Jump to content

YellowYawner

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    41

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YellowYawner

  1. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

    I know KC seemed get upset with my blue-sky thoughts (surprised it gained as much traction as it did) but really I'm just trying to point out the fundamental flaws with all these genetic definitions. Where do we start, where do we stop? We must ban the Kenyans from long distance as they seem to have a genetic advantage and so on.  It's a cess pit best avoided.

    Some individual athletics sports are now their own worst enemies with the ends seemingly to justify the means. Sport surely should be fun and for all.

    There was also 'Paris' by the way etc.

    I understand what you are getting at. But surely you can see that the female / male difference is a pretty necessary separation. Female sport would barely exist without it.

    You could look at tennis and divide them up into categories based on serve power to try to get a competition based on technical ability. But you wouldn't - it would be rubbish and that extra power is very much a valid part of the game. there are so many things you could create categories for (power, endurance) it becomes stupid - but gender isn't one of them.

    Categorisation is needed in other sports though, think about most combat sports. If you didn't have weight categories just about every male competing would need to about 6 foot 4 minimum!

  2. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

    My thoughts on female endurance or stamina being greater than men came from medical conversations in the 1980s but it appears at a very quick glance there are many articles on exactly this subject  - women winning ultra endurance races vs men in 2017 to 2019 etc.. FT, Independent, BBC. So not baseless. Its an open academic discussion.

    Yes. Fiona Kolbringer won the 2019 Transcontinental.

    But that doesn't prove any gender is better, especially as all the previous 6 were won by males (with faster times) Although yes, the gap does close at the ultra endurance level.

    But the companies you mention do get carried away and push their luck with the attention grabbing headlines

  3. Posted

    8 minutes ago, king canary said:

    The thing is though, the affect won't be the same on mens and womens sports- very few transmen are going to suddenly have more chances by their change of gender ID. Take the example of CeCe Telfer who went from 390th ranked mens hurdler in the US college circuit to the NCAA champion when she started running in the womens competitions. This isn't going to happen in reverse- there is no sport in the world where an average woman can suddenly become world class in the male field. So unfortunatley the question remains exclusive to women's sports.

    I think this is partly what pisses so many women off- well meaning men happy to write off women's sports in the name of 'progress' when they don't actually have to face the consequences, with a nice side dish of being dismissed as a bigot if you complain.

    Careful. I've not written anything off and repeated the fact that I don't have the answer - nor do I think there is one. We also don't have to face the consequences of the difficulties transgender people face. 

    I think it will be seen as women winning womens sport. Rightly or wrongly the constant referrals to them as 'transmen' and 'transwoman' will fade.

  4. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

     

    That said women do have more stamina - thats to do with the demands of pregnancy and childbirth. They should eventually make better long distance runners. The 100m is explosive strength not stamina.

     

    I think you are confusing the fact that the gap between the genders closes as the distance increases. It doesn't disappear. Where are you getting this information?

    I think there was a time in the 70s when they believed woman would outcompete men in ultra endurance events due to the rate of improvement they were seeing in the times. But what was actually happening was the level of training was improving as well as accessibility getting more women with higher potential involved. Eventually diminishing returns set in and the gap didn't close

  5. Posted

    5 minutes ago, king canary said:

    The problem is the question asked isn't 'are some things bigger than sports?' It's 'are some things bigger than women's sports?'

    Fundamentally my view is their will always be things people can't do. If you're a trans person then I think we need to make society as open and accepting as possible but you likely need to accept that there will still be things you cant do, and compete at elite levels in sports as a woman is one of them. Otherwise you could potentially destroy women's sports.

    At a lower level I think you need to likely add an 'all gender' option for people to opt in to but it is hugely unfair to just expect women to allow people with a potentially dramatic advantages in size, strength and power to play with you for fear of being dubbed a bigot. Rugby is great example- I believe women who want to play Rugby but don't want to hugely increase their chance of injury by being tackled by someone who went through male puberty and has all the advantages that provides should be able to do so and those who are happy to take that risk can do so separately.

