They are indeed faulty. On what basis do you exclude cis men from the “women’s” class of sports competition? You clearly do not treat them (disallowed) in the same way that you treat genetic outliers (allowed).
It’s obvious that trans women who have not transitioned are no more genetic outliers than cis men are.
I’m not arguing for abolishing men and women divisions. You’re erecting a Johnny Bravo strawman and asking me to defend it.
I know you’re not doing it explicitly. I’m pointing out that this is a logical consequence of your (flawed) reasoning.
If you’re claiming that non-transitioned trans women should not be exluded from the restricted class simply because we do not exclude cis women who are genetic outliers, then you have no consistent logical basis to exclude cis men either.
I think there are a couple of reasons. One is the reason why there is gender separation in sports to begin with and the second is the particular way in which transgender athletes are outliers. The reason for gender separation in certain sports is because cis males will have a great advantage over cis females , often to the point that if there weren’t separate teams for a sport , the cis females wouldn’t be able to play competitively at all.
And the thing is that transgender athletes are not outliers in quite the same way as a Michael Phelps or a Louis Zamperini - their physical aberrations would be aberrations in any group. There is not a group comprising around 50% of the population where their gift would not make them outliers. Now, if around 50% of the population had flipper-feet , we would either be dividing competitive swimming into flipper and non-flipper events or we wouldn’t see many non-flipper people who were able to be competitive. And if we divided it into flipper and non-flipper divisions, there would have to be a dividing line.
I think that we will eventually have to get rid of the “women’s” classification altogether and make any division based on something other than gender although I can’t say at the moment what it should be.
The reason for women’s divisions isn’t just competitive advantage, it is also for sociocultural reasons. Especially when such divisions got started, but even still today, there are cultural taboos about men and women using the same locker room, being in certain types of physical contact if they are not a couple etc etc. This is more pronounced in some countries than here–many Muslim countries for example women would not be permitted to participate in sports at all if it meant they would be in close contact with men.
@Johnny_Bravo is just asking the question, like I was doing the other day. You’re the one drawing conclusions from it. We just want to know why trans athletes are a threat to sports and all these other genetic abnormalities aren’t. Where is the flawed reasoning in that?
Trans women do not claim to be born as women with “outlier female” bodies. It would obviously be objectively false to claim that, and it is not some kind of uber-virtuous trans ally position to suggest this. The very word “trans” means that trans women have a female gender identity but are born with what are typically cis male bodies.
Now, it’s very much possible that hormone-mediated transition can take trans women into a physiological range that’s fully within the range of cis female genetic variation. When that’s the case, they should of course be allowed to participate in the restricted class. But that’s a question that should be addressed on its scientific merits, not with misguided assertions that there’s just no issue here, or worse that it’s transphobic to consider this issue on its objective merits in establishing a fair restricted class.
You cannot be a trans ally correctly asserting that the physical body does not define gender identity, then turn around and simultaneously claim that gender identity alone tells you everything that is relevant about the physical body for the purposes of a restricted class in sporting events.
Most people asserting the former are just waving away the consequences of the latter, though. So the contradiction stands for now.
I don’t see how the restricted class can survive this. You could add weight or body measurements, but that’s going to be seen as a discriminatory work around. And yes, there are going to be the cis male challenges as well, or people whose gender is “prefer not to say.” Self declared gender is self declared gender.
How do paralympic classes survive?
It certainly sounds like you are arguing for a state of affairs with no restrictions based on biological factors. Or, perhaps you just haven’t followed your logic to its conclusion.
By allowing physical requirement tests, which will not be allowed for this restricted class.
Then answer the question I have asked - if you think the existence of cis female genetic outliers implies that there is no basis to exclude non-transitioned trans women from the restricted class, on what logically consistent basis can you exclude cis men? What about people with non-binary identity? What about people with fluid identity? What about people who don’t yet know?
The entire point of trans rights is that the physical body does not define identity. Beyond that, identity is really nobody else’s fucking business. It is surely a straightforward corollary that gender identity is not sufficient or approriate to define a purely physical restricted class for the purposes of sporting competition. And that this restricted class should be recognized for what it is - a purely physical class, and not an affirmation or denial of gender identity.
I don’t know what we should call it, but a sensible and fair physical restricted class should not be called “women’s” sport.
Plenty of sports are now deciding that actually there can be such requirements imposed. I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
Incidentally, another sport, Rugby League, has taken the decision to exclude male-female trans players.
Where have I claimed that?
I’m not going to play some silly game with you of going back and rereading all your posts to see if there is more than one way to parse them. My understanding was that you were claiming that trans women were conceptually no different than cis female genetic outliers, and therefore should be allowed to compete in the “women’s” class without restriction. If I have understood you incorrectly, I apologize.
I’m interested in debating the substantive issues, not arguing about how to parse prior posts. If you are not claiming that, please clarify what your position is.
In a sporting landscape without divisions, neither type of genetic advantage is a “threat” at all. People end up competing against those people closest to their ability.
Where divisions are created on the basis of biological traits and genetics, and those traits are strongly correlated to huge disparities in performance, to the extent that fair and safe competition is under threat, then policing of those divisions is required and we are back to having the discussion on how that is to be done.
Apology accepted.
But then we’re right back to it, I guess? Asking you to respond to what I’m saying instead of what you imagine I’m implying isn’t rude or silly. It does make it difficult to engage with you.
And as this is IMHO and not GD, I don’t feel a particular need to state a resolved position. We’re having a discussion, not a debate.
Rieman did ask a perfectly clear question in order to find out exactly what you do think. You can choose to engage, answer it honestly and clearly and we make progress. Or don’t.
If ever I think I’ve been misunderstood or my argument has been mischaracterised or missed entirely, the one thing I want to do is set the record straight.
Well, social ostracization of transgendered people is the logical consequence of your reasoning.
Would you like to defend why you feel that social ostracization of transgendered people is your goal?
If not, then stop jumping ahead and asserting the logical conclusions of others, unless you want your arguments taken to their logical conclusion and be demanded to defend them.
Is that what he is doing?
In a later post, you say that you aren’t willing to go back and read his posts, but I think that you should, as the conclusions that you have reached here indicate that you read them very poorly.
As you say:
You have to at least understand what it is that you are responding to, and that does require some work on your part. Otherwise, you are just arguing against things that no one has actually said, and what good do you really think you are doing then?