Trans Women are not Women

[Ron_Tomkins]

In the end, for practical purposes, it's not so much an issue of whether or not they are women, as much as, they want to be treated as women. These are two separate things. Regardless of whether or not it is scientifically true that trans women are not women, they want to be addressed as one, have the same rights as one, be able to go to the same bathrooms, etc. So one is a scientific question, the other one is a moral/societal question of how to treat people.

It's the same with the question on homosexuality: Is it genetic or a choice? It makes no difference when it comes to the question of: Should we respect homosexuals, and allow them to have the same legal rights as straight people? (Though I know a lot of people will argue that no, we need to have the first question answered in order to decide if they get the obtain the same rights in society. But I disagree. Choosing a Religion is a choice, and yet they get a lot of rights, such as the right to not pay taxes)

The whole thing is tricky, because humans are very tribal. We don't like feeling excluded from the group. We evolved from staying in packs and hunting together. So being told "you're not one of us" feels like a stab in the heart.

But in the end, I would break it down to these two basic points:

* Regardless of whether or not trans women are actually women, they should have the same rights, and be treated with dignity and respect

* Regardless of the above, no one is in the obligation of changing their mind about whether or not trans women are actually women. If you believe they are not women, that is your right, and you also have a right to voice your opinion, provided it's done in a respectful manner. No one is under the obligation of calling trans women by the female pronoun or dating them, without being accused of being a transphobic.


These two principles have a very difficult time coexisting with each other. A lot of times, it's almost impossible for these two things to be true at the same time, without one somehow getting in the way of the other. But I believe it is possible, because I have seen many examples of people who abide by these two principles.

 

[tyr_13]

What are you talking about?

And the gigantic Russian straw athelete sprints in from left field....

*reads thread title*

*stares blankly at the camera*



More seriously, the OP erroneously argues that trans women aren't allowed to compete in women's sports because they aren't women, when in reality the reasons they're not allowed to compete are the same reasons doped women and women undergoing certain medical treatments aren't allowed to compete. The Russian thing was an allusion to Russia being barred from the next Olympics for doping.

 

[caveman1917]

Are Transwomen who have undergone hormone therapy for a few years really advantaged compared to cis-women with advantageous genetics? I guess they might have some advantage in proportions/leverage, but on balance, I really wonder.

Ah, that is indeed something I failed to consider.

The thing you're really failing to consider is that, at least in the UK, 95% of transwomen have not undergone any kind of medical therapy and 80% are expected to never do so.

We should be accurate about the concepts of sex and gender. Sex is the biological characteristic resulting from a certain pathway having been taken in the development of the fetus, consisting of primary and secondary sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct consisting of a behavioural stereotype (men are violent, women are submissive, men are logical, women are emotional, etc etc) and a social force which acts so as to force people into those stereotypes. Gender is hence always relative to a certain society, whereas sex is biological.

What is relevant for sports is secondary sex characteristics (lung capacity, muscle mass, etc) so what's relevant here is trans-sexualism and not trans-genderism. I don't see why there should be an expectation why someone with measurable sex-based advantages should be allowed into competitive sports of the other sex, whilst having no intention to do something about that advantage, for no other reason than that it "feels like the right thing" to that individual.

Trans-genderism is a category error anyway, confusing gender (a social construct) with personality (an individual construct).

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have another solution. Right now, the Olympics gives out 15 gold medals for weight lifting.

We change it to one gold medal, call it weightlifting, and be done with it.

I have similar solutions for other sports. Right now there are 34 gold medals in swimming. It should be 7. 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, and marathon swim.

 

[Roboramma]

I have another solution.

What problem is this a solution for?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What problem is this a solution for?

People feeling sad because fair competition something something.

 

[cullennz]

Problem is a bit of a stretch.

It is for any women who do it as a career.

Want to get to the Olympics etc etc

And can't because some she dude always wins

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is for any women who do it as a career.

Want to get to the Olympics etc etc

And can't because some she dude always wins

And she can negotiate that herself. I see no reason to try and get third parties motivated and picking a side. To call her problem a problem is a bit much. I'm having a problem with my mother in law right now. I'm not coming here and saying it is a problem.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah but what are the chances you would be in the 0.3%?

333.333~ to 1?

 

[quadraginta]

How is starting a boy or girl on hormone therapy before puberty not child abuse? There are instances of the kid changing his mind after starting. There is a reason for children not being deemed competent to make life altering decisions. If a child feels their right arm isn't theirs, should we allow an amputation?

There is also a reason for using reversible treatments which delay
puberty until the child is old enough to to be deemed competent to make life altering decisions.

Which is the way your concerns are handled.

 

[theprestige]

in reality the reasons they're not allowed to compete are the same reasons doped women and women undergoing certain medical treatments aren't allowed to compete.

I don't think that's true. Can you explain your reasoning here in a little more detail?

The Russian thing was an allusion to Russia being barred from the next Olympics for doping.

