yetAnotherUser

A separate but equal league? Sure sounds appealing to many to segregate trans people into their own categories.

May as well apply it to bathrooms as well while we're at it.

Women's routines tend to be more artistic and dance-like, sometimes telling a story, whereas a priority for men's routines is to display strength. (The women's score also includes a spot for artistry on the balance beam.)

liveabout.com

The men's and women's floor exercises are fundamentally similar, but the artistic performance aspect of the women's discipline is missing from the men's.

usatoday.com

Not only that, but women's floor routines tend to include dance moves (often to music) in order to showcase their artistry, while men's floor routines are typically about showcasing strength.

distractify.com

Men’s events typically emphasize upper body strength and powerful acrobatics, while women’s events highlight balance, grace, and artistic expression.

deveaus.com

I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, they are literally the first results on any search engine.

Isn't that common knowledge though?

Women's gymnastics: artistry > strength

Men's gymnastics: artistry < strength

Both still require a lot of artistry and strength respectively. They just have different priorities.

Also, thank you for ignoring 99% of my comment and nitpicking two lines. You argue like a politician.

The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.

That's true. In professional boxing there are 18 weight classes from 46.3 kg (103 lb) to 101.6 kg (224 lb) plus the unlimited weight class. Only very few adults are excluded as the vast majority weighs more than the lower bound.

But with sex-based roles? Two don't really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn't even be a need for per-sport subclasses.

Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We're talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn't there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?

Imagine if in the early 1900's it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn't somewhere.

Contemporary chess is an organized sport with structured international and national leagues, tournaments, and congresses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess

The only difference between chess and other sports is that one requires more physical prowess, the other more mental prowess.

Chess is an example of trans people being banned in sports for no reason other than them being trans.

Another example:

Trans women are now banned from US college gymnastics where they have zero competitive advantage as focus lies on artistic performance over strength.

Or another one:

UK Athletics bans trans women that have gone through male puberty at all levels of competition - be it local, regional or national. The NHS doesn't allow doctors to prescribe puberty blockers to children though.

Yes, it is about sports - but only in addition to being about representation. This is the key distinguishing factor between women's sports and male/open category sports.

If it were purely and solely about sports then women's sports as a category wouldn't exist. Female athletes would get similar funding and opportunities as male athletes, both in competitive and casual events.

Just take a look at chess: Why is there a women's league? Answer: Because there are significant systemic barriers against women in chess. Without their own leagues, there would be no representation in the top level at all due to men dominating the rankings. Having women's chess tournaments is about representing women in chess.

But trans women are banned from ranked women's chess events. And to put the cherry on top, trans men are stripped of all their titles after transitioning.

Cruelty is the point of these decisions. Not "supporting women".

Oh, and one more thing:

No agenda needed

Totally. Zero agenda, zero ideology, zero DEI and zero wokeness. Traditional conservative women's sports events just like we always had and how God intended. Not even a strand of feminism to be found here, nope.

There is zero biological argument because you cannot make two categories based on sex which encompass everyone.

Example 1:

A cis woman with a genetic mutation which incrases her testosterone levels into the range of cis men. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 2:

A cis woman with XY gonadal dysgenesis. She has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome is mutated and doesn't function as it should which causes a "female" phenotype. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 3:

A trans woman in the 95th percentile of men with regards to physical strength. She is in the 10th percentile of women after transitioning. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 4:

A trans woman with Klinefelter syndrome and XXY genes. She has naturally very low levels of testosterone and she doesn't require testosterone blockers after transitioning and taking estrogen. Even before transitioning she had less muscle mass, weaker bones and wider hips than the average man as a result of her low testosterone. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 5:

An African woman who would be in the 1st percentile of man if she were one, both in terms of physical attributes (size, muscle mass, heart size) and competitive results. Some "scientists" argue her race makes her less of a woman and more of a man. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

There is zero risk of these people "replacing" cis women by the way. Yes, their performance may be greater than that of comparable cis women without any genetical mutations beyond a certajn point.

Yet risk is calculated as [severity] * [likelihood]. And due to the low likelihood stemming from their very low prevalence in the general population, there is no reason to ban them.

Women's sports is about representation of women. Trans women are part of that group, cis women with genetic mutations are part of that group, racial minorities are part of that group. You cannot exclude some women and claim this group is "fair" and representative.

