated on floor, pull hard - explosive power - generating momentum for the climb using arms only). Rope climbing is coming back now in various countries, but its 15' for women. I worked the rings - even the flying rings before it was deleted. No country for women. I would do 15 consecutive muscle-ups as practice for that explosive power (dynamics, which I eventually introduced to rock climbing).

I would do 15 consecutive muscle-ups as practice for that explosive power (dynamics, which I eventually introduced to rock climbing). — jgill

Very good call. I got my 'athletic start' with Rock Climbing. The explosive power there is absolutely immense (bouldering particularly). It has translated into Gymnastics, parkour and Jiu Jitsu very, very well and we essentially did rope climbs as warm ups for rock climbing when i was a kid :) Unsure of the length but my guess is 20' as it was a warehouse building.

tangentially, RC is now in the Olympics :) Very much hoping Adam Ondra doesn't drop the ball this time around.

Back on the topic, though, I just cannot see how its possibly fair to pit females who are at a considerable disadvantage, against males at a significant advantage, in any athletic sports beyond social/grassroots sports.

I would do 15 consecutive muscle-ups as practice for that explosive power (dynamics, which I eventually introduced to rock climbing) — jgill

My mistake. It was 10, not 15. Don't know why I wrote that down. 5 in chin-up mode(palms facing body).

I watched women come into their own in climbing over the years here in the USA. In the 1950s only a few here and there who got up to 5.8 and 5.9, top of the (Sierra Decimal System) scale back then. Then as Title IX changed gymnastics from mostly men to mostly women, the fairer sex began to appear on hard climbs. They have done very well since. But still a notch or two below the top men.

The explosive power there is absolutely immense (bouldering particularly). It has translated into Gymnastics

(ask your internet AI source, "Who brought dynamic movement into climbing?". Curious what you might get) :cool:

Prior to any further search, it would depend what you mean. 'Dynamic movement' is pretty vague and could be thought to be involved in the initiation of rock climbing up to 200,000 YA. But then, John Gill is fairly globally considered 'the pioneer' in the 50s.

If you mean the 'dyno', this originated most likely in California in the 70s where some of the newer boulders at the time required these dyno moves. In sport climbing, Patrick Edlinger is generally considered the originator of 'dynamic movement', though, through the 80s. DeepAI confirms this, for completeness ;)

Was there another inference you meant to ... infer?

Thanks. I was curious if AI varied from nation to nation or was international in scope.

I met John Long and John Bachar in the 1970s when they came to Colorado to visit me and explore the idea of dynamic movement on the rock. They were both in their early 20s I think. Long is probably the person who shortened dynamic move to dyno. He also created the Stonemasters, a Yosemite group of climbers. He went on to become a successful author of many articles and books, including the storyline for the movie Cliffhanger. Bachar became the foremost free soloer of his era - beautifully smooth to watch. He fell to his death some years back.

There are transsexual climbing groups now. Problems within the climbing community.

There are transsexual climbing groups now. Problems within the climbing community. — jgill

It is utterly insane to me that anyone takes seriously the concept of males crying victim because they're prevented from victimising females. I can't take it seriously. I just can't. Call me whatever you want. Its laughable that this is an issue.

Regarding men and women "competing" against each other, Lynn Hill succeeded in doing one of the world's greatest rock climbs when a number of men had tried and failed. Lynn had been a gymnast when younger, and moved from that sport to climbing. After her famous ascent of the Nose of El Cap in 1993 she and I talked over the phone and she said she was disappointed that she had taken a fall on the route. Perhaps at Changing Corners.

It took a while for a man to duplicate her feat.

Sure. That's not relevant though. It could have been purely a development in tactic, route-setting (int he sense of knowing other's attempts) or body type. It doesn't say anything about competition - particularly considering this is an outlier. As an example, Caldwell has freed the Nose twice in less than half the time it took Lynn.

I also note Angela Eiter as an exceptional contemporary female climber. Again, I am not knocking female climbers. But they are just plain and simple on different levels to males, and they know this. Female bouldering problems are notoriously easier than males in competition.

Female bouldering problems are notoriously easier than males in competition. — AmadeusD

A lot has changed in the climbing world over the years. In 1985 I was in England and was taken to one of the first climbing gyms, in Manchester, by Dennis Grey, I think. It was pretty barren. Now they are spectacular. And when I watched the Olympic Games I enjoyed the bouldering, both men and women, especially since parkour has been added. 65 years ago I thought bouldering had real prospects and would become popular, but not to the extent it has.

I admit, you are right about male vs female. But I still think high bar is a possibility. We'll see.