I’m even more confused now. When I say
Am I not clearly criticising the ACLU article for not considering those different approaches and outcomes being taken by the various sports bodies?
A term for a generic sport is not a theoretical sport. It simply encompasses whatever sport it is that you are so worried about.
I don’t actually need an answer from you, you were the one pressing me for answers. Answers that are already provided by the NCAA’s policy on transgender athletes, which you seem to want to desperately ignore the existence of.
So, as I said, if you want to know what my position is, it’s quite likely very much in line with the NCAA’s. Pick the sport that has you most concerned, and see if you disagree with their guidelines. They are going to be more thorough and specific and technical than I am willing and able to be.
No, it was unrelated to my statements. Yes, different situations require different solutions, and so far as I am aware, most of those situations are addressed by the NCAA.
So, someone shows up to play a sport. Do you follow the NCAA guidelines in allowing them, or do you not let them participate because you think that they may have an unfair advantage?
Try post #112. That’s the last time I offer to spoon feed you. If you aren’t willing to actually pay attention to the arguments made, then I’m not going to be willing to engage you any further, as your “questions” come across much more like gotchas trying to win internet points than actual desire to learn the information that is already easily available to you.
No, in your example, you did not speak about condemning the actions taken, neither specifically or at all.
You’re saying they’re right about this important issue for women.
Well, yes, you do seem to be doing that. Although you are wrong that they do not, as they specifically mention following NCAA guidelines. Something that you either “missed” or are ignoring. Either way, your argument fails on its most basic merits of being relevant to reality.
…you were responding to me.
I’ve already argued that the article had no obligation to consider different approaches and outcomes being taken by the various sports bodies. Because the article wasn’t about the different approaches and outcomes being taken by the various sports bodies.
And the fact that this two year-old article didn’t consider different approaches and outcomes being taken by the various sports bodies has absolutely nothing to do with the post of mine that you were responding too.
I agree, which is why I asked for more information on those different situations, in order to better consider what the answer should be. However in your initial response to me you were asking why those different situations matter.
You can’t have it both ways.
Thank you, I now know your view on that matter. It may surprise you that in a long thread it can remain easy to remember what you said and yet be tricky to remember what everyone else has said.
well, here is my very first comment on that.
Then the intelluctually honest thing to do is to agree and support those whose arguments are right and challenge those who extrapolate incorrectly from that argument.
Sorry to Godwinise, but it is possible to honestly argue that the post-1918 settlement in Germany was probably unfair and still abhor the Nazis.
I think a fair reading of that second statement would assume that we are talking about what the Nazis actually did.
My second comment was
Both I and the Nazis share an opinion that the post WW1 settlement was unfair.
The Nazis went on to use that settlement as fuel for their horrific program of fascism and totalitarianism.
That has no bearing on whether the post WW1 settlement actually was unfair, nor is that a good enough reason to stop saying it was unfair
ETA - and my third comment (which I’d forgotten myself)
The fairness of the 1918 settlement can absolutely be linked to the actions the Nazi’s took.
ETA again, my fourth comment
You said the argument was not wrong. i,e, the one you describe as a “cogent argument about testosterone, physical maturation, puberty etc.”
That argument is not negated and does not become problematic just because another group that shares it also goes much further and into problematic and harmful areas.
Which hopefully makes it even clearer that we are talking about actions.
Feel free to claim a victory in that I did not use the exact words you’ve chosen for me but I’m perfectly happy that my meaning was generally clear.
a passing, superficial reference to the guidelines of one organisation, in one country falls short of…
considering those different approaches and outcomes being taken by the various sports bodies
but you are free to think otherwise
You may need to sit down because this may be hard to hear for you.
Not every comment in a post responding to you, is directed at you. You are special, but not that special.
Sometimes what is written in a post can be a reference to, or an expansion of, or a musing on what is written within that post itself.
Also married 20-something years, and sometimes my wife wants the truth. And sometimes, she doesn’t. Brutal honest truth all the time is not the only mode of social intercourse.
It is entirely possible to make a general reply message, then, and not reply to a specific poster.
Many permutations are possible.
A female athlete with the genome I linked to above would have a massive advantage over those that do not. A female who was 6’6" would have a massive advantage over a 5’6" in basketball. A girl whose parents could afford a trainer would have a massive advantage over a poor family. and so forth. So far, there has not been any real issue of a trans-woman dominating in sports.
Cite?
I cannot figure how to copy and paste. I have found many on google, including a Selina Soule.
I can’t wait for someone to use this reasoning after a warning for personal insults…
But the gist of the entire thread is that you seem to be arguing against unequivocal inclusion, ignoring that virtually everyone on the other side of the argument keeps trying to tell you that’s not what they’re supporting. It’s been repeatedly pointed out that most of these situations require at least hormone treatment.
