Trans Women are not Women

[JoeMorgue]

And I will say it even slower.... if the top 0.1% of the population are transwomen displacing ciswomen then they are excluding the 0.1% of ciswomen who would have been competing at the top. Not ALL women.

That's nonsense. That's playing with the categories differently depending on what you want to argue.

You're arguing that to be "fair" we have to let trans-women compete in the female category. You don't seem to be arguing that they would probably significantly overwhelm that category.

But then where the ~50% of cis-women are supposed to compete gets brushed aside with... nothing. Just nothing.

You've divided it into 4 categories for your purposes, but back into two when it doesn't suit your needs.

 

[theprestige]

If they want one, go for it

That's the point: Transpeople don't want special categories for themselves. They want society to slot them into the existing two categories.

The reason we don't worry about transmen in competitive sport is because it won't actually upend men's competition. It'll just mean a few more underqualified competitors on the lowest rungs of the men's leagues.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To use an imperfect metaphor for a lot of trans people being slotted into a third category would be akin to solving segregation by making a third section at the lunch counter.

(Most) Trans-women don't want to be a special new category of women, they want to be sign as women, period.

 

[theprestige]

A bunch of transwomen destroying women in sport is hardly going to promote respect and tolerance imho

It's definitely a conundrum. I don't have the answers.

 

[cullennz]

To use an imperfect metaphor for a lot of trans people being slotted into a third category would be akin to solving segregation by making a third section at the lunch counter.

(Most) Trans-women don't want to be a special new category of women, they want to be sign as women, period.

Yeah, but we are just talking elite sporting competitions here, if we have to dig this far down to find things that are important and make the difference, life can't be that bad for them.

As for what they want, sorry, but a lot of people don't and won't ever think you are suddenly a woman and not a trans woman just because they have taken some hormones and mutilated their bodies

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You mean "You have no opinion about that?" Yeah heard that before.

No, I have an opinion. I don't have an answer.

I have expressed my opinion multiple times only to be met with weird responses like 'so you would be happy with the men's heavyweight champion to be battering women?' when I have categorically never said anything of the ilk.

Literally all I have said is that we should try to find a way to incorporate transwomen into women's sports and that one way to do that might be to try to rejig categories a bit but that it won't be easy to find a solution.

 

[cullennz]

No, I have an opinion. I don't have an answer.

I have expressed my opinion multiple times only to be met with weird responses like 'so you would be happy with the men's heavyweight champion to be battering women?' when I have categorically never said anything of the ilk.

Literally all I have said is that we should try to find a way to incorporate transwomen into women's sports and that one way to do that might be to try to rejig categories a bit but that it won't be easy to find a solution.

That is not what I said, but thanks for pointing out that is what would happen

 

[Belz...]

then it's not 50 v 0.3 then.

It's more like 0.01 vs 0.01

Speaking of bad math, thanks for giving a lesson in that.

Seriously, if you're not going to discuss this honestly, why not leave the topic to the rest of us?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You certainly seem to be arguing against excluding trans women from competing against women. So it looks like you're at least arguing for a class of solutions.

I have been arguing for excluding transwomen from competing with women on the grounds that transwomen aren't women (recall the title of the thread) or for excluding transwomen from competing in sports period.

The main sticking point for me has been that a lot of the arguments used don't seem to hold water and in fact when you drill down they just boil down to 'transwomen aren't women, that's why'.

 

[theprestige]

The main sticking point for me has been that a lot of the arguments used don't seem to hold water and in fact when you drill down they just boil down to 'transwomen aren't women, that's why'.

That's actually the right reason, though, when you drill and/or boil it down.

Biologically, transwomen are on average more like other men than they are like other women. Not only that, but the biological difference in question is exactly the reason we segregate sport by gender in the first place.

That's the argument in a nutshell. What part of it doesn't hold water for you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have been arguing for excluding transwomen from competing with women on the grounds that transwomen aren't women (recall the title of the thread) or for excluding transwomen from competing in sports period.

The main sticking point for me has been that a lot of the arguments used don't seem to hold water and in fact when you drill down they just boil down to 'transwomen aren't women, that's why'.

Do you mean you have been arguing AGAINST excluding transwomen from competing with women on the grounds that transwomen aren't women? Because otherwise I can't reconcile your first and second paragraph.

Assuming that was a typo, and that you did mean against, well, first off it's true that trans women are not women (biologically speaking), but I don't think anyone's argument ends there. There's always a "therefore" added on after that, explicitly or implicitly. I don't think you've presented any real counter-argument to my own presented reason.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's nonsense. That's playing with the categories differently depending on what you want to argue.

No, it really isn't.

You're arguing that to be "fair" we have to let trans-women compete in the female category. You don't seem to be arguing that they would probably significantly overwhelm that category.

No, I am arguing that we shouldn't be excluding transwomen on the grounds that they aren't really women. If there are more objective criteria to be used that ends up with them being excluded then I am open to look at that but they may well/probably will also catch a number of biological women.

I don't know if they would significantly overwhelm the category or not because they are a small number, I have no idea how much of an advantage they have over women and to what extent other factors can mitigate that, and I have no idea how many transwomen actively want to participate in high level women's sports.

But then where the ~50% of cis-women are supposed to compete gets brushed aside with... nothing. Just nothing.

Because they AREN'T getting brushed aside. The vast vast majority of those cis-women have exactly the same chance of competing in top level elite sports as they always had. ZERO.

And those who aren't elite will still be able to compete at their non-elite levels because 0.3% can't displace 50% entirely.

You've divided it into 4 categories for your purposes, but back into two when it doesn't suit your needs.

No I have simply looked at the arguments put forward and countered it.

If the argument is that it is significantly more prejudicial to include transwomen as exclude them that would seem laughable.

