Can you reconcile this statement with the “gender isn’t biology!” sentiment? I don’t think lowering one’s testosterone is a no big deal condition. But by likening it to “changing who they are”, aren’t you admitting that the biological realities of gender are a big deal?
I’ve probably mentioned this way too many times as it is, but in three weeks I’m going to be blocking my estrogen and sending myself into menopause about 12-15 years prematurely. Am I going to be “changing who I am”? Cuz I sure as hell hope not.
So can a boxer compete in a lower weight category, if they ‘change who they are’ by losing weight. But of course you would want Caster Semenya to be eligible without changing anything.
No, the biological realities of sex are. As I’ve said before, I don’t think they’re as easily separable as others do.
Of course it’s changing who you are. It’s not “change everything about you”, but can you really claim hormones have no effect on personality? Because we’ve already seen cites in this thread that say different…
Caster qualifies just fine as a woman. Which was the actual category initially.
Until she started winning more, that is. While having the nerve to be a butch Black lesbian.
And she still qualifies just fine as a woman, without changing anything, in races outside a narrow band. So, how come she’s a woman for the 200m, but not the 800m?
And how is the playing field not level? She doesn’t win every race she runs. That indicates to me the races are fair.
Sure, but you also wouldn’t fault the boxing organisation for not letting them compete in a category they don’t qualify for.
I don’t know, but I would guess they looked at some research on whether she had an unfair advantage in certain events, and didn’t want to extrapolate it to others where the research may not be relevant.
Uh, that she competes for your country? Nothing sinister.
I would if they changed their arbitrary weight limits just to stop one boxer from competing in his division…
If the issue is that she has too much testosterone to compete with women, it should go across the board. Research, my ass.
I’ve already mentioned in this thread that I don’t give a toss about sport. What makes you think that changes based on what arbitrary colonial border some sport-doer is born inside?
You might as well add on to this string of false equivalencies “men have a right to compete in
a league where they can be champions”.
There is a logical distinction between these things. Being “emotional indifferent” to an outcome that would adversely impacts women and girls is not something a man should be advertising.
The problem here is that when “women’s sports” were labeled with the word “women”, it was at a time when it clearly meant genetically XY people. It’s only recently that a person like Semenya would be allowed to compete at all. Back a few decades ago, she would have been denied entry for a variety of reasons. We can’t act like having XY people compete in women’s sports is a long-standing tradition and the current society is trying to take that away. Rather, current society is trying to figure out a way to allow these athletes to compete in a fair way.
Very good. Yes that’s the rub. It’s merely the crux of almost the entire matter, so glad you finally figured this out. Males have an athletic advantage over females due to male puberty and testosterone, and this is why women want to keep males out of their competitions.
I wonder if “emotionally indifferent” supporters of transgender athletes would be equally supportive if nondisabled athletes self-IDed their way into the Paralympics. After all, if what @MrDibble is correct, there is no logical difference between giving paraplegic athletes the opportunity to become champions and doing the same for non-paraglegics. Who cares if accomplishing the latter would come at the expense of the former? It’s the same exact thing, y’all.
If it were a false equivalence, you’d be proving that, not introducing your own straw.
You say this like it’s a quote of me, when it bears no resemblance to any single thing I said.
Seeing “no emotional difference” between two sad states is in no way in the same ballpark as being indifferent. It’s the exact opposite. You’re clearly projecting.
The word you’re missing there is “openly”.
Oh, no, it’s been quite obvious from the get-go.
This made-up bullshit again?
And…being a woman is like a disability, to you? Nice.
No, the biological realities of sex are. As I’ve said before, I don’t think they’re as easily separable as others do.
You seem to be saying you think gender and sex overlap with each other. I’m gonna take a stab and you think they overlap by a lot.
So do I. That’s why you will never convince me that an intact male with testosterone coursing through their bloodstream is female. Transwoman, sure. But not female. And probably not woman in the way I usually apply that term. Biological reality is the substance of gender for me. Without biology, gender is a meaningless thing like the Meyes Briggs Personality Type. Personality traits are kinda sorta real, but not real enough or important enough to formulate policies around. Biology is different, though.
Of course it’s changing who you are. It’s not “change everything about you”, but can you really claim hormones have no effect on personality? Because we’ve already seen cites in this thread that say different…
So you can understand why I am loath to jump on the “transwoman are woman” bandwagon, right? Women are not just people who say they are women to me. Women are people who have a constellation of hormones, organs, and chromosomes as well as social programming–all of which contribute to “who they are” as people.
I have no fucking idea how I might change when I block my estrogen. But the “who I am” isn’t going to change. No more than it changed when I had my boob removed. I am not my boob. I am not my hormones.
