It’s a pity there’s no way to get the athletic benefits without the unwanted side effects, but that’s the case with most performance enhancing drugs.
I don’t think it really makes sense to say that being female is a disability. It can be a useful analogy, that’s all.
Except that’s what the activists are campaigning for, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. In what circumstances would you support treating them differently?
Certain activists, perhaps, but definitely not all. I’m very open to differing treatment in safe spaces for cis women and athletics, for example. I’m sure there are other examples. I’ve spoken to many outspoken trans people and trans allies, including some activists, about this issue, and none of them have expressed disagreement with me. I don’t accept that some obnoxious random internet people somehow represent all trans people, or even all trans rights activists.
We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that appearances are merely a proxy for biological sex (aka “genetics”).
If I run a kennel where cats are segregated from dogs (to minimize the risk to cats), then I’m going to keep to this policy even if I get a dog that has been modified to have some cat-like features. Why? Because the underlying rationale for this segregation is to keep cats from being harmed by dogs. A dog modified to look like a cat is still a dog. An animal’s outside appearance is not really relevant.
The rationale behind sex-segregation is similar to the above. When we assign importance to appearance, we essentially are saying any man who can convincingly disguise himself as a woman is entitled to use the women’s restroom. This makes no sense to me.
A man who makes simple modifications to sneak into the area is likely a threat, but I’m less likely to think that a sincere transwoman who has made a significant effort to gender identify is going to be a threat. I’m not sure where that line is, but someone like Caitlyn_Jenner is not likely going to present any special threat even though she is genetically male.
Your TERF card is in the post. 
Unfortunately, the main left-wing parties in our respective countries seem to have adopted it as their platform, so it’s far from only being random obnoxious internet people. And it’s cold comfort that not all activists agree - they are not going to be the ones objecting to these policies, and anyone who does is dismissed as a bigot. #RIPJKRowling
I wish there was a trans rights activist that we could all point to as a spokesperson of the movement. Because I think much of the difficulty with this debate comes from not knowing the average trans person on the street really cares about. Like, does the average transwoman think that any male in a woman’s space should be considered a woman unless they say–without being prompted to–that they aren’t? Or is this a fringey view being promoted mainly by radical activists and allies?
From where I sit, the more radical TRA voices seem to be winning the day on the internet.
That is clearly the case, but hey, my definitions are reasonably coherent.
I agree. It’s definitely a real psychological phenomenon. I don’t think all these trans people, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people, are just bullshitting. That does not, however, actually turn men into women.
Can you name any leading trans rights activists who are calling for the compromises you’re in favor of? I’m sincerely asking because I can’t find any evidence of them online. If they exist, they aren’t making any traction in terms of proposed legislative action and moderating the more extreme positions of the far-left.
Biden has pledged to erode Title IX in schools by allowing male athletes to play against females. This is not a minor matter. Since this started under Obama, we’ve been able to see in very stark ways (see the 2019 NCAA race I cited earlier) the adverse impacts this is having on female athletes. But his platform shows a blatant disregard for this. It seems to be 100% TWAW all the way with him.
Your contempt is noted. There’s no possibility of discussion when you use such incredibly contemptuous language towards trans people. Our society treats trans people like utter dogshit, and I think it’s wrong to pile on such awful stuff on top of this.
I’ve been unable to find any evidence for this online other than hit pieces from Trumpists and Trump allies.
I don’t really even see the supposed “radical activists and allies” pushing this. Only different interpretations of advocacy that doesn’t directly address this question.
I’m not sure why this “real psychological phenomenon” can’t be considered as part of a coherent definition. If the phenomenon is real, as you acknowledge, then it seems fully coherent to include the many non-bullshitting people who are experiencing that phenomenon.
Some lie. Yes, some lie.
We might call the liars what they want to be called, even as we think to ourselves that they are lying. But that’s not an incoherence. It just means it can be difficult to find out the truth of internal psychological states.
I agree fully with you that we’d then need a new word to denote what used to be denoted by “man” or “woman”. “Male human” or “female human” or whatever. And it needs to stick. It’s absurd to have a continual definitional treadmill. I guess you can then ask, why not stick with the originals? Well, because the word means quite a lot to a lot of people. I don’t see it as any particular semantic hardship for a one-time shift.
If people start pushing the semantic treadmill – and I admit that does seem to be the case for some subset of activists, I don’t know how large – then we know their motivations are either not serious or not coherent. But that is not everyone.
There are people in this thread who have espoused the view that males in the women’s restrooms/locker rooms–even masculine macho males–should not be asked to justify their presence unless they do something clearly illegal. Folks in this thread have espoused the view that questioning such an individual would be just as wrong as questioning a masculine lesbian using the women’s restroom. If you wouldn’t question the latter, you shouldn’t question the former. So yes, people are pushing this. They are doing so right in front of your eyes.
I don’t recall such posts. I haven’t read (and may not remember) every single post, though. It’s possible I missed it.
I just pulled this up from his website:
Guaranteeing transgender students have access to facilities based on their gender identity. On his first day in office, Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration, which will restore transgender students’ access to sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity.
That wasn’t contempt.
You’ve been continually misreading RickJay in this thread, and then you scamper away whenever he points it out rather than engaging your past error.
Oh please.
Donald Trump is a celebrity, right? I bet I can think of dozens, if not hundreds, of people that have more online hate directed at them than JK Rowling.
If someone is obsessed with trans issues and only frequents the corners of Twitter that traffic in that obsession, it might seem that way but I assure you she does not get more hated directed at here than literally anyone ever.
But wouldn’t that mean it needs to be treated as a diagnosable thing, with some criteria behind it? We have that expectation for all other “psychological phenomenon” of social and legal importance. For instance, if I wanted a reasonable accommodation at work for a bad case of agoraphobia, a professional would need to vouch for that.
There are no diagnostic criteria for gender identities. That poses definitional challenges.
Just calling it like I see it. And most people with such contempt don’t even realize it. It’s possible I’m wrong, of course, but disagreeing with me isn’t convincing.