The ACLU is getting heat for this article

[k9bfriender]

@Novelty_Bobble

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.

So, explain why you want to exclude anyone with gender dysphoria from participating in sports.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@k9bfriender

So, explain why you want to exclude anyone with gender dysphoria from participating in sports.

I don’t want to exclude anyone from participating in sport. What did I say that makes you think that? I’m happy to explain if you tell me where I’ve been unclear.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Johnny_Bravo

I’m not arguing for abolishing men and women divisions. You’re erecting a Johnny Bravo strawman and asking me to defend it.

I’ll have a go at asking a straight question.

Do you think it is valid to have competitive divisions based on biological or other physical factors?

I don’t think it can be put any simpler and it is super easy to answer. I’ll even go first. Yes, I think it is valid.

[DrDeth]

@Novelty_Bobble

That will mean that no biological female will ever reach elite level (in pretty much any athletic endeavour you care to mention) It definitely solves the problem of transgender athletes though, at the expense of relegating women athletes to a permanent lower division and of course it means that transgender people will not be guaranteed to compete only against people of their chosen gender.

Nonsense. Do you envision horde of trans athletes?

And I note you sidestepped my point-

@DrDeth

There are genomes that seem to make runners better. Should we do a DNA test and ban those since they have a unfair advantage?

@MrDibble

Some people care. The motivations for social contact and fun don’t magically drop away for everyone else. What’s the good reason for ignoring them in favour of the pure competitives?

Good points.

@Johnny_Bravo

Most every high-level athlete is a genetic outlier in one way or another. NBA players, for example, have huge wingspans compared to normal humans. Nobody is saying, I don’t think, that we should exclude these players from competition because their physical presence on the court gives them an unfair advantage over us normies.

Yeah, let us ban anyone from basketball over six feet! They have an unfair advantage.

@Riemann

If you support a “women’s” restricted class at all, you support restrictions.

Yes, those who are women. Unless you are saying that a woman who was born a man is not a woman?

@running_coach

A man who barely breaks 4:00 would put the mile record out of reach for decades, perhaps forever.

Same here? Are you claiming those women are not= women?

[Riemann]

@DrDeth

Unless you are saying that a woman who was born a man is not a woman?

Get off your virtue-signalling high horse and read what I have written. There’s a good reason that I put “women’s” in inverted commas, and I explained it clearly.

@Riemann

What I can’t get over is the bizarre inconsistency of the following:

(1) Trans rights. What defines being a woman is gender identity. That is a state of mind, not a physical body. A woman many be born with any body. When a trans woman is ready, she may or may not choose to take steps to physically transition her body in accord with her identity.

(2) People with the gender identity “woman” never have significant physiological differences that can matter in sports.

I think claim (2) undermines (1), when (1) is what we’re trying to get people to accept and understand in about gender identity and what it means to be trans. The entire point in affirming trans rights is that a woman may have any type of body, and that gender identity does not map to the physical categories “men” and “women” in sport. Position (2) seems to me to be almost indistinguishable from the bigoted position that we oppose, that the body defines the identity.

As I said above, I think the fundamental problem here is treating the restricted sports category as an affirmation (or denial) of gender identity, when it’s not - it’s about purely physical characteristics. The problem is that the restricted category should not be called “women’s” sports.

@Riemann

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.

So let me ask you a question.

Do you think trans women who have chosen not to undergo any hormonal transition should be allowed to compete in the restricted category in sports? If not, are you saying they are not women? What about non-binary people, or people who are gender fluid? If you restrict their participation in sport in any way, are you seeking to deny their gender identity?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@DrDeth

Nonsense. Do you envision horde of trans athletes?

How do you get to that comment from what I wrote?

I was talking about a scenario with no categorisation (which is clear from the bit you didn’t quote) which, yes will mean that no woman will attain elite status. Not due to hordes of trans athletes, but because men will take all the top spots.

@DrDeth

And I note you sidestepped my point-

you mean this one?

@DrDeth

There are genomes that seem to make runners better. Should we do a DNA test and ban those since they have a unfair advantage?

Is there really such a genetic marker? does it confer an unfair advantage? Does it come close to the massive advantage conferred by testosterone, male puberty and male physiology?
If it does then yes, I’d be open to arguments suggesting the competetive divisions be set up accordingly.