Also, no one is going to transition just to win at a game. One in three trans women ARE BULLIED OR KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL. The amount of bullying, abuse, and outright violence directed towards trans women is so far beyond anything imaginable. We’re talking between twice and four times more likely to experience sexual assault, even IN SCHOOL. Murder rates? Half of LGBTQ hate crime murder victims are trans women.
On the other end, the biggest outlier is Lia Thomas, who is (checks notes) the 46th ranked female swimmer in the US. Risk assault, rape, and murder to be nowhere close to the best? Yeah, that’s a big no from me and anyone with functioning brain cells.
Selina Soule’s family has latched on to this in support of teenage girls (Chelsea Mitchell and Alanna Smith) that have to actually compete against trans girls. However, both of those other girls have repeatedly beat Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller - neither of whom are pursuing athletics in college, while Chelsea Mitchell is on scholarship. Soule is in the same category as the other the other plaintiff, Ashley Nicoletti: nowhere near the front. Can’t say I ever had a college recruiter wonder what place I finished, though. The time itself is all that matters.
My point about the relative performance of a 50% percentile male/female athlete is to point out the highly bi-modal nature of such performances.
So different in many sports that the decision was taken to create a specific division for females so as to allow fair competition between those people within that logical distribution.
I see nothing inherently wrong in maintaining such divisions if that is what the people in question desire and it is what the best analysis suggests as best practice in order to maintain fair competition.
I’d also see nothing wrong in putting a sub 6-foot basketball division, or a parental income.
Sabine Hossenfelder very recently did a video on the scientific evidence around transatheletes.
It’s not a settled question, but to the idea transwomen athletes don’t have an advatange is not well-supported by the current evidence. The question of trans participation in elite female sports though is much more complicated and in my opinion goes more to why you might want to restrict who can compete in certain type of comeptions than questions of fairness - sports aren’t usually designed to be fair with respect to physical advanatge.
Then you have read the gist incorrectly.
I have already said, quite clearly, that if the sporting bodies and the science suggests that the best way of balancing inclusion, fairness and safety is to allow inclusion for everyone, then I would be fine with that. You go where the evidence takes you.
But it is what the article at the centre of this thread is arguing. Inclusion without reference to other considerations of fairness or safety. It asserts opinion as fact, is completely one-sided and as such I think it is poor piece of journalism.
If anyone in the thread has stated that they do not agree with that stance then I’ve taken them at their word.
So you’re not arguing against unequivocal inclusion, just disagreeing with the article while it specifically discusses regulations that involve hormone treatment?
correct
I find the article shallow and one-sided. As I said in another post a passing, superficial reference to the guidelines of one organisation, in one country doesn’t elevate it at all.
And as others have said, there’s no reason why it should include other sides. Perhaps it was never intended to be. It has a fixed single idea, a narrow focus and it sticks to it and admits no other views. Fine. I’m sure it fulfills the remit of the authors and reflects a certain opinion but it is worthless as an actual piece of informative writing.
Her ranking isn’t a problem in-and-of itself. It’s more an issue that previously she was a #500+ swimmer who was able to move up to the 40’s. That kind of progress would be virtually impossible within a single division. These are the best swimmers in the country in that age group. There’s pretty much nothing that a #500 swimmer can do to move up to the 40’s in this kind of competitive environment. Even with massive doping, I doubt the #500 women’s swimmer would get anywhere near the 40’s. I would guess there has to be more swimmers between 1-500 on the men’s side who may end up being trans gender at some point. If the percentage of trans gender in swimming is similar to society, I would assume that there’s a few percent of those top 500 who would also be women and would want to swim on the women’s teams. I feel a lot of the concern is about this kind of performance jumping with trans women. Lia may have broken through a barrier and others may feel now feel more comfortable about coming out and switching which gender they swim with.
The FINA sporting group recently set their policy for trans athletes as:
With this kind of policy, there is not going to be the same genetic advantage as someone who transitions after puberty. Obviously I don’t know for sure, but my sense is that if Lia has transitioned pre-puberty, she wouldn’t be ranked in the 40’s. She may still be a good swimmer, but likely she wouldn’t be in that top echelon of women swimmers since she wasn’t when she was competing in the men’s team. But obviously this kind of policy doesn’t help people who transition later in life.
I would argue that simple growth and training from freshman to senior CAN make that much of a difference, but it’s irrelevant to my point, a single tree in the forest. To go all the way to the 40s, Lia fucked up her entire body, identity, and almost certainly receives a disgusting amount of hate mail and death threats. And there’s that whole “far more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed” thing. But hey, winning’s winning, eh?
I don’t particularly disagree with the FINA policy, though I find it a bit extreme. A trans swimmer from Texas now has no chance to compete internationally, period. Copy if their family is too poor to afford hormone therapy at that point, or Dad’s a bigot (oops, there’s that assault and rape again), or countless other options. All because Lia is #46 in the US.