This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: High school volleyball player injured in game against Trans player and people...  (Read 5175 times)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
While there are people who are claiming that having six inches of height and fifteen kilos of muscle over the other players doesn't give the MtFs an advantage in sports, jhkim hasn't made that claim in this thread.  He's stated that a boy playing against girls in volleyball isn't inherently dangerous for the girls.  Which, with the disclaimer that I don't care enough to actually dig for injury statistics in high school volleyball, sounds like a fair enough claim to make.  It's hardly a full-contact sport.

If jhkim had claimed that a dude had zero advantage in reach or strength over girls despite living 80% of his life awash in testosterone and it was perfectly fair and heckin' valid uwu, then I would call bullshit.    But that's a very different claim from saying that he's probably not a danger to the other players.

Thanks, Valatar.

To clarify a bit -- I do think there is a danger of concussion and other injury. But lots of high school sports have significant danger of injury regardless of sex. Among high school girls' sports, soccer has the highest concussion rate. Girl's volleyball has a significant concussion rate, around one-third that of boys' football and half that of girl's soccer. Even cheerleading has a significant concussion rate, unsurprising given the acrobatic flips they often do.

cf. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/144/5/e20192180/38225/Concussion-Incidence-and-Trends-in-20-High-School

Still, girls soccer and coed volleyball are generally considered within the acceptable levels of risk, and under standard tournament rules coed games allow exactly the play seen in the original post, with a male player spiking the ball towards a female player.

  This is not exactly true, as it depends on the net height, if a women's height net Men are NOT ALLOWED TO SPIKE IN THE FRONT COURT AT ALL.  They may hit (overhand) but they can not spike.  I am going to assume you do not understand the differences so you are just thinking they are the same situation.  They are not close, with a 7 inch difference in height (which if it is men's height a man can spike in the front court, and given the non competitive athletes in the front court, this is much less an issue at the greater height)

  So in short your entire argument is complete bullshit since this was clearly a case of a dude spiking in the front court on a female height net.  Something illegal in the coed play you keep attempting to invoke as some sort of rationalization that this was OK. 

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Are you degenerates completely missing the fact that the average youth volleyball teams frequently suffer injuries on this scope or worse on a weekly basis, or have you simply chosen to continue ignoring anything that goes doesn't confirm your bias?

Physical sports, esp when played by amateurs coached by volunteer teachers who barely have time to exercise in their free time let alone know more than the cliff notes passed down through the years by OTHER volunteer coaches, are ALWAYS going to involve injuries. I come from a rather sporty family and there is rarely a time when one of my seven nephews/nieces ISN'T injured due to participation in their respective gender-segregated sport of choice.

What a bunch of clowns you all are.

  You are an outright liar.  I am way, way, way more familiar with youth volleyball than I want to be, and injuries are EXTREMELY uncommon to a team, like 1 per season and almost always something pretty minor like an ankle sprain.  If your "sporty" family is so laden by injuries that is Darwin trying to tell you and your family something.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10466
Still, girls soccer and coed volleyball are generally considered within the acceptable levels of risk, and under standard tournament rules coed games allow exactly the play seen in the original post, with a male player spiking the ball towards a female player.

  This is not exactly true, as it depends on the net height, if a women's height net Men are NOT ALLOWED TO SPIKE IN THE FRONT COURT AT ALL.  They may hit (overhand) but they can not spike.  I am going to assume you do not understand the differences so you are just thinking they are the same situation.
  So in short your entire argument is complete bullshit since this was clearly a case of a dude spiking in the front court on a female height net.  Something illegal in the coed play you keep attempting to invoke as some sort of rationalization that this was OK.

I specifically mentioned "reverse coed" as a variant back in my Reply #17, so yes, I do understand this and I already mentioned it. However, the standard tournament rules use a men's height net and men are allowed to spike. It is called "reverse" because it is not the usual case, according to the national association "Volleyball USA".

So, yes, the net height is a difference between a standard coed game and a standard girls game. The girl's game will have the net set 7 inches lower.