.
Yes it is, when it comes to physicality. As a group we are far weaker and slower than men. It’s the topmost reason why women have been marginalized from power for eons.
I don’t get it. What is the point in feigning ignorance about this? Historically, the only kind of man that would deny this basic reality is the kind of man that felt justified abusing women.
No, just entwine. They’re still two distinct things that can vary independently.
I don’t think gender doesn’t have a biological component, though, if that’s what you mean.
I understand - just because I don’t agree, doesn’t mean I don’t understand.
I agree. The transwomen I know agree as well. If they didn’t agree, they wouldn’t be changing who they are in many different ways, physical and behavioural.
Pure physical weakness hasn’t been the main reason since we first sharpened a stone, I think. Seems to me male aggression is a bigger factor, and then the web of social conditioning built up in those “eons”.
I’m not “feigning ignorance”, I’m fundamentally disagreeing that women are inherently disabled. But I’m sure you have great reasons for whatever you’ve internalized there.
Is there something you’d like to take to the Pit? Because snide insinuations that I’m an abuser don’t make a substitute for actual argument (neither does the way you’ve tried to slip past having mock-quoted me multiple times).
Women have been treated as inferior beings by society because they are indisputably weaker than men. Their assumed inferiority has enabled their exploitation, marginalization, and abuse. Male aggression is only one piece of the story.
If you balk at the characterization, explain why you feel it necessary to minimize the physical differences between males and females? You scoffed when I implied women are indeed handicapped relative to men when it comes to athleticism. Why? There is actually no shame in admitting this because it’s not shameful to be handicapped. Women have bodies that can’t perform like men’s can. If you get this, then you can get why female-restricted sports are as important as the Paralympics are to disabled athletes.
And I don’t know why you’re quibbling over my paraphrasing. If “emotional indifference” isn’t a fair interpretation of the statement below, tell me what is:
I’m saying there’s no logical difference between “cis-women have a right to compete in a league where they can be champions” and “trans-women have a right to compete in a league where they can be champions” or “intersex people have a right to compete in a league where they can be champions” as a bare argument. And no emotional difference, for me, either.
Well, consider that makes an emotional difference to me because I care about women’s rights and access to opportunities. Guess what you’ve just advertised by saying this? Emotional indifference, that’s what.
They carry a significant handicap compared to men. There is no valid reason to deny or minimize this. It is as much of a biological reality as the inability of males to bear young and have periods.
Floyd Merriweather could take a year’s worth of estrogen and that would not eliminate the horror of putting women in the ring with him. It would not transform his body into a female body and its delusional to claim otherwise.
And yes, nothing will change my belief that only misogynists would support Merriweather’s right to fight against women should he decide to self-ID as one. Whether you think I’m talking about you depends on whether you think Merriweather has that right.
If you are seriously suggesting that physical differences aren’t a significant factor - THE significant factor - in the difference between men and women in sports, then, and I say this with due respect must it must be said, you know nothing at all about sports. The difference between men and women in physical ability is absolutely gigantic.
A team made of the world’s finest women hockey players can play as aggressively as they want, and if asked to play contact hockey against men’s second tier pro team would be unlikely to be able to complete the game with enough healthy players to put on the ice. The world’s most dedicated, intensely training female track athletes could not even qualify for the Olympics against men; they wouldn’t qualify for a regional NCAA event. It is not aggression, and it’s not socialization, it’s physical ability. It’s not a close call. I really enjoy watching women’s sports and I think they’re amazing and admirable but asking them to compete with men would be stupid and unfair. They’d have no chance.
The advantage trans women have over women in sports goes beyond testosterone levels and lung capacity. Even if you ignore differences in height and bone density, women are limited by their biology in ways that trans women are not. It’s not at all uncommon for a woman to feel like she can’t exercise or work out during PMS or menstruation due to cramps, low energy, or aches and pains. It’s possible that a female athlete might miss 1-7 days a month of working out due to her period or PMS which a trans woman wouldn’t have to miss…that gives trans women an advantage.
How about fertility? Women have to pursue their athletic careers at the exact time that they’re most fertile. If they get pregnant, it could be up to two years before they’re able to get back to their former fitness level…that’s two years where trans women are training and competing and racking up records.
A woman who’s 28 - 30 yrs old who feels she has three or four good years left in her shoulder/knee/back will have to consider if it’s worth getting those last few years of her professional career versus the risk that she might wait too long and lose her fertility…those are considerations a trans woman doesn’t have to make which gives trans women an unfair advantage in terms of sport longevity, records and wins.
