> This is a matter of principle, fair play, and safety. Whether it's a tiny number or "scores and scores" is irrelevant.

What if it's 0?

> If you're looking for specific incidents then start with this site.

A deeply unbiased source, I'm sure.

Anyway I'd love to but all their archive links are the same. Looks like someone wrote a for loop incorrectly. But to be blunt, this is the exact same sort of nonsense as VAERS and deserves exactly the same dismissal: Compiled data assembled from the public with no verification, by people with no credentials, with a clear axe to grind.

Edit: Also, a SHIT LOAD of these are for second/third/whatever place, not even for wins. If reality backed the assertions made, transwomen should be DESTROYING women in sports.

There actually does have to be a lot of them, frankly, because otherwise it is just a nothingburger. Just a burger with a whole lot of nothing.

▲

youarentrightjr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry part of my reply got cut off.

> What if it's 0?

It's not 0, and anyone engaging honestly knows it.

To make another vaccine analogy: claiming it's a small number and therefore it doesn't matter is identical to the people who said Covid vaccines weren't important because the disease didn't wipe out more than x% of the population.

In fact, it's because of the vaccines that this is the case.

And it's because of resistance to men in women's sports that the problem is not larger.

▲

ToucanLoucan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Cmon guy, you can't ask for a source and then dismiss the one provided without critically examining it.

I did examine it. From the outset it looks like self-reported nonsense, hence the comparison to VAERS. Examining further, yes, it's self-reported nonsense, and also it's broken so I can't even really look into it in detail. The one example that is highlighted with sourcing is about a transwoman golfer who won ONE event. One. Looking through her win/loss record, she seems broadly pretty good, but hardly what one would expect if the narrative being pushed here is true.

> You're complaining that it's using publicly available data? Would you rather private anecdotes?

It's literally private anecdotes! Anyone can submit to that thing, the form is one click away from the homepage.

> Not sure why this is relevant - is being cheated out of second place less of a misdeed than being cheated out of first?

Of course not, but again, the narrative is that men are posing as women and competing in an unfair way based on genetic advantage. That's not a "win here and there" situation the way it's framed, that's a "women have no way to fairly compete." So why are so many transwomen still being beated by ciswomen competitors?

> It's not 0, and anyone engaging honestly knows it.

Then let's see a source! I asked for one two comments ago. Even the one on that shithoused website I can actually check the sources FOR is at best, speculative. What exactly in the male genome predisposes one in the context of GOLF for earth shattering victory?

> To make another vaccine analogy: claiming it's a small number and therefore it doesn't matter

I didn't claim it's a small number, I've claimed it's made up.

> is identical to the people who said Covid vaccines weren't important because the disease didn't wipe out more than x% of the population.

> And it's because of resistance to men in women's sports that the problem is not larger.

There are no men in women's sports, there are women in women's sports, and until you show me the source you're, respectfully, talking nonsense.

▲

youarentrightjr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> the narrative is that men are posing as women and competing in an unfair way based on genetic advantage. That's not a "win here and there" situation the way it's framed, that's a "women have no way to fairly compete." So why are so many transwomen still being beated by ciswomen competitors?

Respectfully, you aren't ready to engage in legitimate discussion on this topic. Good faith would be steelmanning the other side, not continually referring to "the narrative" and then "defeating" it.

> There are no men in women's sports, there are women in women's sports, and until you show me the source you're, respectfully, talking nonsense.

Your consistent euphemization around this topic is another clue that you're really not engaging honestly. You should consider what you're looking to get out of this discussion.

A simple Google search will find you dozens of examples of XY individuals competing in spaces meant for XX individuals, at all levels of competition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard

I'm not here to spoon feed you this 101 level info. Again, my advice would be to consider why you're engaging here - is it with an open and curious mind, keen on learning; or a zealous propagandist spirit?

	▲	ToucanLoucan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

youarentrightjr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cmon guy, you can't ask for a source and then dismiss the one provided without critically examining it.

You're complaining that it's using publicly available data? Would you rather private anecdotes?

> Also, a SHIT LOAD of these are for second/third/whatever place, not even for wins.

Not sure why this is relevant - is being cheated out of second place less of a misdeed than being cheated out of first?