I accept that it isn't an exact parallel, then, and I can't say exactly the effect that it would have.

Given this, if a school changed it so that all volleyball games (boys/girls/coed) had the net set at the same height as standard coed, do you think that girls games would then be safe enough regardless of transgender participation?

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
Case 2) is obviously more dangerous to girl players because there is a 100% chance the person at the other end of the spike is a girl. In case 1), that chance is less than 100% and probably 50% depending on the required male/female makeup of the teams.

So yeah, it’s twice as dangerous to girl players.

First of all, thanks. That's a sensible argument that comes towards what I wrote. You're assuming only one transgender player among both girls teams, which seems reasonable. That said,

1) Since they have boys on both sides, the coed games will have boy-delivered spikes at at least twice the rate as the girl games have transgender-delivered spikes. So that at least doubles the overall danger in coed games.

2) You assume that volleyball spikes are aimed at random, whereas in my experience, a spiker will try to hit it towards whoever is the least-capable player on the other team. Given that we're saying girl players are weaker, that means that it will be more than the 50% you assume.


Because the expectation in a GIRL'S game is that they will be playing other GIRLS.

How does that expectation change the danger? If the girls team knows in advance, will that change things?
I dunno. We can slice and dice the stats for days, but it comes down to more male bodies on one team. This means more power and more risk of injury for the other team. Co-ed rules require a minimum number of women per team and if one of those "women" has a male body, then they are gaming the rules.

Edit:

Recalling this is a comparative analysis, the extra strength provided by the extra male body is going to have a larger effect in the women-only game. It's simple ratios. With two teams each having a smaller overall strength (i.e., women's teams), an increase in one player's strength will have a greater effect than with two teams that each have a larger overall strength (i.e., co-ed teams).
« Last Edit: November 01, 2022, 11:22:22 AM by rytrasmi »
Hit me up if you're in the Toronto area and you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10466
Because the expectation in a GIRL'S game is that they will be playing other GIRLS.
How does that expectation change the danger? If the girls team knows in advance, will that change things?

I dunno. We can slice and dice the stats for days, but it comes down to more male bodies on one team. This means more power and more risk of injury for the other team. Co-ed rules require a minimum number of women per team and if one of those "women" has a male body, then they are gaming the rules.

So if more male bodies is more risk of injury, then coed games with roughly 50% male players are clearly more dangerous than girls games with a single transgender player.

Isn't that the conclusion from your logic here?

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
Because the expectation in a GIRL'S game is that they will be playing other GIRLS.
How does that expectation change the danger? If the girls team knows in advance, will that change things?

I dunno. We can slice and dice the stats for days, but it comes down to more male bodies on one team. This means more power and more risk of injury for the other team. Co-ed rules require a minimum number of women per team and if one of those "women" has a male body, then they are gaming the rules.

So if more male bodies is more risk of injury, then coed games with roughly 50% male players are clearly more dangerous than girls games with a single transgender player.

Isn't that the conclusion from your logic here?
I added this above as well:

Recalling this is a comparative analysis, the extra strength provided by the extra male body is going to have a larger effect in the women-only game. It's simple ratios. With two teams each having a smaller overall strength (i.e., women's teams), an increase in one player's strength will have a greater effect than with two teams that each have a larger overall strength (i.e., co-ed teams).

Sure, let’s say for sake of argument that co-ed is more dangerous than women's games. That’s beside the point. The point is the relative increase in danger, as well as advantage in play, with a male-bodied trans player. A single increase in a smaller pool of strength will have a greater effect than the same increase in a larger pool of strength.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2022, 03:03:25 PM by rytrasmi »
Hit me up if you're in the Toronto area and you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Still, girls soccer and coed volleyball are generally considered within the acceptable levels of risk, and under standard tournament rules coed games allow exactly the play seen in the original post, with a male player spiking the ball towards a female player.