I'm still astonished how few people died in the Hindenburg's crash. 62 of the 97 occupants survived which is impressive for such a catastrophic failure.

True. EV fires are harmful to the environment.

wouldn't it be so funny if Musk died in a Cybertruck that drove into a private swimming pool and the doors locked on him :p :3

I know this is a meme, BUT

contract rights

Isn't that why unions are allowed to exist? Freedom of association and negotiation is the necessary foundation which I believe is inclided somewhere in the US constitution. And strikes - at least from what I've read - are part of what's granted through this freedom. After all, labor disputes are between two private parties (company + union) and limiting one of the parties violates their freedom of forming contracts. I might be wrong though, its been some time since I researched the legal foundations of strikes, at least in Germany.

t'was political calculus

Was it though? I don't see who benefitted but the rail companies. The workers only got some of what they would've striked for but not everything. Any political benefit usually vanishes a month after the headlines have moved on, so I don't think breaking up the strike has helped them win any "moderates" who would've voted Republican. And it might have alienated some workers from the Democrats, seeing them side with the companies instead of them.

systemic suppression

That's what this is about though. Biden is part of the system and has used it to systemically suppress unions by literally preventing one from striking. Why should he be praised for limiting his suppression slightly when he could have just... not suppressed unions? He certainly had the required votes in Congress to block any legislation preventing the railway strike.

Also, is your comment written with the help of AI? I can't quite put my finger on it but some your writing sounds like it could come straight from an LLM. You also used this symbol: — earlier which isn't on any standard keyboard layout I know - unless you have some autocorrect feature replacing short dashes with long one's.

Other countries’ systems aren’t directly comparable to the U.S., where federalism complicates labor law uniformity

Federalism is enshrined in the German constitution and does complicate a shitton of things too though. Labor and contract rights just happen to be there too but isn't the latter in the US constitution as well?

Rail strikes in the U.S. directly impact interstate commerce, which federal law prioritizes above all else.

But so would truck driver union strikes or port worker strikes. As far as my limited knowledge and quick research goes, the latter does strike somewhat frequently and the former doesn't exist as each company has their own small union, if any.

Federal law also prioritizes the economy in Germany. It's just that courts must rule whether the violation of labor rights can be justified with this argument - the government cannot unilaterally disband a strike. That's the point of separation of powers.

In the U.S., rail unions face systemic hurdles like the Railway Labor Act, designed to limit disruptions. Comparing outcomes without acknowledging these disparities oversimplifies the issue.

To some extent, yes. Biden and congress however were not forced by this act to act the way they did if I can read this law correctly. They could've easily permitted warning strikes or put significant pressure on the involved companies.

Even then, indefinite strikes rarely happen in Germany either. There are always several warning strikes beforehand which cause limited damage.

Finally, your sidetrack about a song and TV production is irrelevant to the discussion of labor rights.

I thought it was fun to bring up in this topic. The song is quite apt w.r.t. the impact and perception of rail strikes. The GDL is despised by rail companies, politicians, tabloids et al and usually portrayed as unreasonable monsters targeting poor commuters.

But that's the entire point of strikes. They must hurt, otherwise they are meaningless. Don't you think that had Biden not intervened, the workers would've gotten all their demands fulfilled - including paid sick leave (mandatory in countries with labor rights btw)?

The only thing I'm certain about is that if the German government had the same capability to end strikes willy-nilly, rail unions would be neutered until they exist on paper alone. Like they seem to in the US.

Other countries manage to allow for rail workers to strike though. Why should the US government and not a court of law be able to evaluate whether limiting strikes is an appropriate measure for protecting the economy?

Take German as example. There's this union:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewerkschaft_Deutscher_Lokomotivf%C3%BChrer

They are one of the only unions that is willing to actually fight in Germany and have achieved results exceeding those of significantly larger unions. Why shouldn't they be permitted to strike? Strikes in Germany can be blocked by labor courts if they cause too much economic damage by the way.

Also, as a sidenote:

Aren't you doing something right when you get an actually decent song praising you shown on - and created by - a publicly founded TV channel?

The song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2fVMSKfI7E English translation by me: https://pastebin.com/c3YXtpGN

Further context: The song was uploaded shortly before the 2023/2024 strikes were announced by the union. Claus Weselsky, the union leader since 2008, retired after the union got its demands fulfilled.