If the argument is that transwomen have a biological advantage then I would probably agree, but most elite sportspeople were born with a biological advantage, so what's the reasoning for drawing the line where it is other than 'transwomen are not real women'?

The truth of the matter is that there really isn't anything sacred about the existing rules. They were drawn up based on an easy metric to suit a societal need. Those needs may be changing. So its worth looking again at the rules to see if we can come up with something better.

 

[Ziggurat]

The truth of the matter is that there really isn't anything sacred about the existing rules. They were drawn up based on an easy metric to suit a societal need. Those needs may be changing.

For the vast majority of society, those needs are not changing. It's only changed for a very small but rather vocal minority.

Chesterton's fence. Look it up before you knock it down.

 

[theprestige]

If the argument is that transwomen have a biological advantage then I would probably agree, but most elite sportspeople were born with a biological advantage, so what's the reasoning for drawing the line where it is other than 'transwomen are not real women'?

Elite sportswomen get their own league because if they competed against elite sportsmen they'd be shut out across the board. Because of the biological difference between the two genders.

If elite transwomen compete with elite bio-women, then the elite bio-women will be shut out by the elite transwomen. Because of the biological difference between the two genders, which doesn't go away when a biological male self-identifies as a notional female.

 

[Belz...]

I have been arguing for excluding transwomen from competing with women on the grounds that transwomen aren't women (recall the title of the thread) or for excluding transwomen from competing in sports period.

The main sticking point for me has been that a lot of the arguments used don't seem to hold water and in fact when you drill down they just boil down to 'transwomen aren't women, that's why'.

...isn't that the only reason that makes any sense?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the argument is that transwomen have a biological advantage then I would probably agree, but most elite sportspeople were born with a biological advantage, so what's the reasoning for drawing the line where it is other than 'transwomen are not real women'?

Cis-women have as much right to representation as trans-women do. A league that is almost totally devoid of them outside of a slim majority at best, a few statistical outsiders at worst can't be just hunky dory with you if you're entire argument is based on inclusion of another subcategory. That's why it's "women" are a category when it is convenient for you but it's separate "trans women and cis women" when that's convenient for you, because that's the only way for you to pretend this circle is square.

Your entire argument is we have to include the trans-women to be fair, but when we point out that they would outperform the cis-women to the point that they would largely be excluded your excuse it "Well that doesn't matter since they are all women" as if that isn't the exact opposite of what the entire point of the inclusion is.

WHICH IS IT? All women or some women? Pick one! If one subcategory of "All women" represents all women we don't need the worry about inclusion, if not we can't worry about half of the time.

But even this is all secondary. The primary problem is you're living in a fantasy world were trans-women dominated sports are going to have a viable audience.

You can't see beyond your "Well I don't have a problem with it..." blinders as if the fact that you aren't the only person sports have to accommodate or cater to just can't get through your skull.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And it's a big issue for all of us who want an inclusive society that treats minorities as first-class citizens, just as deserving of our support and accommodation as the majority.

 

[The Atheist]

The US womens football team is ranked number one in the world in womens football

The warm up match was against the FC Dallas Under 15 boys team

I'm not sure you're a Kiwi at all, now.

Surely, the better example is Australia's Women's team losing 7-0 to a Australian >15 boys' club team?

I really don't get how it is such a big issue

Me neither, but the chance someone might get upset and feel their rights have been hurt has destroyed the ability to use common sense.

I await dwarfs/little people/whatever the PC term for them is, to start a movement to allow them to compete on an equal footing with able-bodied athletes by allowing them a 70/80/90% advantage over people x% taller than them.

Usain Bolt will be running 100m, while the albino transgender cross-eyed dwarf on the inside lane only has to run 40m.

All done; thread can be closed now.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you mean you have been arguing AGAINST excluding transwomen from competing with women on the grounds that transwomen aren't women? Because otherwise I can't reconcile your first and second paragraph. [/quot]

Yes that was a typo

Assuming that was a typo, and that you did mean against, well, first off it's true that trans women are not women (biologically speaking), but I don't think anyone's argument ends there. There's always a "therefore" added on after that, explicitly or implicitly. I don't think you've presented any real counter-argument to my own presented reason.

If all that matters is the biological differences then I am not wholly opposed to defining what those differences are objectively and dropping the term 'women'.

I'm not entirely sure what your specific presented reason is but the argument that THOSE women can't compete because they are big and strong and will win, but these women here can compete it and it's great that they are big and strong and can win isn't convincing me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

For the vast majority of society, those needs are not changing.

I don't really think that's how societies work. or it's not how they SHOULD work anyway

It's only changed for a very small but rather vocal minority.

Who are still part of society and last I checked every bit as deserving of rights as elite's women athletes for example

Chesterton's fence. Look it up before you knock it down.

Well that's the whole point. Asking why these things are the way they are seems to lead to inconsistencies which are answered by admonitions that you are being clueless or deliberately obtuse rather than straight answers.

It seems self evident to some that there is great innate value in excluding some women from sport because they might be a bit too good at it.

Looking at the stakeholders in all of this:

- You have the 99.9% of women who are not elite athletes. I don't see how they lose anything other than the pretence that they could have been

- You have the 0.01% who are elite athletes worried they will be displaced. Which seems slightly hypocritical since they don't seem all that worried about the people below them that they 'displaced' and my sense is that is probably significantly based on biological advantages also. If there is some hard data here I might change my mind but I really haven't seen anything that tells me that a transwoman is necessarily light years ahead of an elite woman athlete.

- You have the paying public. Who apparently enjoy to watch lower level sport provided the participants have vaginas. Even though they can't see them apparently it matters. Is this kind of aesthetic preference how we want to run our sports because I am sure there are plenty people who would rather see an all white 100m race as well?