  This is not exactly true, as it depends on the net height, if a women's height net Men are NOT ALLOWED TO SPIKE IN THE FRONT COURT AT ALL.  They may hit (overhand) but they can not spike.  I am going to assume you do not understand the differences so you are just thinking they are the same situation.
  So in short your entire argument is complete bullshit since this was clearly a case of a dude spiking in the front court on a female height net.  Something illegal in the coed play you keep attempting to invoke as some sort of rationalization that this was OK.

I specifically mentioned "reverse coed" as a variant back in my Reply #17, so yes, I do understand this and I already mentioned it. However, the standard tournament rules use a men's height net and men are allowed to spike. It is called "reverse" because it is not the usual case, according to the national association "Volleyball USA".

So, yes, the net height is a difference between a standard coed game and a standard girls game. The girl's game will have the net set 7 inches lower.

I accept that it isn't an exact parallel, then, and I can't say exactly the effect that it would have.

Given this, if a school changed it so that all volleyball games (boys/girls/coed) had the net set at the same height as standard coed, do you think that girls games would then be safe enough regardless of transgender participation?

  So your solution is to make girls play on a men's height net so that the transgenders do not have a good a chance at hurting them?   Men are allowed to spike on the higher net for a couple reasons in those exception games....a man gets A LOT higher over a girls net than a man's net, and the reality is the girls in those games do not usually play the front row because of this.  You are still dodging the issue, it is MORE DANGEROUS FOR MEN TO PLAY AGAINST WOMEN IN A WOMEN"S GAME PERIOD. 

   I suppose if you just make it a men's net of course trannies won't be able to spike on the girls the same way.  Of course this will also mean a lot less spikes from the women period.  I am sure the female players would LOVE this massive change to their sport....instead of just using common sense and have ONLY FEMALES in a girls game.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
  But I will sum up my first answer to safety again here, since you missed it before.  No transgenders playing girl's sports.  Period.  No problems now.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10466
  But I will sum up my first answer to safety again here, since you missed it before.  No transgenders playing girl's sports.  Period.  No problems now.

Do you really consider it "no problems" that there are over 300,000 concussions every year in girls sports?

Coming into this conversation, I knew roughly about the dangers of concussion from boys football. I had to look up the stats for girls sports, though, and I was surprised that girls soccer had a concussion rate almost as high (75%), and that girls volleyball was nearly a third as high. Seeing those stats makes me think that there is a problem that has nothing to do with transgender players. Roughly half of all the 2.5 million concussions per year among high school students are from sports. I don't have definite solutions, but it seems to me that this is a problem throughout school sports.

It seems unfeeling to dismiss out of hand the 300,000 concussions every year from girls sports (and many more in boys sports) - but to be seething with outrage over a single concussion if it involves a transgender player.

cf. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6724a3.htm

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  But I will sum up my first answer to safety again here, since you missed it before.  No transgenders playing girl's sports.  Period.  No problems now.

Do you really consider it "no problems" that there are over 300,000 concussions every year in girls sports?

Coming into this conversation, I knew roughly about the dangers of concussion from boys football. I had to look up the stats for girls sports, though, and I was surprised that girls soccer had a concussion rate almost as high (75%), and that girls volleyball was nearly a third as high. Seeing those stats makes me think that there is a problem that has nothing to do with transgender players. Roughly half of all the 2.5 million concussions per year among high school students are from sports. I don't have definite solutions, but it seems to me that this is a problem throughout school sports.

It seems unfeeling to dismiss out of hand the 300,000 concussions every year from girls sports (and many more in boys sports) - but to be seething with outrage over a single concussion if it involves a transgender player.

cf. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6724a3.htm

Ok, folks, this is what is known as "deflection."  Once he has run out of objections to the "boys shouldn't be in girls sports" part of the argument, he now changes direction and accuses opponents of being "unfeeling" (a mortal insult to lefties, because so much of their bullshit is based on emotion, not logic) because they want to focus on one source of concussions, as opposed to the gross number of them.  Of course, anyone with a brain knows that, if concussions are a problem, the last thing you want to do is introduce another source of them (like... uhhh... letting boys play against the girls).  But he hopes to gloss over that with generalized ad hominems about heartlessness, and thereby deflect from the fact that he changed arguments.  A master class in deceptive argument, really...