    You're correct it is a hugely difficult issue though.  

    My answer to the question was leaning to "yes' so it's going to be the same answer to male or female sports specifically.

    I guess I think where we are going is the fact that people are not going to be referred to as a "trans person" but rather their chosen gender. So it won't be seen as a trans woman setting the new 100m record - It will be seen as a woman. Many won't like that for many reasons, but thats where I see this going. The points you put out in your rugby example are the valid criticisms and part of why this is so complicated. Ultimately I think women's sport in the future won't be destroyed but will have many participants who were born male, or as they would genuinely feel and have lived with until transition "in the wrong body" To be clear though I don't actually know what the 'right' answer is. I just think this is where it's heading, changing attitudes in society will eclipse anything else now. You've only got to look at how JK Rowling was shut down. It will happen in sport I feel.

    On a separate note I do think that the forced lowering of testosterone is going to be looked on poorly by future attitudes. Not to mention the fact that it was even put to someone who is actually female.

    3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

     

    I agree its radical but it's just a truth. I beleive the best fighter pilots on a modern jet should be small women (better at Hi G). 

     

    Ok this is completely unrelated but I think to take one factor isn't the best idea. Are reaction times or spacial awareness not relevant in a fighter jet? (men do better.) Theres probably hundreds of other factors you might want to consider too. The end result is that you won't be picking your pilots based on their gender. Although I do imagine fighter jet pilots will soon be a thing of the past anyways.

    Also what if we were to say the average reaction time of 10 men was 0.5 seconds and of 10 woman was 0.7 would you take a team of exclusively men? It would ignore the fact that there could be huge individual differences and that it might well be someone from the woman's group who posted the fastest time. No reason to deny her because Karen on the back took all of 8 seconds.

     

     

  6. Posted · Edited by YellowYawner

    31 minutes ago, king canary said:

     

    However this does not change your biological sex and sometimes sex has to trump gender- sports being a fairly clear example in my opinion. The Biden EO basically means college and high school sports can't discriminate on the lines of gender ID so from a practical standpoint a male bodied person could identify as a woman and then be allowed to compete in women's sports which is extremely unfair in my view.

     

    I fear this is a question that will never get a satisfactory answer.

    I don't think there can be any denial that in most sports theres going to be an advantage, but are some things bigger than sports?

    from the guardian

    “Running has been so important for my identity, my growth as a person, and my ability to survive in a world that discriminates against me,” Andraya Yearwood wrote to the court. “I am thankful that I live in Connecticut where I can be treated as a girl in all aspects of life and not face discrimination at school.”"

    So for me when you consider the hardship people go through, the massively increased rate of suicide attempts, it's just hard to look at sport and say "Ok you're a girl, but not when it comes to this"

    As I say I don't know what a good resolution would look like. I think i've landed on the belief that it's probably heading in the right direction. Most sport's aren't won purely on technique or ability, genetics and power have always played a key role. I don't know what regulations will have to be in place - not for a minute do I believe someone should be able to declare themselves female then rock up at the olympics a few months later. But if we are accepting there are people who were born in the wrong body then for me we have to accept that some of those would have been athletes, yet its complicated by the fact that an athletics career will open up to a greater proportion of them than otherwise would have.  It's not fair but then I guess life isn't - when I weigh up that up against the suffering the LGBT community goes through it's probably the better result.

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, horsefly said:

    Haha! clearly BS, anyway she's my girlfriend!!!! (and so is her twin sister)

    I’m a little worried that Swindon may genuinely have believed that person was his girlfriend.

    ....because I think there’s a fair chance he was romance scammed. 

  8. Posted

    4 minutes ago, king canary said:

    Sure but they may also form the basis of a strong championship squad so it isnt just money wasted. 

    At £89 million id hope for a little more than “may”....

