The quote you responded to was in reference to a very specific example for the purpose of exploring the limits of access and eligibility. It was not a blanket statement on the nature of all trans people. That much should be obvious from reading the posts preceding it.
She’s saying a trans woman is not a male who identifies as a woman. She’s saying a trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
(And after having it spelled out for me, I do understand and the distinction makes sense to me.)
It was a statement that hurts. It hurts real people i know. And standing on it’s own, it’s also false.
When you are writing about sensitive topics that can be hurtful, it’s good to be cognizant of that and to be careful with your words.
In the Olympics they have hormone testing and whatnot. Is that too invasive for the high school level? Is that on the table as an option?
Financially it’s probably not but theoretically, I mean.
Testing hormones specifically for sports would probably be excessive, but a trans athlete on hormone therapy should have test results on a normal basis as part of their therapy. Submission of those results should be acceptable if hormone levels are used as a deciding factor.
In some conversations biological sex and associated sexual traits are important, this is one such conversation. I’ll do real people the courtesy of addressing them and referring to them in any way they choose, I’ll also do them the courtesy of assuming they understand why the sex/gender distinction is important to make in this example of an imaginary person.
What biological sex would you call someone who was XY and was complete with a full male physiology.
Not what gender they identify as, not what we would call them, what actual sex are they?
Before I could address this question, are we agreed on “a” definition of “transgendered”? The following definition, for example, leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Wikepdia: " Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.[1][2][3] Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.[4][5] Transgender , often shortened as trans , is also an umbrella term;"
If a birth male with testosterone just grows his hair and says he is a female, I believe he has an advantage in strength by being a biological male.
Why do I need to know this person’s biological sex?
For high school sports, I think we can rely on what we have always relied on, which is how someone presents and looks and acts. It’s quite recent that anyone has been able to examine genes and hormones, and humans have managed just fine without that.
I don’t think it’s helpful to hammer on “biological sex”. It’s perfectly easy to look at trans girls and observe that some have masculine strength and build, and others don’t, for instance. And that almost no cis girls have masculine strength and build.
I’m not denying that many trans girls have a physical advantage over their cis peers. I’m saying that nothing is gained, and quite a lot of harm is done, by calling those people “males”.
I’m agreed with that definition, but no one “just grows out their hair and says they are female”.
Also, my very masculine husband has lovely long hair.
I remain baffled by the reluctance to answer such an obvious question. I mean the answer is “male” is it not? There’s no “gotcha” at play here. Biological sex is not the same as gender.
If there is a call to segregate on the basis on biological sex, and the associated traits and the degree to which someone retains those traits really matters then clarity is important.
I did type out a post using a real trans person as an example and then ditched it for a purely hypothetical person because that risked being disrespectful which I have no wish to be.
I thought that we may still have been able to discuss this in the abstract and use terms that should not really be controversial and that would be easy to agree on.
Perhaps not.
I’ll oppose them. Using measures like hormone level tests at the children’s sport level further professionalizes, stratifies, and segregates what should be a leisure activity, and will almost certainly put undue pressure and negative attention on trans kids. The additional capital requirements for a hormone testing level will put additional pressure on teams and players to “deliver” for their spectators.
Putting all of this in place to solve a hypothetical problem seems completely backwards to me–especially when there’s a solution to this hypothetical problem that would make everything better (cf Chill the Fuck Out About Kids Sports).
The hypothetical supposed ‘hulking, muscular trans-woman who tosses aside her opponents with dangerous ease’ strikes me as almost identical, in terms of stereotyping and harm, to a hypothetical supposed ‘towering black man, riddled with scars and tattoos, thick lips sneering dangerously as he holds the switchblade against the white woman’s neck’. Both are harmful stereotypes that have no place in any discussions about public policy, or really any place aside from discussing how harmful these kinds of stereotypes can be.
I am reluctant to answer this question because
- it’s not relevant
- in actual situations, it’s often not well-defined
- I have real-life friends and acquaintances who are hurt every time you call them “male”. It’s like constantly referring to the race of a racial minority, or constantly reminding a blind person that they can’t see. Even if it’s true (and it often isn’t, because irl it’s often not that simple) it’s a destructive and hurtful habit to do this.
But this will be my last post on this topic, because it is a hijack from the actual conversation, which is about trans girls in sports. And there’s no need to call anyone “male” to discuss this subject, so there’s really no need to delve into the definition of “male”
For kids, I agree with you.
Don’t address word usage, address my assertion that an individual who is biologically male is, in general, going to have a definite strength advantage over an individual who is biologically female no matter how that individual views their own sexuality.
I ask that we not get defensive here, otherwise this discussion is doomed to fail. I fully support the right of every individual to discover their own sexuality and be fully accepted for whom they are, but that is not the discussion here. The issue being discussed in this thread is whether or not there is a level field of play when transgendered females participate in girls sports. Unless there is hormone treatments involved, I believe the science says no.
I lied. One last post. Yes, I am defensive. This board has driven away all the actual trans posters. I have friends who are trans, and I’m damn well going to defend them.
And now I bow out, to write an email to a group of people involved in a sport I am coaching, which happens to include some trans people.
Fair. For adult leagues, I’m way more “your body, your business.” There’s a world of gross in professional athletics, but it’s a very different conversation, and the issues aren’t at all the same when you’re talking about adults instead of kids.
I’m not referring to any person at all, I purposefully chose a hypothetical.
But in any case I disagree on your reasoning here. I think being clear on ethnicity and optical disability is crucial when discussion matters that relate directly to issues arising from such traits.
I don’t think it is possible to meaningfully discuss the implications of trans people’s inclusion, sporting segregation and inherent advantage due to specific sexual characteristics without using the words “male” and “female” and having at least a working definition of what we mean by that.
I’ll continue to use those terms where I believe they are relevant. No-one is forcing you to do the same.
I assumed most people played a team sport at some point in school - although come to think of it I guess that might not be true. I personally played baseball, basketball, then baseball again in grade school, and tennis in high school. Most of the guys I knew played some kind of sport (or were in band), but come to think of it I don’t remember many girls being on teams. Although we did have girls’ teams for every boys’ team I can think of, except football.
And again, I assume most people watch at least some sports. I occasionally watch baseball, but wouldn’t call myself a true baseball fan. I watch maybe three or four hours a week, out of <10hrs/wk watching television at all. I appreciate the game and know some of the superstars but couldn’t rattle off stats or offer informed opinions about the management. I watch at least one game of the World Series every year, most or all of them if the Cardinals are playing.
~Max
Yeah, that’s way more sports than the average SDMB poster has played in or watches. Google says somewhere between 50% and 60% of high school students participated in some kind of organized sport (school or community based) in the past year. Meaning 40% to 50% of high school students don’t play any sports at all. I would bet a dollar that that 40% to 50% is vastly overrepresented on the SDMB.
Also, band is not a sport.