Cite?
Appeal to consequences or appeal to fear? Aah, no matter, one is a subset of the other, and neither is a valid argument.
We should present a message about gender identity that matches what those who express that identity feel. If that’s a mixed or messy message, that’s just the truth - these things are messy.
If bigots are going to use that as an excuse to retain their bigotry (there is no “great majority”, there’s a minority of bigots), so what? They’ll use any excuse anyway, why should we pretend we have answers we absolutely don’t, just to placate them?
Would you say that the ACLU article is written in this spirit? I didn’t get any feeling that they were acknowledging the complexity and messiness of this subject.
I feel the “Trans girls are girls” section does indicate it’s not a simple situation.
There is no one way for women’s bodies to be. Women, including women who are transgender, intersex, or disabled, have a range of different physical characteristics.
“A person’s sex is made up of multiple biological characteristics and they may not all align as typically male or female in a given person,” says Dr. Safer. Further, many people who are not trans can have hormones levels outside of the range considered typical of a cis person of their assigned sex.
it also says
Trans people are exactly who we say we are.
Which is an overarching and simplistic statement that leaves no room for debate at all. The rest of the article is focused entirely on promoting inclusion with no allowance for differences of opinion or definition or evidence contrary to what they label “facts”. The massive biological advantage conferred by male physiology and puberty is hand-waved away as if it is irrelevant. Actually, it is worse than that. it isn’t even mentioned at all.
I think the article is very poor, terribly one-sided and doesn’t even begin to acknowledge the complexity of the subject.
…what sides do you think there are here?
That is a strange question.
There are multiple sides to the question of inclusion. The article takes the stance that inclusion is the only thing that matters. It must be given priority over all other considerations.
That is one view, It is a valid view but I don’t believe it is the majority view, it certainly isn’t the only valid view and it certainly isn’t without consequences.
None of the potential views or solutions to this are without consequences and none of them should be immune from critical inquiry.
…and what are the other considerations?
other than inclusion? fairness and safety.
Those are the three headline considerations that the various sporting authorities are seeking to balance and it is proving difficult to come up with solutions that work for all people, across all sports, at all levels and in all situations.
Below those headlines are myriad other considerations that spiral off from them.
As I said. Calling for inclusion above all is perfectly valid but it is not a consequence-free option and it does not address the all issues raised by all stakeholders.
…the article was about " Four myths about trans athletes, debunked." Why would it concern itself with “fairness” and “safety”, when neither of those things have anything to do with myths about trans athletes?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Not everything has to be a debate.
The article does raise the question of fairness. One of the sections is even entitled
Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.
But the question of fairness is not given anything close to suitable scrutiny. The article seeks not include it as part of it’s calculus, that’s fine. The question of safety isn’t addressed at all. Again, if the purpose of the article is only to make a case for inclusion over everything then OK, it gets to choose what it includes.
But it is a one-sided argument and other valid views are available.
…and they don’t.
The issue of fairness has been scrutinised intensely for several years now. It isn’t difficult to find the issue being scrutinised, even in this thread.
The article didn’t need it. Trans atheletes do not have an advantage in sports. I’m glad to have cleared that up for you.
There is nothing to address. The question of safety has been scrutinised extensively. There really isn’t anything else to be said.
The purpose of the article was to highlight and debunk four myths about trans athletes.
Not every article has to platform “both sides.”
And “valid” really depends on your point of view, to be frank.
But the “we” there is a big umbrella covering lots of ways to be trans, I think it leaves plenty of room for debate.
Does it matter how many transgender people die as a result of “what some people do”? This isn’t a navel gazing theoretical matter for them, nor is it the disappointment of getting silver instead of gold. This is literally an existential threat, not a pretend threat like penises in a bathroom, or an unlikely threat like a 1-500 chance of meeting a trans athlete who is better than all the cis girls. This is about laws created to marginalize trans kids, deny them treatment and support, impacting 100% of trans kids in those places, 100% of the time.
When those bigots put up an argument based in hatred, to drum up support for their goals, the more people who stroke their chin and say “they have a point” the more support they get.
This is the rare case where technically correct is not the best kind of correct. It’s where technically correct ignores the fallout that hits others.
If you assume that there is not a significant advantage in sports, then the safety factor is nonexistent. So it is internally consistent to ignore it even if the premise is wrong.
Once you’ve established that there is an advantage, if there is one, then you can determine if there is a safety factor, and if there is, potentially weigh it more in your calculations than just a fairness and inclusivity issue.
Just to clarify, are you saying trans athletes don’t have any advantage over cisgender athletes? Or that they do have an advantage but it isn’t unfair? Thanks.
…they don’t have an advantage.
that is an opinion, not a settled fact.
That is an opinion, not a settled fact.
It has been scrutinised and a very mixed picture has emerged has it not?
No, it uses the platform of those “myths” to argue for inclusion and against exclusion.
I never said it had to, just that it was a poor article for not doing so. At least now you are admitting my point that it is one-sided.
You seem to be suggesting that some things that are true should not be said.
…you are entitled to express your opinion that it’s an opinion. We are in IMHO after all.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Nah. Not now. We have a pretty clear picture now.
Why would anyone argue for exclusion? That isn’t your position, is it?
It would have been a poor article if it did include both sides. Because not every article is improved by “both-side” arguments. And this one simply didn’t need it.
I asked you what the “other side” was.
Apparently the “other side” is one of exclusion. Is that correct? To find excuses to exclude trans people from sports?
I think the last thing we need is to deliberately look for ways to exclude trans people from sport.