[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that and the reasons, I'm just pointing out she competed in line with rules and so the Gold medal should stand regardless. She didn't mislead anyone or lie, she competed in the way the Olympics allowed her to.

I feel like you're so close to the point and whole crux of the debate with exactly this, though.

...the world is a big place, with a LOT of people in it, and where there are gaps in the rules (and in legal legislation) that can be exploited with nefarious intent (or even just personal gain/glory) there will be people who will do that. It's not MOST people, most people are not predatory, most people have a sense of fairness, but some don't. A small number of sportspeople who realistically are not competing fairly, will still compete "because the rules say it's allowed". A small number of predatory individuals will exploit access to women's spaces, because they can. It's a small number, most have genuine reasons, but that doesn't matter... where the law allows it, there are people who will exploit it, it's not even a "might".

And this is why feelings and righteousness need to be taken out of the equation and the decisions that are made need to be controlled at rules/legislation level (whether that's sports or women's refuges), and made sensibly with safeguarding (or sporting fairness, in this example) as the primary consideration. Not individual feelings.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It was odd that the boxer and the trainers are of course, Muslim and as we know women have a particular place in that religious set up

Witness the other day when MMA star Khabib Nurmagomedov refused to shake hands with the star CBS Sports female presenter but did with her male presenters live on tv is a humiliating act

Yet they were happy to do this?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Well it was a cheat win, enabled by the IOC at least the WBO had to good sense to ban Khalif, why that wasn't good enough for the IOC is anyones guess

There was talk of law suits...did anything come to pass on those?

Just had a look Khalif filed a criminal case for cyberbulling against Elon Musk and JK Rowling

You are allowed an opinion on if an organisations rules/entry requirements are fair or not, however that opinion doesn't mean anything other than what it is.

You can call it a cheat win, just because it's your opinion is that she shouldn't have taken part, but it doesn't mean it is. It doesn't change reality.

That's facts are she was eligible to participate. She participated. She won, this time. Unlike last Olympics when she also participated and was knocked out and nobody even noticed.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I feel like you're so close to the point and whole crux of the debate with exactly this, though.

...the world is a big place, with a LOT of people in it, and where there are gaps in the rules (and in legal legislation) that can be exploited with nefarious intent (or even just personal gain/glory) there will be people who will do that. It's not MOST people, most people are not predatory, most people have a sense of fairness, but some don't. A small number of sportspeople who realistically are not competing fairly, will still compete "because the rules say it's allowed". A small number of predatory individuals will exploit access to women's spaces, because they can. It's a small number, most have genuine reasons, but that doesn't matter... where the law allows it, there are people who will exploit it, it's not even a "might".

And this is why feelings and righteousness need to be taken out of the equation and the decisions that are made need to be controlled at rules/legislation level (whether that's sports or women's refuges), and made sensibly with safeguarding (or sporting fairness, in this example) as the primary consideration. Not individual feelings.

I'm not talking about feelings and righteousness. You are.

I am working off of fact - the Olympic Committee rules were you can take part in line with your gender identity. She did.

Can I just remind you that regardless of any hormonal anomaly, she was assigned female at birth and raised as a female. She has female on her birth certificate and always has done, she has female on her passport and always has done. So she participated as a female.

I am sorry to say you are the one letting your feelings get in the way of actual reality.

It's so funny that you support the recent legislation here in the UK, where a woman is based on the sex you are assigned at birth because of biology, and then when someone is assigned female at birth and is raised a female and lived as a female and is and always has been legally a female, and so competes as a female in sporting events because of all of that, suddenly she's not a woman and is in fact taking advantage of a loophole to access women's spaces.

Make it make sense.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I'm not talking about feelings and righteousness. You are.

I am working off of fact - the Olympic Committee rules were you can take part in line with your gender identity. She did.

Can I just remind you that regardless of any hormonal anomaly, she was assigned female at birth and raised as a female. She has female on her birth certificate and always has done, she has female on her passport and always has done. So she participated as a female.

I am sorry to say you are the one letting your feelings get in the way of actual reality.

It's so funny that you support the recent legislation here in the UK, where a woman is based on the sex you are assigned at birth because of biology, and then when someone is assigned female at birth and is raised a female and lived as a female and is and always has been legally a female, and so competes as a female in sporting events because of all of that, suddenly she's not a woman and is in fact taking advantage of a loophole to access women's spaces.

Make it make sense.