    Oh no wait. I don’t hope that at all.

    on a serious note I do think Sheffield United were rightly applauded for their efforts last season, both on and off the pitch. But it just goes to show how quickly things can change in football. 

  10. Posted

    15 hours ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

    Don't have a problem with them, was commenting on why anyone would find watching anyone watching a match interesting.

    Each to their own I guess 

    That’s a fair question but you could say that about a lot of things.

    Why do people play video games? Why do people enjoy watching people play video games?

    Why do people play sport / watch people play sport / comment on forums about people playing sport / look on jealously at those trying to make something of themselves on social media etc.

    Not saying that last point applies to you but considering many have been without live football for such a long time and may not have seen friends or family in that time. Spending a couple of hours a week watching Norwich alongside a stream with a few hundred other fans probably does more for some people than you might imagine.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    14 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

    Fair play to the Reeve lads, built themselves a platform during lockdown and plenty of people seem to enjoy their watchalongs, they have nearly a thousand people watching and thousands of subscribers to their YouTube channel etc. They’re passionate and enthusiastic about the club and while I don’t always agree with their opinions, it’s nice to see our club which can historically be a little light on fan coverage get this kind of interaction and content. Since lockdown we’ve been spoilt with podcasts, videos and analysis from various sources so there’s something for every taste. Bit naff for people to slag them off when you can choose just not to consume their content and you’re not willing to do it yourself the “right way”!

    Agree completely. They’ve managed to get a few decent interviews and their numbers seem to be growing consistently. Fair play to them.

  12. Posted · Edited by YellowYawner

    6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

    I put this in the match thread, but as there is a thread about it....

    Having different coloured boots is a good thing. Two different colours on two fast moving feet is more likely to confuse players trying to tackle him. He is already a complete handful on the ball, the mesmerising effect of different colours on his feet can only add to that. 

    Not that I have anything against his choice of footwear but I can’t see this having any effect when it comes to confusing people.

    If anything I think having football / grass coloured boots would be your best bet for drawing fouls at speed but it would end up fooling the ref as well.

  13. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

    Seriously Bill - I do think that sometimes you are given unfair criticism on here - but you've got to start helping yourself.

    We last scored three in a league game away to Bristol City - that was 2 months ago - not 18!!!!!

    Stoke a little over a month ago.

    I'm looking forward to the return of Onel, someone to switch the pace up somewhat and get at these fullbacks will add a fair bit to us I feel, maybe combining with Aarons. At the moment I'm seeing our better opportunities come from when teams like QPR fail in a counter attack leaving us able to get at them whilst they were running out. 

    Our current way of playing works. But it looks it's worst when opponents are able to keep us. For me if our goal last night had come in the first half and forced QPR out earlier we could have got 2 or 3.

  14. Posted · Edited by YellowYawner

    44 minutes ago, king canary said:

    I don't make the rules so can't really answer that 

    Thanks for the reply but it was largely rhetorical, I don't expect anyone can know what will be what but my worry is without wage caps coming in everywhere from day 1 it's just not going to work.

    My only genuine question was in response to saying wage caps work in other sports. I agree they do, but I can't find a single example where they don't include the teams at the top.

    I do agree with you that bringing in the salary cap to the championship will eventually pressure the premier league to do the same later but there could be a few years of turbulence inbetween.

  15. Posted

    7 minutes ago, king canary said:

    Wage caps work fine in other sports.

    They may do but are there any examples where the top league is exempt?

    What happens in a year when a team like Everton, Newcastle or West Ham get relegated? Know that with their owners they will survive and instead of cutting their wage bill just ride the year out and outcompete everyone else with their vastly superior squad. It's much less a dilemma when the point deduction isn't coming until they return to the top flight.

    I honestly don't think there's an acceptable solution in this unless the premier league has one too. The big boys will hate that but maybe that's where we are heading anyway.

