View Single Post
Old 05-10-2019, 07:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It's almost as if you completely ignored the link I provided (which x-ray vision updated with a more recent story).
I read it. In fact, I directly addressed it:
There are a handful of standout cases... which is exactly what you would expect given that transwomen are something like 1% of the population - eventually, someone's going to do something noteworthy. The idea that post-transition transwomen have any kind of innate advantage in any sport is, to date, utterly unsupported by any available evidence.
It's an individual ancedote of a woman currently undergoing HRT, who has been on hormones for less than half the length of time mandated by the IOC. It's not representative of most transwomen competing in sports, or the regulations those women face.

But even so, hey, guess what - the fact that a transwoman can win an event or even break records in her class is not proof of what you're claiming. How do we know that Mary Gregory isn't just a really good powerlifter? How do we know it's because of her gender? We know that HRT has significant effects on a person's physiology, effects that are extremely negative for extreme sports. She's only been on it for about a year, but to completely discount her as an athlete because of that is... well, fucking gross.

Seriously, this line of argumentation is infuriating. It's like hearing a woman competing with Rachel McKinnon complaining that it was an unfair competition when she lost, even though she beat McKinnon in 11 out of 13 races they both participated in. Yes, this is literally something that happened. To quote McKinnon:
This is what the double-bind for trans women athletes looks like: when we win, it's because we're transgender and it's unfair; when we lose, no one notices (and it's because we're just not that good anyway). Even when it's the SAME racer. That's what transphobia looks like.
(Bolding mine.)

If you allow transwomen to compete, then even if there are no advantages from being trans (hell, even if there are, on average, physical disadvantages to being trans), sooner or later by sheer law of averages a transwoman is going to win an event, or break a record, or do something significant. But at the moment, whenever that happens, the response is not to celebrate a spectacular athlete, it's to point and say, "SEE? SEE? TRANSWOMEN REALLY DO HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE!" Regardless of how little sense that makes.

Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she's a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn't there yet. In fact, if you look at the IOC, they'd say the evidence just straight-up doesn't exist; that's why their ruling is what it is. If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC's recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I'm not. So can you prove that the reason Gregory did so well was because she's a transwoman? If not, stop assuming that she's a lesser athlete without any goddamn evidence. That's some transphobic bullshit, right there.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-10-2019 at 07:38 AM.