I offered more on that subject in this post.

@Novelty_Bobble

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.

So having fully answered your question let me ask you. Do you think it is valid to have competitive divisions based on biological or other physical factors?

[Sam_Stone]

A modest proposal: Retain the men’s/women’s sports categories, without trans competitors, but add an ‘open’ category which would be the highest prestige - the best of all. Let anyone compete, regardless of gender or other physical attributes.

[Novelty_Bobble]

The “mens” category in most sports is actually an “open” category. I’m not aware of any barrier to women competing should they choose to do so and if they are good enough. And I’m in favour of removing barriers if there are any.

[Riemann]

@Sam_Stone

Retain the men’s/women’s sports categories, without trans competitors, but add an ‘open’ category which would be the highest prestige - the best of all.

That really doesn’t solve anything. As @Novelty_Bobble says, “men” is really equivalent to an open category already. Whether and when trans women who undergo hormone-mediated transition are on a level playing field with cis women is the moot point here, but they are certainly at a disadvantage to cis men.

[What_Exit]

@Riemann

Get off your virtue-signalling high horse and read what I have written.

Please remember all, argue the posts and don’t attack each other.

[k9bfriender]

A transwoman shows up for sportsball and field tryouts. Do you let them?

[k9bfriender]

@Riemann

Do you think trans women who have chosen not to undergo any hormonal transition should be allowed to compete in the restricted category in sports?

I don’t think that anyone is advocating for that.

@Riemann

If not, are you saying they are not women?

I would say that they have the unaltered physiology of a man, and an unaltered man is going to have some serious advantages.

The entire point of requiring that an athlete go through hormone transition for a period of time before allowing them to compete is specifically to lower that advantage.

It will take time to gather data to be sure, and it will require allowing transwomen to compete in order to get that data, but the consensus seems to be that after taking hormones for a couple of years, any advantages from having come from a male physiology is much smaller than advantages given by random genetic lottery.

If this assumed consensus proves to be incorrect, we can look at adjustments to make things more fair. But currently, the idea is to just refuse to allow transwomen to even compete.

@Sam_Stone

A modest proposal: Retain the men’s/women’s sports categories, without trans competitors, but add an ‘open’ category which would be the highest prestige - the best of all. Let anyone compete, regardless of gender or other physical attributes.

I’m for it if you just make it the steroids league. Any substance you want to put into your body, if you think it will make you perform better.

Get some amazing athletes, as well as a ton of medical research.

Tough open to adults only.

[TriPolar]

@k9bfriender

I would say that they have the unaltered physiology of a man, and an unaltered man is going to have some serious advantages.

The entire point of requiring that an athlete go through hormone transition for a period of time before allowing them to compete is specifically to lower that advantage.

Where are these rules? How many years? What measure is used to determine it is enough?

It will take time to gather data to be sure, and it will require allowing transwomen to compete in order to get that data, but the consensus seems to be that after taking hormones for a couple of years, any advantages from having come from a male physiology is much smaller than advantages given by random genetic lottery.

If this assumed consensus proves to be incorrect, we can look at adjustments to make things more fair.

So control the hormones just enough so that the person qualifies to compete with women but has the maximum advantage of pre-trans body? If this is where we are heading lets allow PEDs and we could also use hormone handicapping to get rid of those unfair advantages that better athletes have.

But currently, the idea is to just refuse to allow transwomen to even compete.

Currently there is an idea to refuse to allow transwomen to even compete, and another idea to let transwomen compete without defining what a transwoman is.

[Riemann]

@k9bfriender

It will take time to gather data to be sure, and it will require allowing transwomen to compete in order to get that data, but the consensus seems to be that after taking hormones for a couple of years, any advantages from having come from a male physiology is much smaller than advantages given by random genetic lottery.

If this assumed consensus proves to be incorrect, we can look at adjustments to make things more fair.

I don’t see that we’re in any disagreement here. You agree that if a trans women chooses not to undergo hormone-mediated transition, she should not be allowed to participate in the restricted class - and that this does not diminish or deny her identity as a woman. And that the participation of women who do choose to undergo hormone-mediated transition should be based on objective physical criteria. If the science ultimately tells us that it is not fair to allow some subset of transitioned women to compete in the same restricted physical class as cis women, it does not diminish or deny their identity as women either.