No the reality would be that if allowing transgender individuals to compete in women's sporting events creates a disproportionately skewed competitive field (which it categorically does for any speed/strength based sport, denial of this is straight up gaslighting that I reject entirely), then failing to have legislation in place that prevents this from happening and preserves sporting fairness in favour of being inclusive of a very small percentage of people ... the rational choice is to have that legislation in place.

Just as the rational choice is to place real safeguarding considerations at the forefront of discussions around women's spaces ahead of inclusion and individualism.

I'm not denying that she took part because the rules were that she could take part, and I agree that this was a failing of those responsible for having those rules in place. The rules around all of this have been unclear and incorrect, which is unfair for everyone. I would point out, though, that there has been (and still is) a vast amount of very aggressive campaigning involved in preventing those rules from being altered, LONG after there were clear competitive issues... and again, a denial that these issues even existed that quite blatantly amount to openly gaslighting in favour of inclusivity.

I will admit that I'm not 100% up to date on this specific example, the available information is clear as mud ranging from her being biologically male and incorrectly assigned female at birth, to biologically female with a hormonal issue that triggered male puberty, to born male and full-blown corruption / deliberate fudging of official documents. I suspect the truth (as ever) lies somewhere in the grey area. It's not really relevant though, I'm (being completely frank here) not all that interested in individual examples, so much as the correct decisions being made on a macro level. Fringe examples of inclusivity for one individual does not and never should come before general, sensible fairness practices and safety. It's a bizarre world that's allowed this to happen so often.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

No the reality would be that if allowing transgender individuals to compete in women's sporting events creates a disproportionately skewed competitive field (which it categorically does for any speed/strength based sport, denial of this is straight up gaslighting that I reject entirely), then failing to have legislation in place that prevents this from happening and preserves sporting fairness in favour of being inclusive of a very small percentage of people ... the rational choice is to have that legislation in place.

Just as the rational choice is to place real safeguarding considerations at the forefront of discussions around women's spaces ahead of inclusion and individualism.

I'm not denying that she took part because the rules were that she could take part, and I agree that this was a failing of those responsible for having those rules in place. The rules around all of this have been unclear and incorrect, which is unfair for everyone. I would point out, though, that there has been (and still is) a vast amount of very aggressive campaigning involved in preventing those rules from being altered, LONG after there were clear competitive issues... and again, a denial that these issues even existed that quite blatantly amount to openly gaslighting in favour of inclusivity.

I will admit that I'm not 100% up to date on this specific example, the available information is clear as mud ranging from her being biologically male and incorrectly assigned female at birth, to biologically female with a hormonal issue that triggered male puberty, to born male and full-blown corruption / deliberate fudging of official documents. I suspect the truth (as ever) lies somewhere in the grey area. It's not really relevant though, I'm (being completely frank here) not all that interested in individual examples, so much as the correct decisions being made on a macro level. Fringe examples of inclusivity for one individual does not and never should come before general, sensible fairness practices and safety. It's a bizarre world that's allowed this to happen so often.

Well she isn't trans, she's from a country where it would be illegal to be so. She's lived her entire life as a female and is legally that after having been assigned it at birth.

Regarding the statement that allowing trans women to compete creates a disproportionate competition... sometimes, yes. many other times, no.

Non-Athletic Trans women who have undergone gender affirming treatment often end up with similar body make-up to cis women in terms of lean mass vs fat mass body composition as well as grip strength, which is a widely seen as the illustrator for upper body strength. This is often 25% less than cis men and in line with cis women's grip strength.

As there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport, such research like the above for athletes is slow and rare, and so often organisational bodies in sports will use the above results as a benchmark to determine legislation on trans inclusion in sports.

I personally think the allowance of transgender athletes should be done on a case by case basis on the assessment of their progression in their trans journey and as a result their biological make-up and how it compares with other cis women.

Based on results from research about the effects of gender affirming care and the affect is had on someones physical make up, muscle mass, strength and body composition, to say allowing all trans women to compete in women's sporting events creates a skewed competition in favour of trans women is not true. That sweeping statement is probably what people are denying. People informing you that what you're saying is not correct isn't you being gaslit.

[Livia]

If you have a Y chromosome, you cannot compete with women for the safety of women. Hopefully the Olympic committee and other bodies will catch up with simple instruction.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you have a Y chromosome, you cannot compete with women for the safety of women. Hopefully the Olympic committee and other bodies will catch up with simple instruction.