    Spending a lot of money must have been a lot of fun when it basically guaranteed you a champions league space. I can only think it's a matter of time before the bubble explodes. You have the likes of Arsenal and United wanting to sack their manager every 5 minutes without wanting to acknowledge the fact that they are just not as good as they were and thats with only Spurs and Leicester looking like they are going to muscle their way in. God knows what happens when eventually someone like Newcastle actually manage to join the financial elite as well.

  16. Posted · Edited by YellowYawner

    Sorry this is a bit late I wasn't seeing the notifications when I was quoted. 

    But ask nicely (ahem) and you shall receive

    You'll have to see your quote in the reply by hogesar. You were quoted by multiple people so deleting or editing your first post doesn't work.

    "Just signed for the team in 6th, a team which has excellent centre backs, after a trial at Roma... whilst we sit rock bottom miles away from safety having to play that donkey Hanley.

    You absolute (removed)"

    Charming. But no. I don't make things up.

     

    • Haha 3

  17. Posted

    Agree with the thoughts on bitterness being a key factor in his comments about us.

    On the other hand I do feel sorry for him a bit. Our city / location may have been the excuse he told himself then but that starts to look a bit thin when he's all but retired at 29 and can't find another club.

    Hopefully he can sort whatever issues he has out

     

  18. Posted

    4 hours ago, king canary said:

    All accusations you could have leveled at Farke, almost word for word last season. Right now he's showing we were right to stick with him, Wilder may be the same.

    However if come the end of January they still just have one point it might be so dire they have to make a change.

    I had a quick look at the Sheffield United forum and a few of them are rather annoyed at the money they think Wilder has blown this season. Others seem to be distracted by some troll masquerading as a Norwich fan - which just about all of them have fallen for. As for the money spent I think they do have a point. As well as having credit int he bank Farke really did have excuses in the lack of spend last season and even Webber came out with the "sent to war without a gun" quote. Wilder does not have that.

    If we do go up this season I have faith that if given a decent budget we won't have the same complaints. I can't see us splashing 20 million plus on a player but surely will give it a better go.

  21. Posted

    32 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

    I'm going to hazard a guess that Billy Boy hasn't got any of his football coaching badges. 

    I'm not sure if he's taking the juice or whether he's trying to suggest that some people on here think that players are glued to their positions and therefore don't move 🤷‍♂️

     don't think we can suddenly decide to deny formations. Telling someone what position someone plays in means they'll be able to guess his positioning / behaviour for any given situation with a high level of accuracy

    Most of us are aware of how football works. Vrancic hasn't become a centre back because he tracked back and made an excellent tackle. We've been watching Pukki do this for over 2 seasons. Ramsdale just went up for a corner for Sheffield United. He's still very much a goalkeeper and we know where we expect him to be positioned in most situations. On his line for corners, advanced somewhat when Sheffield have the ball in the opponents half.

    However despite those two lines I agree with the post completely 😀

     

  23. Posted

    23 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

    Are posters saying they will report Bill if he does it again?

    Does it matter? I think it’s clear with this ifollow business that things have changed somewhat now and the moderators of the forum don’t want these threads here.

    ive used Bills links before, he’s posted them for a couple of years now at least and they’ve been helpful. My only concern, as mentioned in the second thread was that some people might be finding them on here and not realising those streams can sometimes be harmful. 

    Maybe Bill could start a thread about a nice walk he took down by the river, bump it every now and then and people can PM him to ask him privately where he went. Just an idea. Would be a lot of work on his part though

  24. Posted

    22 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

    Sadly nothing will come of it, but at the end of the day we lost.

     

     

    Time to move on.

    I actually think it's beneficial for managers and clubs to act like this as it will influence referees in future matches and show we are willing to highlight poor decisions against us. It's the same reason you always saw players from big teams surrounding referees. It was about influencing his next decision. Not the one he just made.

    I think its fair too say that we deserved to lose last night as well as having poor officials. Not to mention that allowing a player to go unpunished after celebrating with you in a weirdly patronising manner could be quite damaging to a referee going forward.

×
×
  • Create New...