Trans Women are not Women

[cullennz]

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



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



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?

No they enjoy watching lower level sport provided it is competitive, and Trans women take the "competitive" out of the equation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Cis-women have as much right to representation as trans-women do.

Indeed. Or rather the right to participate.

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.

It's already a few statistical outsiders. That's kind of how elite sports works. But I have never argued for a league dominated by transwomen. This is your concoction.

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.

You've got this exactly backwards. It's women as a category including transwomen. If you start with the assumption that transwomen are women then things look different. This may be where we are struggling to see eye to eye because if you start with that assumption then you end up saying 'some women are just too good to play with other women so we need to separate them out' and then I am genuinely struggling to see why the same argument wouldn't apply to Serena Williams for example.

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.

No my entire argument is that you don't exclude transwomen to be fair. If there are other ways to include them I am listening. Ciswomen would not be excluded.

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.

No one subcategory does not represent all women. But you can't exclude one sub-category and then claim that is all women. Of course if some women aren't as good then they will have to perform at a lower level. But that is exactly the situation we have right now!

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.

The fantasy world is yours where we have trans-women dominated sports. If and when that happens we can address the problem.

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.

No I can't see beyond the fact that people have nothing beyond 'transwomen aren't women so to hell with them' as if somehow that's an argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

In regards to sex segregation in sports? Yeah, that's how it works. Most people don't have any need for it to change. "Should" is sort of beside the point.

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

We don't sex segregate just for the sake of the competing athletes. I've pointed this out before.

- 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.

Are you under the impression that genitals are the only thing that separate women and men?

Is this kind of aesthetic preference how we want to run our sports

Who exactly is "we" in this sentence?

because I am sure there are plenty people who would rather see an all white 100m race as well?

The difference between the sexes isn't comparable to the difference between races. And no, I don't think there are that many people who would want to racially segregate races.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No they enjoy watching lower level sport provided it is competitive, and Trans women take the "competitive" out of the equation.

If this is the case then the question should become how can we incorporate ACTUAL transwomen into sport in a way that maintains competitiveness rather than inventing random scenarios where Roger Federer joins the womens tour surely?

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's already a few statistical outsiders. That's kind of how elite sports works. But I have never argued for a league dominated by transwomen. This is your concoction.

You keep hiding behind "But most women can't compete on the top tier level anyway, so it doesn't matter" and that makes no sense.

So basically when a cis-woman puts the effort into raising to the absolute physical pinnacle of her gender but still can't compete on a professional level because the only options at that level of "biological male or biological male that identifies as female" your response is "Well fiddle-dee the odds where already against you what's the difference..."

So your argument is that Serena Williams should just be happy playing tennis at her local YMCA on the weekends, never achieving recognition because male biology is dominating every level of professional sports because her odds of success were so small anyway?

No I can't see beyond the fact that people have nothing beyond 'transwomen aren't women so to hell with them' as if somehow that's an argument.

Listen I can tell you're just bursting at the seams to just scream "TRANSPHOBE!" as your entire argument and hope that causes everyone to run away with their tail between their legs, but actual meaningful distinctions are being made here, even if you don't agree with them.

 

[theprestige]

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

And that, luchog, is what skill levels would look like in co-ed competition.

 

[cullennz]

If this is the case then the question should become how can we incorporate ACTUAL transwomen into sport in a way that maintains competitiveness rather than inventing random scenarios where Roger Federer joins the womens tour surely?

We are. It is just that most people on here seem to think just chucking them in with women isn't the greatest option.

Which leaves a separate category, or bite the bullet and just face the fact not being eligible for elite sport is a sacrifice you need to think about before transitioning.

 

[Lithrael]

No bites then?

what I'd advocate is some kind of handicap system. It would take some maths and fine tuning but I don't think it'd be that hard to find the right spot where trans athletes can still win on occasion but don't obliterate the competition. Something like, say the cis male record time is one minute and the cis female record time is one minute ten seconds, let all the women race together but put a (10-x) second handicap on the trans women competitors. It would still hurt some feelings but at a level I think everyone could deal with. You do have to balance 'treat me like x' with 'give everyone a fair shot.' That is, if you want to formally compete in women's sport, yeah, you'd have to be out as trans and get the special rules. It's not ideal but neither is the world.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

And there's presumably the remaining 0.09% that you haven't identified.

I am intrigued!

 

[cullennz]

And there's presumably the remaining 0.09% that you haven't identified.

I am intrigued!

Lol

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

The point, though, is that equality is a thing only when things are equal. You are still allowed to discriminate when it actually does make a difference.

It's even in the employment laws. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in the US, or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) in Canada, or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) in the UK. The LGBT community can suc... err... look it up.

E.g., you can't prefer whites to blacks or viceversa to operate a crane, because that makes no difference to pulling the levers. You ARE however quite within your rights to only hire whites to play the role of Lincoln in a movie, or conversely to only consider black actors for the role of Mandela or Rosa Parks. Because the colour is an important part of that role, and does make a visible difference on film.

E.g., you can't discriminate by age when hiring an accountant, but you CAN if you're shooting porn or a high school drama.

It seems to me like if in sports the categories are based on the biological differences between biological men and biological women, then yes, it is the same thing. One can jolly well discriminate in that case, and idiots moaning about it being discrimination are just too stupid to be having that argument. Even if they happen to be LGBT.

 

[Jimmy9]

Makes me wonder if there any Trans men that compete in mens sports.

 

[Puppycow]

Makes me wonder if there any Trans men that compete in mens sports.