Yes

It seems sooo obvious as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Khelif scandal should be ranked among the worst in Olympic history, a saga
where the sport’s most powerful administrators became so seduced by gender
ideology, so in thrall to the lie that womanhood was reducible to some frivolous
passport detail, that they were prepared to put the very lives of female boxers
in peril. A woman could, as a direct consequence of a profoundly flawed official
policy, have died in that Paris ring. That is the stark truth. The International
Olympic Committee knew about Khelif. It had been told in 2023 about the test
results in New Delhi indicating that Khelif was biologically male, with
spokesman Mark Adams publicly admitting as much. But it did nothing,
disdaining the tests – with no evidence – as “ad hoc” and “not legitimate”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2...-shame-on-ioc/

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The IOC are the ones to blame for sure

Oh they're the villains of the story.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Well she isn't trans, she's from a country where it would be illegal to be so. She's lived her entire life as a female and is legally that after having been assigned it at birth.

Regarding the statement that allowing trans women to compete creates a disproportionate competition... sometimes, yes. many other times, no.

Non-Athletic Trans women who have undergone gender affirming treatment often end up with similar body make-up to cis women in terms of lean mass vs fat mass body composition as well as grip strength, which is a widely seen as the illustrator for upper body strength. This is often 25% less than cis men and in line with cis women's grip strength.

As there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport, such research like the above for athletes is slow and rare, and so often organisational bodies in sports will use the above results as a benchmark to determine legislation on trans inclusion in sports.

I personally think the allowance of transgender athletes should be done on a case by case basis on the assessment of their progression in their trans journey and as a result their biological make-up and how it compares with other cis women.

Based on results from research about the effects of gender affirming care and the affect is had on someones physical make up, muscle mass, strength and body composition, to say allowing all trans women to compete in women's sporting events creates a skewed competition in favour of trans women is not true. That sweeping statement is probably what people are denying. People informing you that what you're saying is not correct isn't you being gaslit.

Sports organisations will never do this, mainly because the competitors and viewers will want clarity on which version of the Sport that they're taking part in/viewing in the audiences case.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Well she isn't trans, she's from a country where it would be illegal to be so. She's lived her entire life as a female and is legally that after having been assigned it at birth.

Regarding the statement that allowing trans women to compete creates a disproportionate competition... sometimes, yes. many other times, no.

Non-Athletic Trans women who have undergone gender affirming treatment often end up with similar body make-up to cis women in terms of lean mass vs fat mass body composition as well as grip strength, which is a widely seen as the illustrator for upper body strength. This is often 25% less than cis men and in line with cis women's grip strength.

As there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport, such research like the above for athletes is slow and rare, and so often organisational bodies in sports will use the above results as a benchmark to determine legislation on trans inclusion in sports.

I personally think the allowance of transgender athletes should be done on a case by case basis on the assessment of their progression in their trans journey and as a result their biological make-up and how it compares with other cis women.

Based on results from research about the effects of gender affirming care and the affect is had on someones physical make up, muscle mass, strength and body composition, to say allowing all trans women to compete in women's sporting events creates a skewed competition in favour of trans women is not true. That sweeping statement is probably what people are denying. People informing you that what you're saying is not correct isn't you being gaslit.

Its irrelevant that plenty or even most trans competitors wouldn't have an advantage, the case by case scenario you're proposing is a logistical impossibility and the clear examples where trans women do have biological advantage - even if you're correct and those are fringe examples - would mean that the top tier of those sports would be dominated by trans women.

The fact that there are already multiple clear real-world examples of this across multiple sports, whilst in your own words, "there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport", is actually proof of what you're denying. If participation is low then the number of examples of trans competitors in upper tiers must be disproportionate to scale, and thus is evidence of biological advantage for some trans individuals, even if "most trans people" don't have that advantage. That's how professional competition works.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Its irrelevant that plenty or even most trans competitors wouldn't have an advantage, the case by case scenario you're proposing is a logistical impossibility and the clear examples where trans women do have biological advantage - even if you're correct and those are fringe examples - would mean that the top tier of those sports would be dominated by trans women.

The fact that there are already multiple clear real-world examples of this across multiple sports, whilst in your own words, "there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport", is actually proof of what you're denying. If participation is low then the number of examples of trans competitors in upper tiers must be disproportionate to scale, and thus is evidence of biological advantage for some trans individuals, even if "most trans people" don't have that advantage. That's how professional competition works.