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3698
His responses remind me of a series of responses seen from a leftist elsewhere:

Quote
#1 The “I can’t hear you” response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.

#2 The “What’s the point” response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won’t be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.

#3 The “I’m not alone” response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.

#4 The “How ’bout that anthrax, eh?” response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the “Hey, look! A pony!” response.

#5 The “I’m drowning in stupidity” response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, “I answered your question.”

#6 The “How ’bout a little fire, Scarecrow?” response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.

#7 The “Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ camera?” response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he’s already jumped to.

#8 The “Humpty Dumpty” response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the “We don’t need no stinking dictionary!” response.

#9 The “Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!” response. He simply asserts that the other side is what he doesn’t like his side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.

#10 The “Brave Sir Robin” response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn’t see the monsters.

#11 The “You’re Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With” response. Found for the first time in this thread from December ’09

#12 The “I’m a deliberate fuckwit!” response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent’s argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent’s argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.
(hat tip, Kevin Baker at Smallest Minority)

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
We can care about concussions and women’s sport.

Besides, the danger aspect is a red herring. The real issue here is sportsmanship. It takes a startling lack of self-awareness and empathy to turn a women’s game into your own personal gender affirming therapy session. Or maybe this person just wants to cheat. Either way it’s a shitty thing to do.
Hit me up if you're in the Toronto area and you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10466
We can care about concussions and women’s sport.

Besides, the danger aspect is a red herring. The real issue here is sportsmanship.

If volleyball player injury is an irrelevant red herring -- that dismisses the title and original post of this thread. Danger isn't something I introduced. It was the point of the original post.

It takes a startling lack of self-awareness and empathy to turn a women’s game into your own personal gender affirming therapy session. Or maybe this person just wants to cheat. Either way it’s a shitty thing to do.

I don't have a general answer here, but I think this depends on context. For example, my late friend Heather was very into her women's soccer league. Perhaps unsurprisingly for being in the Bay Area, the league was very LGBT-positive, and were welcoming of transgender players. Given the league's attitude, I don't think it is shitty cheating - it is people playing together who enjoy soccer.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10466
But he hopes to gloss over that with generalized ad hominems about heartlessness, and thereby deflect from the fact that he changed arguments.  A master class in deceptive argument, really...

That's hilarious. Seriously, Eirikrautha?!? You're going to lecture me about ad hominems?

As far as supposedly changing arguments, I would repost again from my Reply #1:

Quote
Sadly, brain injury happens a lot in kids sports - both among boys and girls. I don't see statistics for severe traumatic brain injury in high school girl's volleyball specifically. However, there was a study of concussion events in the smaller sample of NCAA sports. There, girl's volleyball is apparently second only to boy's football in concussion events
...
Quote
All of this is to say, that one case doesn't show that it is anything more than the same sort of accident that happens too often among all same-sex, non-transgender students. It happens regardless of transgender participation.

I'm not advocating any particular approach to transgender students in sports, just that focusing on this one case ignores the context of such injury.


rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
It takes a startling lack of self-awareness and empathy to turn a women’s game into your own personal gender affirming therapy session. Or maybe this person just wants to cheat. Either way it’s a shitty thing to do.

I don't have a general answer here, but I think this depends on context. For example, my late friend Heather was very into her women's soccer league. Perhaps unsurprisingly for being in the Bay Area, the league was very LGBT-positive, and were welcoming of transgender players. Given the league's attitude, I don't think it is shitty cheating - it is people playing together who enjoy soccer.
Was it a competitive league? Did they actually have trans players or were they just welcoming?

It’s great that people are different and tolerant of others. However, this does not mean we have to be endlessly accommodating.

There is some limit to the number of trans players before a women’s team is no longer a women’s team. I think even you’d agree that a team with 100% trans players is not a women’s team, it’s something else. What’s your limit? One? Two?
Hit me up if you're in the Toronto area and you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!