Yup. 2 seconds of googling found a list of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Trans_men

Here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mosier

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You keep hiding behind "But most women can't compete on the top tier level anyway, so it doesn't matter" and that makes no sense.

So basically when a cis-woman puts the effort into raising to the absolute physical pinnacle of her gender but still can't compete on a professional level because the only options at that level of "biological male or biological male that identifies as female" your response is "Well fiddle-dee the odds where already against you what's the difference..."

That's exactly what I didn't say.

I said it makes no difference to the 99.9% of women who wouldn't have succeeded anyway because some women are bigger and stronger and fitter than them biologically.

So your argument is that Serena Williams should just be happy playing tennis at her local YMCA on the weekends, never achieving recognition because male biology is dominating every level of professional sports because her odds of success were so small anyway?

Again you have invented this reality where a tiny fragment of the population dominate but rolling with it what I am asking is what is the difference between Serena Williams dominating because she is graced with better biology and transwoman Serena Willimans dominating because she is graced with better biology?

Some women are bigger and stronger and fitter than others this is a reality of sport. If you accept that a transwoman is a woman then its just another matter of biological lottery if she is bigger and stronger than Serena Williams.

Listen I can tell you're just bursting at the seams to just scream "TRANSPHOBE!" as your entire argument and hope that causes everyone to run away with their tail between their legs, but actual meaningful distinctions are being made here, even if you don't agree with them.

Actual meaningful distinctions are not being made though. Invented fantasies are being put forward and the only justification being offered is 'TRANSWOMEN AREN'T WOMEN!'

 

[Puppycow]

One sport that women athletes seem to excel at is "ultramarathons". (not trans women, but actual biological women).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ling-286-mile-montane-spice-race-ultrarunning

The British ultrarunner Jasmin Paris is celebrating after becoming the first woman to win the gruelling 268-mile Montane Spine Race along the Pennine Way. What made the performance even more extraordinary was that she shattered the course record by 12 hours – while also expressing breast milk for her baby at aid stations along the route.

Let's see, 268 miles would be 10 marathons I think.

https://gearjunkie.com/courtney-dauwalter-moab-200-winner

Courtney Dauwalter finished the Moab 240 race in 2 days, 9 hours, and 59 minutes. She was faster than any of the men in the pack, beating the second-place finisher by more than 10 hours.

The Moab 240 Endurance Run caters to a special (some might say crazy) breed of ultrarunners. Only 150 registrants are allowed, and runners have a cutoff at 112 hours. That’s nearly five days of running.

Courtney Dauwalter finished much faster than that, at just less than 58 hours. She averaged 14.6-minute miles and 97.7 miles per day. Her performance crushed the competition, with second-place Sean Nakamura crossing the line in 67 hours, 44 minutes.

My hypothesis is that races of this kind favor people with a low body weight. Women, being smaller, tend to be lighter. It could be something else though. Able to perform with less sleep maybe. I'm guessing with a race of this distance you can't do the whole thing in one shot. You need to stop and rest along the way.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We are.

Where?

It is just that most people on here seem to think just chucking them in with women isn't the greatest option.

Which leaves a separate category, or bite the bullet and just face the fact not being eligible for elite sport is a sacrifice you need to think about before transitioning.

I am glad you have done all the research and investigated every option to determine that the status quo is the best option. I am not that well informed yet so it would be great if you could show your working to get me up to speed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The point, though, is that equality is a thing only when things are equal. You are still allowed to discriminate when it actually does make a difference.

It's even in the employment laws. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in the US, or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) in Canada, or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) in the UK. The LGBT community can suc... err... look it up.

E.g., you can't prefer whites to blacks or viceversa to operate a crane, because that makes no difference to pulling the levers. You ARE however quite within your rights to only hire whites to play the role of Lincoln in a movie, or conversely to only consider black actors for the role of Mandela or Rosa Parks. Because the colour is an important part of that role, and does make a visible difference on film.

E.g., you can't discriminate by age when hiring an accountant, but you CAN if you're shooting porn or a high school drama.

It seems to me like if in sports the categories are based on the biological differences between biological men and biological women, then yes, it is the same thing. One can jolly well discriminate in that case, and idiots moaning about it being discrimination are just too stupid to be having that argument. Even if they happen to be LGBT.

I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

And you know this nonsense also affects cis-women in sport who are accused of being men if they happen to look a bit muscley. That nonsense should be stopped as well.

I asked a question previously about a solid example of a transwoman footballer who is playing competitive but non-elite soccer in Scotland. Should she be stopped from participating? If so why?

 

[cullennz]

Yup. 2 seconds of googling found a list of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Trans_men

Interesting link that one

I haven't looked at all of them, but half the trans men seem to have changed after their careers and of the ones who did it while competing there is pretty much one or two who were still competitive

Trans female list seems to be a lot of trans women whipping ****

The Trans female MMA one is telling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox

Way to go Fallon, "the woman"

During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: "I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right," she stated. "Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn't move at all in Fox's clinch..."

 

[HansMustermann]

I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

Except in sports it being fair is kind of the whole point.

So, yeah, sorry, coming up with more nonsense and distortions doesn't impress me much.

 

[JihadJane]

I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

And you know this nonsense also affects cis-women in sport who are accused of being men if they happen to look a bit muscley. That nonsense should be stopped as well.

I asked a question previously about a solid example of a transwoman footballer who is playing competitive but non-elite soccer in Scotland. Should she be stopped from participating? If so why?

No need to insult women by calling them "cis". "Women" suffices.

And did you never hear of people being turned down for a job because they were over-qualified?