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

Trans women are ruining all levels of women’s sport..that’s why all the parents are fired up as they are seeing all the years of devotion to the sport being undermined as these lads just come from nowhere taking trophies AND all kinds of college / world records.

As things stand some records will never be broken unless they get wiped off ( as they should)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Trans women are ruining all levels of women’s sport..that’s why all the parents are fired up as they are seeing all the years of devotion to the sport being undermined as these lads just come from nowhere taking trophies AND all kinds of college / world records.

As things stand some records will never be broken unless they get wiped off ( as they should)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nowhere am I advocating that that is okay, or letting anyone who identifies as a woman to take part in women's sport.

I am talking about those who have undergone hormonal treatment which brings their biological ability in line with that of the gender they identify as.

How you can quote what I said above and think I'm talking about anything else shows you're not actually reading what I'm saying.

[Nicky91]

i mean Martina Navratilova also might've got both chromosomes, how masculine she looks


should we strip her of her titles while we're at it?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i mean Martina Navratilova also might've got both chromosomes, how masculine she looks


should we strip her of her titles while we're at it?

[Nicky91]

also muslims are against trans people


i find that also quite some proof that Imane Khelif is a biologically born female, but who similar to the likes of Navratilova, Sherida Spitse, and i'm pretty sure in the england women's football team you also have certain players who look more masculine than feminine


how to sort this appropriately, just let Miss Khelif compete in the right women's weight category


and pretty sure the likes of Angela Carini, need to compete in the lowest weight category

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i mean Martina Navratilova also might've got both chromosomes, how masculine she looks


should we strip her of her titles while we're at it?

Excellent point and YES ..

She/he brutalised the ultra feminine Chris Evert time after time !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

There are a few key examples across various sports (swimming, etc) and the question would be, if there's disproportionate representation at the top levels vs the overall levels of participation - which you yourself have said is low - then should it not be considered that this effect is likely to become more pronounced over time, if we also accept the assertion that inclusion/acceptance is likely to mean that more trans-identifying individuals choose to fully transition (which I can by deduction only assume is an implied outcome of trans acceptance and inclusion; it's repeatedly claimed that many trans individuals are "closeted" due to lack of acceptance).

Again, the second half of your post isn't relevant; all of those can be true for the median examples of trans people who have undergone hormonal transition, whilst it still being true that fringe examples retain increased muscle density/bone mass/athletic performance advantages and that's all that matters... because the upper tiers of professional sport, by their very nature, are going to highlight fringe performance examples and not "the norm"/"the median". It makes the "usually when someone hormonally transitions..." argument meaningless. "Usually" is meaningless. 99.9% is meaningless if 0.1% have a biological advantage, that 0.1% will naturally filter upwards in competitive events?

Second consideration: how would you disprove the advantage. Yes, it may be the case that 99.9% of those entering have no advantage and thus are never "highlighted", but the point of entering at all would be to succeed... to get onto the best teams, to win medals... and so when a trans person DOES win, then they ARE at the top of that game, and how do you then in any meaningful way demonstrate that this was not because of some biological advantage? It's neither provable nor disprovable.

However. It is a fact that some people who undergo full transition retain some clear advantages of male puberty - be that leg length, speed, height, even finger length. Meaning that the only solution would be your own solution; testing and consideration on an individual basis, which is neither practical nor feasible at scale, so becomes entirely moot.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

You are quoting one rather disputed (to say the least ) study from the, ahem, University of Brighton

I will direct you to a popular comment regarding that "study " when the Telegraph reported on it:

"This is a study that is not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at the
numbers who participated. 19 transgender women, 20 cisgender women, 19
cisgender men and 11 transgender men. Such low numbers, even for an
experimental or preliminary study, is laughable and can hardly be taken
seriously. It also appears to be trying to push the narrative that being trans
(especially a man who identifies as a woman) is a disadvantage even though
results when it comes to sports involving speed, strength power and contact
have been irrefutably proven to show the opposite. This is a junk study to
satisfy the trans cult lobbyists trying to infiltrate womens sports and should
be thrown in the bin. The IOC should hang its head in shame for promoting
this garbage."

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Excellent point and YES ..

