• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Times Poll: Large Majority of DEMOCRATS Oppose Transgenders in Women's Sports

AmyStrange said:
Actually, I'm also speculating, but I'm speculating with an open mind, unlike those who say she would be destroyed
Click to expand...
Because speculation that reaches any conclusion other than yours is obviously close minded. Even if it's more informed and based on more extensive knowledge.
AmyStrange said:
, even though I've shown proof that it's quite possible that she could at least be mediocre in the NBA.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't shown proof of that. You've made comparisons which aren't that relevant, and left out critical information.

For example, the height thing. Yeah, there are some (relatively) short NBA players, some even shorter than Clarke. But you know what all of those short players have, often even more than the tall players? Incredible athleticism. If you're under 6' in the NBA, then you've probably got something like a 36" vertical leap or more.

Does Clarke have a 36" vertical leap? Not a god damn chance in hell. No woman does. She might not even have a 24" leap (which is on the high end for women). And she has never dunked a ball in her NCAA career. Why does this matter? Because vertical leap is a measure of neuromuscular efficiency, which in turn determines how explosive a player is, how fast they can accelerate. And men have higher neuromuscular efficiency than women. Yeah, the curve overlaps, and she might be above the male average. But professional athletics doesn't select for the average, it selects for the outliers. Which is why so many NBA players are freakishly tall. And the ones who aren't freakishly tall are freakishly explosive to compensate for their stature.

Clarke is short for an NBA player, AND she doesn't have the explosive athleticism of the short men, because no woman does. Them's the facts. Open your mind and start considering them.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because speculation that reaches any conclusion other than yours is obviously close minded. Even if it's more informed and based on more extensive knowledge.

No, you haven't shown proof of that. You've made comparisons which aren't that relevant, and left out critical information.

For example, the height thing. Yeah, there are some (relatively) short NBA players, some even shorter than Clarke. But you know what all of those short players have, often even more than the tall players? Incredible athleticism. If you're under 6' in the NBA, then you've probably got something like a 36" vertical leap or more.

Does Clarke have a 36" vertical leap? Not a god damn chance in hell. No woman does. She might not even have a 24" leap (which is on the high end for women). And she has never dunked a ball in her NCAA career. Why does this matter? Because vertical leap is a measure of neuromuscular efficiency, which in turn determines how explosive a player is, how fast they can accelerate. And men have higher neuromuscular efficiency than women. Yeah, the curve overlaps, and she might be above the male average. But professional athletics doesn't select for the average, it selects for the outliers. Which is why so many NBA players are freakishly tall. And the ones who aren't freakishly tall are freakishly explosive to compensate for their stature.

Clarke is short for an NBA player, AND she doesn't have the explosive athleticism of the short men, because no woman does. Them's the facts. Open your mind and start considering them.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have.

You're just using speculation as if it were a fact, but go ahead, squirm all you want.

I love it.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Yes, I have.

You're just using speculation as if it were a fact, but go ahead, squirm all you want.

I love it.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I'm not replying to any more Caitlin Clark comments, because even though some msn and fox forum idiots think she's trans just because she's so damn good, I don't think this subject really is on topic.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
I'm sorry, but I'm not replying to any more Caitlin Clark comments, because even though some msn and fox forum idiots think she's trans just because she's so damn good, this subject really isn't on topic.


-
Click to expand...
AFAIK, you're the one who keeps bringing her up. I don't think anyone here is interested, thinks she's trans, or thinks she's remotely relevant to the transwomen in women sports discussion.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
I'm sorry, but I'm not replying to any more Caitlin Clark comments, because even though some msn and fox forum idiots think she's trans just because she's so damn good, I don't think this subject really is on topic.


-
Click to expand...
Excellent. Let's get back to the topic.

Do you think transwomen should have a legal entitlement to compete in women's sports organizations?
 
Ron Obvious said:
AFAIK, you're the one who keeps bringing her up. I don't anyone here is interested, thinks she's trans, or is thinks she's remotely relevant to the transwomen in women sports discussion.
Click to expand...


I'd agree, if folks didn't keep replying to my post trying to prove (with their own speculation on) how mine is wrong.

It's why this will be my last reply, because all of this (IMO) is off topic.


-
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Excellent. Let's get back to the topic.

Do you think transwomen should have a legal entitlement to compete in women's sports organizations?
Click to expand...

Already asked and answered.

I think it should be left up to the leagues and teams to decide, not lawmakers.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Yes, I have.

You're just using speculation as if it were a fact, but go ahead, squirm all you want.

I love it.
Click to expand...
The athletic difference between men and women isn't speculation, it's fact. The importance of athletic ability to basketball isn't speculation, it's fact.

And it's why fans don't want males competing against females. It's why female athletes don't want to compete against males. The people who want it are ideologues who don't actually have skin in the game. And yeah, private organizations should have the right to choose for themselves, even if their choice is the suicide of their sport. But public schools aren't private organizations. State universities aren't private organizations. The Olympics is functionally not a private organization. And I would argue that even nominally private sports leagues which have been exempted from anti-trust laws shouldn't be treated like private organizations. And lastly, the trans activists don't want private organizations to have a choice, because then they might choose wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
The athletic difference between men and women isn't speculation, it's fact.
Click to expand...


If Clark was in the NBA and got destroyed, then THAT would be a fact, but until then, it's pure speculation.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
If Clark was in the NBA and got destroyed, then THAT would be a fact, but until then, it's pure speculation.
Click to expand...
If I was in the NBA and I got destroyed, then THAT would be a fact, but until then, it's pure speculation.

Except that's a stupid name for extrapolation from reliable data.
 
Ziggurat said:
Except that's a stupid name for extrapolation from reliable data.
Click to expand...


You can give it any stupid name you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that's it's still pure speculation.


ETA: Maybe you should use another stupid word.

extrapolation: The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable

-
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
You gave it a stupid name, not me.
Click to expand...

Using the stupid name "extrapolation" is what proves you wrong, and me right:

extrapolation: The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue, or a current method will remain applicable


-
 
Matthew Best said:
This back and forth is all very entertaining, but let's face it - we all know that Clark would not fare well in the NBA. Let's not pretend, right?
Click to expand...


I agree, and chances are (like Emily's Cat stated) she might end up just being mediocre, but that's a far cry from being "destroyed" or not making it at all.

I also speculate that her three-point skills might make her better than just plain mediocre.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
I agree, and chances are (like Emily's Cat stated) she might end up only being mediocre, but that's a far cry from being "destroyed" or not making at all.

I also speculate that her three-point skills might make her better than just plain mediocre.


-
Click to expand...

She's not at all likely to even rise to the level of mediocrity.
 
theprestige said:
I dunno. She might be competitive in a shootout, without having to fight through an opposing team of NBA players.
Click to expand...


Muggsy Bogues was only 5-3 (136 pounds) and was in the NBA for fourteen seasons (1987–2001) and even won an award, so I don't see why she couldn't make it either.

Plus, he was a point guard just like she is right now.


-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom