Trans Women are not Women

[Belz...]

Here's something I didn't know (probably not really relevant to this discussion, but interesting nonetheless).

From 1968 until 1992 the Olympic skeet shooting event was open to men and women. Then in 1992 it was actually won by a woman.

So what happened at the next Olympics? It was made men-only.

Those evil men!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't follow. The entire thread is about being male or female.

But your objection wasn't. Your objection was about being able to define categories where there can be genuine competition regardless of biological advantage

The point is that the current categories ensure that women can compete and win. The proposed solution would break that.

No, the current categories ensure SOME women can compete and win, other women can't and yet other women are told they aren't women at all and aren't even allowed to play.

If the proposed solution would be worse (and to be honest I haven't seen an actual proposed solution) then we need a different solution. But let's not pretend that what we have is perfect.

Isn't it important for women to feel like they can compete and succeed?

I don't know. I never felt like I could compete and succeed in sport, did I miss out on something important because of biological disadvantage? And what does compete and succeed even really mean?

Competing and succeeding vs people who are generally just as good/bad as you? Or competing and succeeding as the best in the world?

Because the vast majority of women can't compete and succeed with the best women in the world anyway and never could for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Belz...]

But your objection wasn't. Your objection was about being able to define categories where there can be genuine competition regardless of biological advantage

I would argue that it includes biological advantage, but ok.

No, the current categories ensure SOME women can compete and win, other women can't and yet other women are told they aren't women at all and aren't even allowed to play.

That's a useless nitpick, again. That's true for ALL competitions, everywhere.

If the proposed solution would be worse (and to be honest I haven't seen an actual proposed solution) then we need a different solution. But let's not pretend that what we have is perfect.

No one made that pretense, so what are you arguing, here?

I don't know. I never felt like I could compete and succeed in sport, did I miss out on something important because of biological disadvantage? And what does compete and succeed even really mean?

Think of it differently: what if you were excluded not because of your skill, but your gender, hair colour, address or political leanings?

 

[Matthew Best]

Those evil men!

I suppose some people might think that.

Others may just have the reaction: (sigh), same as it ever was....

 

[Belz...]

I suppose some people might think that.

Others may just have the reaction: (sigh), same as it ever was....

Well, my point was, given how little information you gave, it's not easy to draw a rational conclusion. Sure, the post was written in a way that it 'leads' to a specific conclusion, but is it the correct one?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Whether it's logical or not is irrelevant, it's what actually happens. People pay more money to see Serena Williams than they do to see Tomislav Brkic.

Cool, then let transgender women compete in the women's category as women.

Because people also like competitive matches, and they like winners. An all-women's team that always loses to men isn't going to be a draw, not even for viewers who want to watch women.

Then don't put together a competition that involves all-women's teams competing and losing with all-men teams. There are already transwomen competing in some sports and they haven't been destroyed. It seems the argument is that its OK for transwomen to compete in sports as long as they don't get too good and win all the time?

 

[Belz...]

Cool, then let transgender women compete in the women's category as women.

How does that follow? In theory trans women are going to dominate cis women just as (but not as much as) men would.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems the argument is that its OK for transwomen to compete in sports as long as they don't get too good and win all the time?

No the argument is not sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a bunch of biological men who identify as a women dominating biological women is going to be seen as fair.

The elephant in the room is pretty much jumping up and down screaming LOOKIT ME! LOOKIT ME! at this point.

We can't create a viable, sustainable system in areas of physical competitiveness that creates the illusion that biological females can compete with biological males consistently in most areas.

And that's what people are demanding we create, or at the very least never being happy with any system that isn't that.

They don't us to put a woman (cis or trans) against a man (cis or trans.) They want us to put a woman against a man and somehow just magically make it fair without given the woman any advantage which... just... isn't... possible. I'm sorry, biology is sexist sometimes.

If you put Katie Hidna on the gridiron with Refrigerator Perry, she's going to lose. If you put Ronda Rousey in the Octagon with Frank Mir, she is going to lose. If put on Lisa Leslie on the court with Shaq, she is going to lose.

What people want is for us to somehow make a world where that's just magically not true.

And Hidna, Rousey, and Leslie are all amazing athletes that deserve all the respect they get and more. I'm not taking anything away from them.

But we can't keep throwing different versions of what's supposed to be "fair" against the wall until we get to one that handicaps the men so the women can win but doesn't look like that's what it's doing so the women don't feel cheated out of their win. Because nothing's ever gonna stick to that wall. Because of reality.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How does that follow? In theory trans women are going to dominate cis women just as (but not as much as) men would.

People are happy to pay to see Serena Williams dominate every other woman so what's the difference?

 

[Belz...]

People are happy to pay to see Serena Williams dominate every other woman so what's the difference?

Are you playing games, here? Do you really not understand why women's sports exist? If what you say is true, there would be no segregation in sports, so clearly you're wrong, and people do care.

So could you either make an actual argument and stop pretending not to understand the basics of the discussion?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No the argument is not sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a bunch of biological men who identify as a women dominating biological women is going to be seen as fair.

The elephant in the room is pretty much jumping up and down screaming LOOKIT ME! LOOKIT ME! at this point.

We can't create a viable, sustainable system in areas of physical competitiveness that creates the illusion that biological females can compete with biological males in consistently in most areas.

And that's what people are demanding we create, or at the very least never being happy with any system that isn't that.

They don't us to put a woman (cis or trans) against a man (cis or trans.) They want us to put a woman against a man and somehow just magically make it fair without given the woman any advantage which... just... isn't... possible. I'm sorry, biological is sexist sometimes.

If you put Katie Hidna on the gridiron with Refrigerator Perry, she's going to lose. If you put Ronda Rousey in the Octagon with Frank Mir, she is going to lose. If put on Lisa Leslie on the court with Shaq, she is going to lose.

What people want is for us to somehow make a world where that's just magically not true.

And Hidna, Rousey, and Leslie are all amazing athletes that deserve all the respect they get and more. I'm not taking anything away from them.

But we can't keep throwing different versions of what's supposed to be "fair" against the wall until we get to one that handicaps the men so the women can win but doesn't look like that's what it's doing so the women don't feel cheated out of their win. Because nothing's ever gonna stick to that wall. Because of reality.

And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine. So if that's your answer then you have to go back to the drawing board.

Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

 

[Belz...]

And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine.

Of course you can, just like most men are excluded because that's the whole point.

Seriously, stop it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

Yeah she's dominating women's tennis.

What people want is to maintain the illusion that she would dominate men's tennis as well.

If Roger Federer identified as a woman and stepped on the court against Serena Williams, he'd win. That's where the illusion breaks down.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Are you playing games, here? Do you really not understand why women's sports exist?

No, I understand. But the question is how to facilitate the participation of other groups of women - namely transwomen - in sport and that may require rethinking things

If what you say is true, there would be no segregation in sports, so clearly you're wrong, and people do care.

People care about all sorts of things. Some people care(d) about keeping black people away from their drinking fountains for example. That's not really an argument for anything.

So could you either make an actual argument and stop pretending not to understand the basics of the discussion?

Ah, so questioning assumptions is not understanding the basics of discussion?

I think my argument is quite clear - a system which excludes transwomen from competing is not in my opinion justifiable. A different system should be found and in order to achieve that we need to look at things differently and stop relying on the old paradigm as a given.

If it's unfair that the majority of women can't compete with a transwoman in sport then it's just as unfair that they can't compete with Serena Williams. But that is just the nature of sport.

I don't have the solution, and agree that finding one may well be difficult but that's no reason to just give up. And it's certainly no reason to start beating the 'transwomen aren't women' drum.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah she's dominating women's tennis.

What people want is to maintain the illusion that she would dominate men's tennis as well.

I haven't seen this at all. She wouldn't. Nobody has claimed that.

All I am saying is that Serena Williams has a biological advantage over the average woman which has allowed her to excel in her sport. And if other women have biological advantages over her then it's completely arbitrary that one is OK and the other not. Not to say it's wrong, because sport sets arbitrary rules all the time, but it is still arbitrary.

If Roger Federer identified as a woman and stepped on the court as Serena Williams, he'd win. That's where the illusion breaks down.

Well again there isn't an illusion to break. But this is exactly what I was getting at, the assumption that transwomen are or will be acting in bad faith.

A question, what of Roger Federer actually was trans? And decided at age 16 he wanted to compete in women's tennis. And went on to win just as many titles as Serena Williams has won. Would that be a terrible thing?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I haven't seen this at all. She wouldn't. Nobody has claimed that.

Because we're completely in "Nobody's saying... they're just saying" territory.

No nobody's actual gonna say that because it's... provably and demonstrably wrong but all the places we are being told we have to end up require it to be true.

It's not about what you or I think about where the male/female line is exactly drawn. It's, yet again, about understanding that if we accept we can't please everyone you HAVE to give me a reason why (g)you should be the one I choose to please.

We let biological men who identify as women into women's sports and they are going to dominate them. Again I can't say words that will make that not true by adjusting the labeling of the parts or by rearranging how we organize the pieces.

Your version of how we should do things would result in a Biological Men who Identify as Men League and a Biological Men who Identify as Women League. I don't care if YOU aren't bothered by that, hell I'm really not either. Just nod your head if you understand that SOME people will be. It will be seen by SOME people has men taking over women's sports and leaving the "real women" nowhere to go. And I have no reason to make you happy over them since both arguments are based on some variation of "you're being unfair / you're being a bigot" so I'm the bad guy either way.

 

[Belz...]

No, I understand.

So I gathered, but it does raise the issue of why you pretended not to.

But the question is how to facilitate the participation of other groups of women - namely transwomen

Here's the thing: sports aren't segregated by gender, but by biological sex. Trans women are not a group of female.

People care about all sorts of things. Some people care(d) about keeping black people away from their drinking fountains for example. That's not really an argument for anything.

It is because it drives the market. There is a demand for women's sports, and reorganising it would drive them out of competitions.

I think my argument is quite clear - a system which excludes transwomen from competing is not in my opinion justifiable. A different system should be found and in order to achieve that we need to look at things differently and stop relying on the old paradigm as a given.

The system in place excludes 0.3% of women, in addition to those who don't qualify. The system proposed would exclude a much larger percentage, at the benefit of a larger percentage of those 0.3% than that of those women who don't qualify. Is that supposed to be a win?

If it's unfair that the majority of women can't compete with a transwoman in sport then it's just as unfair that they can't compete with Serena Williams.

See, that's what I mean when I say you don't understand the basics. The reason why most women can't compete with Williams is a matter of skill. The reason why almost no woman can compete with a trans woman is because the latter is male, and has an unfair biological advantage before you even take skill into consideration.

But go ahead, exclude women in sports and see what happens. You think most women can't compete with Williams? NO woman can compete with Roger Federer. None.

 

[sadhatter]

I am not following.

There already is the picking and watching of worse players - it's women's sports.

And no, most sport is not about making money. That's the 1% of professional elite athletes.

Here is an example of a transwoman playing competitive sport with women at a very non-elite level... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47438175

Do you think they should be stopped? Do you feel they are muscling in on a woman's space?

Very much so, competition is about competing, not making everyone feel good. These people have a distinct advantage within the female class.

 

[sadhatter]

Not necessarily and even if that is the case then I don't think the solution is simply to cling to the way things have always been done in the past by excluding transwomen and branding them 'not women'.

Sports point is not to decide who is what sex, it is fair competition. You might as well say tampons should change design because they remind trans people they are different.

 

[sadhatter]

And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine. So if that's your answer then you have to go back to the drawing board.

Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

They would complain if John mackinrow (sp?) Joined the league and beat her. Because he was born with many advantages due to his biology.

(Sorry if he actually sucks but it's the only tennis guy I've heard of. Not a big sports fan. Replace him with the best gutyif the analogy makes no sense. )