I see that as a separate issue entirely. A ciswoman who is doping to gain an unfair advantage over other ciswomen in athletic competition is fundamentally different from a transwoman who enjoys all the biological athletic advantages of a cisman, but who insists that her advantage over ciswomen in athletic competition is fair.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think that's true. Can you explain your reasoning here in a little more detail?

In each case they generally don't compete because the effects of human manipulation of hormones (corrective or not) often results in vast performance differences that make the competition unfair or unsafe. That doesn't mean that any of those groups aren't women. This goes either way on the causation sequence; it's neither true that they can't compete because they'r not women nor that they aren't women because they can't compete.

Now one might say, 'that's just one layer more of abstraction, the same as saying it's not the fall the kills you but the sudden stop at the end', but it isn't. The reason for the hormone/etc differences don't come from them not being 'women', but from them being 'transwomen' which is a subset of 'women'.

This gets tricky at the edges, but sports are pretty damn arbitrary in many regards anyway. Each small change in rules can change just what you're measuring. What about ciswomen who just have a lot of the needed hormones? Why is the tricky science of nutrition not also restricted/segregated the way sex and doping are? What is the goal of sports to begin with?

I see that as a separate issue entirely. A ciswoman who is doping to gain an unfair advantage over other ciswomen in athletic competition is fundamentally different from a transwoman who enjoys all the biological athletic advantages of a cisman, but who insists that her advantage over ciswomen in athletic competition is fair.

How is that fundamentally different?

 

[Butter!]

It is for any women who do it as a career.

Want to get to the Olympics etc etc

And can't because some she dude always wins

How childish.

 

[Butter!]

How is starting a boy or girl on hormone therapy before puberty not child abuse? There are instances of the kid changing his mind after starting. There is a reason for children not being deemed competent to make life altering decisions. If a child feels their right arm isn't theirs, should we allow an amputation?

As I understand it, the kid can't just go "get" hormones on a whim, like some vitamins or a Happy Meal. They have to undergo a lot of psychological evaluation and be under a doctor's direct supervision as the treatment progresses. I suppose the kid changing his/her mind could still be an issue (kids do it a lot), but the intense evaluations are intended to weed out the majority of that risk and make sure the patient is in earnest.

Beyond that, I really don't know what exact safeguards are in place. It would be interesting to delve into more deeply, but we'll get in trouble for derailing.

I will say that it would most assuredly be child abuse for a parent to attempt to make that decision FOR a kid, which has happened (we had a thread on such a case not too long ago). However, in that case, the kooky mother was "caught" before any hormones or serious interventions had begun. I take it that is the idea.

 

[cullennz]

And she can negotiate that herself. I see no reason to try and get third parties motivated and picking a side. To call her problem a problem is a bit much. I'm having a problem with my mother in law right now. I'm not coming here and saying it is a problem.

Your mother in law is stopping your career path, screwing your earnings and probably devaluing your endorsement earnings by taking over your sport with an unfair advantage?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Your mother in law is stopping your career path, screwing your earnings and probably devaluing your endorsement earnings by taking over your sport with an unfair advantage?

When you put it that way my problems are worse. I'm gong to fix mine by myself, they should too.

 

[cullennz]

When you put it that way my problems are worse. I'm gong to fix mine by myself, they should too.

Aah

They should break her arms

 

[Marcus]

I have another solution. Right now, the Olympics gives out 15 gold medals for weight lifting.

We change it to one gold medal, call it weightlifting, and be done with it.

I have similar solutions for other sports. Right now there are 34 gold medals in swimming. It should be 7. 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, and marathon swim.

I take it you're not into swimming. You didn't mention which stroke you would allow, but of course all the others would be eliminated, along with all the relays.

In weightlifting, no weight classes, either snatch or clean and jerk only, non-huge guys and women need not apply.

Stupid ideas.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I take it you're not into swimming. You didn't mention which stroke you would allow, but of course all the others would be eliminated, along with all the relays.

In weightlifting, no weight classes, either snatch or clean and jerk only, non-huge guys and women need not apply.

Stupid ideas.

The stroke is swimmers choice.

Anyone is free to compete in the weightlifting event.

Why stupid?

 

[sadhatter]

There is also a reason for using reversible treatments which delay
puberty until the child is old enough to to be deemed competent to make life altering decisions.

Which is the way your concerns are handled.

The logic is circular.

The parent has final say but it's following the child's wishes.

Do we really think the child can understand the risks involved with (any) medication? Hell most adults are pretty dim on the subject.

So then we have the patents making the decision, so really at what point is logic or reason coming from an adult? Or if you are looking at it from another angle, the parents have a scary amount of ability to modify their child as per their whim. What standard of evidence would we use to determine what the child actually wants?

We won't let someone tattoo their child (and their are plenty of parents who try) but making a medical decision of this magnitude (any medication can have serious adverse effects. Hence why they are not used on a win. ) should be not only fine, but based on the reasoning of a child?

We don't even let people tattoo themselves before adulthood.