It is not transphobic to say that not all women have bodies that correspond to the historical restricted physical class in sport. Quite the opposite - the entire point of asserting trans rights is that women can have any physical body.

What I believe is transphobic is continuing to label the restricted physical class in sports “women”.

[Banquet_Bear]

…this thread is such a quaint callback to discussions of old. Where transgender people playing sport was such a crisis. We are seeing the same old arguments back here again.

But the reality is that there is no crisis. There wasn’t a crisis back then, there isn’t a crisis right now. Transgender people aren’t dominating any sports. Not athletics. Not swimming. Not power-lifting. Not rugby. People aren’t being disproportionally injured by transgender people. There hasn’t been a surge of men pretending to be women so they can start winning gold medals, or so they can get into the women’s changing rooms.

Everything is the same as it was the last time we had this debate. And everything is the same as the debate before that. But that future everybody was worried about back then is here now.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t a debate to be had here.

Its just that, right now, as a society, we are so far beyond the “should we have male and female divisions in sports at all” narrative that it isn’t funny anymore.

In the last six months we have seen a significant escalation in attacks on transgender people.

The “groomer” narrative has taken hold. Trans healthcare for children is being banned. In March, 30 states had introduced legislation to ban trans children and trans women from playing sports. Many of those have now passed. The Nazis are storming Drag Queen events, and they are deliberately conflating drag with transgender folk. They are calling for parents who seek treatment for trans children to be investigated.

And that’s just America.

Things are really really bad right now. And they will get worse. It isn’t going to stop here. They are coming for trans people now. But this debate reads exactly like the debates we had a couple of years ago, as if what is happening now doesn’t matter.

At least back then, we still had some transgender people participating on the boards. I think they’ve all gone now.

I can’t help but read this thread and despair. None of this sporting stuff really matters. Not in comparison to the erosion of fundamental rights. Sports are not being threatened by transgender people. There is no big problem that needs fixing here that individual sporting bodies shouldn’t be able to handle.

[DrDeth]

@Banquet_Bear

But the reality is that there is no crisis. There wasn’t a crisis back then, there isn’t a crisis right now. Transgender people aren’t dominating any sports. Not athletics. Not swimming. Not power-lifting. Not rugby. People aren’t being disproportionally injured by transgender people. There hasn’t been a surge of men pretending to be women so they can start winning gold medals, or so they can get into the women’s changing rooms.

Right, absolutely.

There is no problem. I suppose it is just possible there could be, but there is not.

@Banquet_Bear

I can’t help but read this thread and despair. None of this sporting stuff really matters. Not in comparison to the erosion of fundamental rights. Sports are not being threatened by transgender people. There is no big problem that needs fixing here that individual sporting bodies shouldn’t be able to handle.

I know. I expected a chorus of “The ACLU is right, as usual” and instead we get the tired old baseless arguments. I am sad. I thought the SDMB had moved beyond this sort of thing.

[Riemann]

@Banquet_Bear

They are coming for trans people now.

And I don’t think anyone participating in this thread is unaware of the evil that is out there.

But we need all the allies we can get, and what’s going to be important is the great majority who are not evil, but just completely clueless about trans issues. I don’t think it’s going to convince these people that what we are saying about trans people makes sense if we take a position on sports that is completely inconsistent with everything else that we say about trans rights. Specifically:

@Riemann

You cannot [credibly] 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.

The entire point in advocating for trans rights is that gender identity implies absolutely nothing about the physical body, and vice versa.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Riemann

And I don’t think anyone participating in this thread is unaware of the evil that is out there.

…I think that there are. I believe that there are even people participating in this thread who are largely in agreement with those people.

@Riemann

The entire point in advocating for trans rights is that gender identity implies absolutely nothing about the physical body, and vice versa.

The entire point in advocating for trans rights is to protect trans people.

That’s it. That’s the point. That’s what I’m here for.

What are you here for?

[Riemann]

@Banquet_Bear

What are you here for?

Not to be patronized as though you’re the only one here who cares about trans people, that’s for sure.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Riemann

Not to be patronized as though you’re the only one here who cares about trans people, that’s for sure.

…do you or do you not believe the entire point in advocating for trans rights is to protect trans people?

Because I don’t understand what it was that you said. Nothing you said had anything to do with credibly being trans ally, or with advocating for trans rights.