She/he brutalised the ultra feminine Chris Evert time after time !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was stronger and better than Evert. That doesn't make her a man or give you the right to refer to her as he/she! Evert would have folded against Venus and Serena, are they men too?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

There are a few key examples across various sports (swimming, etc) and the question would be, if there's disproportionate representation at the top levels vs the overall levels of participation - which you yourself have said is low - then should it not be considered that this effect is likely to become more pronounced over time, if we also accept the assertion that inclusion/acceptance is likely to mean that more trans-identifying individuals choose to fully transition (which I can by deduction only assume is an implied outcome of trans acceptance and inclusion; it's repeatedly claimed that many trans individuals are "closeted" due to lack of acceptance).

Are you referring to Lia Thomas? She is the usual scapegoat used for an example of this.

Is it disproportionate at the top levels vs the overall levels, that's what I am asking? I can't see it is, there aren't swathes of professional athletes taking Gold medals at championships, it literally is just a few.

Again, the second half of your post isn't relevant; all of those can be true for the median examples of trans people who have undergone hormonal transition, whilst it still being true that fringe examples retain increased muscle density/bone mass/athletic performance advantages and that's all that matters... because the upper tiers of professional sport, by their very nature, are going to highlight fringe performance examples and not "the norm"/"the median". It makes the "usually when someone hormonally transitions..." argument meaningless. "Usually" is meaningless. 99.9% is meaningless if 0.1% have a biological advantage, that 0.1% will naturally filter upwards in competitive events?

I wouldn't say t's not relevant - if we accept the vast majority of trans women fall in line with cis women, then we accept that by and large the playing field is relatively level. There might be 01.% (of the 0.002% participating) that will naturally filter upwards, but the same is said for cis women. There will be many cis women who just are biologically in a better position to win than other cis women - but if we accept that these cis women fall within he accepted umbrella of a cis woman's biological make-up, albeit at the top end of it, why can't the same consideration be made for trans women.

Second consideration: how would you disprove the advantage. Yes, it may be the case that 99.9% of those entering have no advantage and thus are never "highlighted", but the point of entering at all would be to succeed... to get onto the best teams, to win medals... and so when a trans person DOES win, then they ARE at the top of that game, and how do you then in any meaningful way demonstrate that this was not because of some biological advantage? It's neither provable nor disprovable.

This is the very tricky bit, I agree. And I agree case-by-case basis is probably not particularly feasible (though I am not expert on the process) but it certain is the fairest for all concerned, which is the POV I'm talking from.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Are you referring to Lia Thomas? She is the usual scapegoat used for an example of this.

Is it disproportionate at the top levels vs the overall levels, that's what I am asking? I can't see it is, there aren't swathes of professional athletes taking Gold medals at championships, it literally is just a few.



I wouldn't say t's not relevant - if we accept the vast majority of trans women fall in line with cis women, then we accept that by and large the playing field is relatively level. There might be 01.% (of the 0.002% participating) that will naturally filter upwards, but the same is said for cis women. There will be many cis women who just are biologically in a better position to win than other cis women - but if we accept that these cis women fall within he accepted umbrella of a cis woman's biological make-up, albeit at the top end of it, why can't the same consideration be made for trans women.



This is the very tricky bit, I agree. And I agree case-by-case basis is probably not particularly feasible (though I am not expert on the process) but it certain is the fairest for all concerned, which is the POV I'm talking from.

The only solutions imo and to protect the integrity of women's sports is to either have a women's category and an open category or to have an extra trans category.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

You are quoting one rather disputed (to say the least ) study from the, ahem, University of Brighton

I will direct you to a popular comment regarding that "study " when the Telegraph reported on it:

"This is a study that is not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at the
numbers who participated. 19 transgender women, 20 cisgender women, 19
cisgender men and 11 transgender men. Such low numbers, even for an
experimental or preliminary study, is laughable and can hardly be taken
seriously. It also appears to be trying to push the narrative that being trans
(especially a man who identifies as a woman) is a disadvantage even though
results when it comes to sports involving speed, strength power and contact
have been irrefutably proven to show the opposite. This is a junk study to
satisfy the trans cult lobbyists trying to infiltrate womens sports and should
be thrown in the bin. The IOC should hang its head in shame for promoting
this garbage."

So my source is questionable because it's the University of Brighton but yours, the Telegraph, is fine? If you're suggesting mine is biased...erm, so is yours.

The truth of the matter is there are so few examples of research to use that we can only go off what we have and as I mentioned before, it's such a small infrequent issue that there will probably never be any widespread research because it's not the worth the time or money.