No thank you, since a lot of sports lean GOP, and thus bigoted.
Sure.
The person in question.
Good point.
In the USA you do. Other than claiming to be a Member of a Tribe, the USA fully supports self-identification. A onlooker may think different, but that is on them.
More scare-mongering. It is not a problem today, and is unlikely to ever be a problem.
The truth is that the debate is complicated because it goes not just to te trans issue, but also to competiveness in sport and why you might want to restrict wo can compete with each other.
The current evidence indicates that the physical advantage that people who go throug male puberty takes a long time (i.e. longer than a typical athletes career) to disappear. I don’t think you can pretned this doesn’t exist as in some sports physical advantages are incredibly important. If you take combat sports for example physical advantage is so important that even within genders there are restrictions (i.e. weight classes) and those restrictions are not just about comeptiveness, they’re also about reducing the risk of serious injury to competitors. On the other end of the scale you have a sport like darts where physicality is so unimportnat even a moribidly obsese person can become world champion (RIP Andy Fordham)
I think at the elite level it won’t come down to what is either fair to biological women or what is fair to transwomen, but how you can provide an entertianing spectacle whilst restricting who can compete. I tink a sport like women’s tennis does that very well by being its own sport rather than just a version of the men’s sport. The eleite levels will of course hugely influence lower levels.
*darts is an intersting case because it is really difficult to point to to men out perform women at higher levels: there’s no obvious physical reason and it has a long history of female participation. Recently a woman did get to the quarter finals of a major men’s tournament and the gap between the top men and women is much less than in physical sports, but there is still a noticeable gap.
Let’s try it this way:
Reimann - Trans athletes are unfair to women because (insert cogent argument about testosterone, physical maturation, puberty etc.)
Bigots - Trans athletes are unfair to women because trans people are disgusting broken subhumans who represent an existential threat to all women everywhere, and we need to make sure they are not allowed to exist.
The “shared view” in this case is “trans athletes are unfair to women”.
The “problematic view” is “subhuman threat that shouldn’t be allowed to exist”
For the Bigots, those two views are not inherently different, they hold the shared view because of the problematic view. By telling the Bigots that I agree with them on the shared view, I reinforce their problematic view.
In my mind, I’m offering a nuanced argument about athletics, in their minds I’m agreeing that trans people are a problem. I don’t want to do that, I want the Bigots to hear that their bigotry is wrong, and any conclusions they’ve come to via bigotry is also wrong. No nuance, just the message that bigotry is wrong.
It is a cogent argument. But so far, the argument is wrong. There is no issue. I agree, someday there could be, but there is not.
Except that you’re completely missing the real point that I’m making here, which is certainly not summarized as “trans athletes are unfair to [cis] women”.
Outside of sports, the consistent message is that gender identity is not about the physical body. Being a woman is not defined by your body. A woman may have any physical body. For example, in health services, it is important to remember that the category of people who are susceptible to ovarian cancer does not map to women, and the category of people who are susceptible to testicular cancer does not map to men.
Sports is about physical capabilities, and the fact that the distribution of human physical abilities is strongly bimodal is why the restricted class exists. So to assert that the gender identity “woman” maps correctly to the historical restricted physical class in sport contradicts and undermines everything else we have been saying about gender identity. In fact, making this assertion is transphobic.
What I’m saying is wrong and transphobic is the whole idea of associating this restricted physical class in sport with the concept of being a woman. The restricted class should not be called “women’s” sport, and participation in the restricted class should not be treated as an affirmation or denial of gender identity.
America is not the world.
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.
That was the point I was making.
The other group doesn’t passively have other views, they use this issue as a wedge to drive their harmful views into public thought. They use this to convince others that trans people are a problem to be dealt with, a threat to our society, to our women who are helpless against these men who are pretending to be women. It is just reasonable enough to get traction.
Well, that is true, but a lot of other nations are bigoted.
Any I believe that we enable that if we adopt a position on sports participation that is fundamentally irrational and contradicts everything else that we say about what gender identity means.
There is a limited sense in which they are right about excluding some subset of trans women from the restricted class in sports, even though they frame the issue wrongly and from a bigoted perspective. They are wrong about absolutely everything else, so insisting that you must fight to the death on the one issue where they do actually have a point does not seem to me to be a good way to stem the tide of bigotry.
We should not be presenting and inconsistent and contradictory message about what gender identity means to the great majority of people who are ignorant about trans issues, or their reaction may be to conclude that the bigots are probably right, and it’s all “nonsense”.
That may be true, that may be what some people do but it has no bearing on whether an argument is sound or not and it certainly should not used as justifcation for silencing such a sound argument.
More or less, sure.
Explain why these matter, and maybe I’ll answer.
We’ve talked about this in this thread an others, but usually we are talking about 2 years of hormone thearapy.
No, as I’ve said a few times in this thread. A transwoman should undergo a couple years of hormone therapy before competing in sports.
Outside of that, I don’t see any reason to make any restrictions. Maybe as we have more trans athletes in the future, we may have more data to make better guidelines, but I’d rather err on the side of inclusion, given that the current data indicates that any advantage a transwoman who has spent two years on hormone therapy is lost in the noise of the random genetic lottery.
You are wildly incorrect on this point. But you displayed your ignorance with quite a bit of confidence and gusto, so kudos for that!
Then don’t.
Seriously, this irrational position is simply one that you have made up, and have continued to come back to over and over. As long as you refuse to get past it and discuss what everyone else is discussing, you are going to continue to carry water for the transphobes.
What do you think the “A” stands for in “ACLU?”
But if you bring up how unfair the post-1918 settlement in Germany on a regular basis, unprompted, then you do start to sound like you are sympathizing with them.
It’s the one espoused by the ACLU article that this thread is about.
So you have no actual argument to refute anything I’ve said, but you just want me to stop saying it. Okay.
Sure, classy - keep hinting that I’m a transphobe when you have nothing of substance to say. The definition of a transphobe is not “anyone who disagrees with the ACLU and @k9bfriender on how best to fight the tide of transphobic bigotry”.
because you’ve imagined a theoretical sport, being played at an unknown level with an unknown division based on obviously unknown criteria and governed by unknown regulations.
Without giving some concrete information for the above your question is impossible to answer honestly.
As to why they matter? I’m surprised you cannot imagine why.
A 12 year old transgirl, pre-pubescent showing up for golf at a local club is a different thing to 21 year old transwoman,post-pubescent and with no medical treatment, trying out for a womens professional rugby team.
I’d like to hear, in your words, what the purpose of that treatment would be.
Who is bringing the argument up regularly and unprompted? We are in thread that is directly relevant to the argument, to not make it would be perverse.
If we were in thread about the causes of WW2 then a sound argument about the post-WW1 settlements would be relevant and expected. To suggest that it shouldn’t be brought up, or it is somehow problematic because the Nazis also made that argument would be frankly idiotic.
Sportsball:
My personal opinion is that it is ultimately fruitless to argue whether transwomen are women or not because i comes down to the defintion of a word.