• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, as I was saying before, Jane CAN legally be discriminated even for a job for any reason that is relevant to the job. E.g., even taking his "but what if someone was too tall?", yeah, we routinely discriminate against big people when hiring a jockey. If Jane weighs like 200 pounds, we CAN say, no, sorry, you're not riding my horses.

Or conversely, for ST Voyager, they explicitly hired only people over IIRC 7 ft tall to play the Hirogen. And it's perfectly legal.

And before someone thinks that yeah, but you can't set your own arbitrary criteria... well, you can't make it completely arbitrary, but if you can make a coherent case for why it's relevant to the job description, yes we can even for a job. E.g., Hooters can very legally hire only women with big boobs. E.g., a modelling agency can and will fire you for gaining weight, and there ain't anything anyone can do about it.

One can bark, "BUT IT'S DISCRIMINATION!!!111eleventeen" at the moon until they're blue in the face like Smurfette, and it won't make any difference.


Actually, let me make it even clearer: a lot of people think that the law requires one to bend over backwards to accommodate everyone. It doesn't. At least over here basically the law only asks you to try to find a reasonable compromise, if it's reasonably possible to accommodate them without causing much disruption or any other problems. E.g., if someone can't work Saturdays because of their religion, but it wouldn't be any disruption to only schedule their shifts on the other 6 weekdays, you should probably do just that. But if that's not possible for either of the two parties, then bye bye.
 
theprestige said:
I think once AGG understands the reason why women and men are segregated in sports, he'll also understand why it's a bad idea for transwomen to compete with women in sports.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think he made it clear he understand that there are biological differences. He just apparently doesn't give a flip if it's about the top 0.1% who are fit enough to compete. Screw them and their biological advantages. Well, at least as long as they're real women. He seems to care all right when it's trans-women.

IIRC it was JK Rowling who made an observation along the line that a lot of people didn't care when it was women having problems, but suddenly care when it's about guys in dresses. Of course, she got people screaming "transphobe!!!" at her for it, but it seems to me like treads like this just show that she was right.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not all transwomen are going to significantly or even necessarily ANY better than ciswomen in a given sport.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. We don't let a weak man enter a women's weightlifting competition just because he'll lose.

Well we don't actually know what fans think, or how they will feel after its been happening for 20 or 30 years. But that's not really the key question anyway. Did fans necessarily want black people competing in baseball alongside white people?
Click to expand...

For the most part, they didn't mind. Teams that integrated didn't take a financial hit for doing so.

Well I disagree. We don't pander to prejudice and discrimination and bigotry in other fields and I don't think we should do so in sport either.
Click to expand...

If you don't want any discrimination in sports, then do away with separate womens sports completely. Be honest about it.

But letting trans women compete in womens sports while trying to maintain the fiction that it even is still womens sports will kill it, and it will kill it dishonestly.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
This is demonstrably not the case. Which is part of the point I have been making all along. For a multitude of reasons not least of all biological differences WITHIN the groups being discussed.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), that number (and it's positive impact on women and young girls) could be significantly reduced if the opportunity is reduced, which seems very likely, especially at the highest levels, where there is the most exposure and impact. In this situation, the very act of being born female would be a disadvantage, no matter where on the genetically-well-suited-for-sport spectrum one lies.

Do you have any response to the other aspects of my post. Like you, I feel this is worth giving thought to and discussing. It seems though, (perhaps because of the thread title) that you are assuming that anyone who has concluded that trans-women should not compete against females has not given this due thought. I don't think that is the case given that even the very thoughtful alternatives seem non-viable.
 
This discussion has been focusing a lot on sports, but you don't even have to go there for moral disagreements to arise. Take movies. There have been a few cases of a movie director casting a person to play a character that is not the same gender/nationality that the actor is. So a non/chinese person playing a chinese character. A non trans person playing a trans character. Etc. But you realize this scandal is relatively new. I bet if Nutty Professor had been made today, people would be outraged at the decision to cast Eddie Murphy to play an obese man, rather than give the job to an actual obese actor (Then again, it would have to look a lot like actor playing the professor when he is thin)

Should movie directors be forced to only hire trans people to play trans characters or disabled people to play disabled characters? Should the Theory of Everything have been starred by an actual person with body paralysis playing professor Hawkins? No. Because part of what makes an actor is that he/she transforms themselves into something they are not. This has to do with a mixture of acting, make up, prosthetics, special effects, etc. Which is why Gary Sinise didn't need to chop his legs to play Leutenant Dan.


Likewise, if a sport is meant for a specific type of person with specific traits, then that's part of the rules of sports. There are sports meant specifically for disabled people, for instance. So, people in wheelchairs racing against each other. Not only is that not wrong (It would be ridiculous to have a non disabled runner complaining that he's being discriminated against being allowed to compete because he's not in a wheelchair, and that "he has as much right as them to compete") In fact, that's the whole point of having rules/guidelines as to who gets to compete. No one's telling you you can't do any of these things. Just join a group that has your particular type of gender/race/disability or lack of, to participate.

But, sadly, PC Culture has confused the living **** out of people, and lots of people are now incapable of differentiating discrimination from freedom of each group to create their own organization with its own individual set of requirements to join. Everyone is free to do so.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
But, sadly, PC Culture has confused the living **** out of people, and lots of people are now incapable of differentiating discrimination from freedom of each group to create their own organization with its own individual set of requirements to join. Everyone is free to do so.
Click to expand...

One of the specific problems of transgenders is that they do not want their own "third option" organization to be members of. They want to be members of one of the two existing gender organizations. Telling transwomen that they have to compete separately from other women is the opposite of what their transition is supposed to accomplish for them.
 
I also think it's reasonable to have the same standard for trans-women and females, which is that hormonal manipulation disqualifies one from participating in elite athletic competitions.
 
attempt5001 said:
I also think it's reasonable to have the same standard for trans-women and females, which is that hormonal manipulation disqualifies one from participating in elite athletic competitions.
Click to expand...
I think that's probably the most rational and humane solution. But it does have one gaping loophole to close: Transwomen who have not yet started any hormone manipulation.
 
attempt5001 said:
Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), that number (and it's positive impact on women and young girls) could be significantly reduced if the opportunity is reduced, which seems very likely, especially at the highest levels, where there is the most exposure and impact. In this situation, the very act of being born female would be a disadvantage, no matter where on the genetically-well-suited-for-sport spectrum one lies.
Click to expand...

TBH, I don't even buy his "but it's only the 0.1% most biologically advantaged" argument.

You know why? Because sport is also about inspiring people to try. I don't think 99.999% of the guys playing football in school or 99.999% of the girls playing, dunno, basketball used to be popular in my school, are ever going to be pro athletes. But the pro athletes inspired them to at least like that sport, and like to play it at least for fun. And inspired some to at least think they can try for a sports scholarship or such, even if it turned out they weren't that good.

If you tell half of them that nah, you have no chance in hell, because it's the guys with bras dominating everything, there goes that inspiration right out the window. There's no point in even trying to be like athletes X, Y and Z, if you know from the start that nah, mate, YOU weren't born in that privileged group.

We're talking about discouraging a MUCH larger pool of people than the supposed 0.1% that are good enough to try for pro.

Do we really want that?

I mean, we already have a problem with fat sedentary children. Do we really want more?

Plus, frankly, I'd rather tell, what, a couple thousand at most? that they can't play in the girl team because they were born without ovaries, than tell a few MILLION girls that, nah, sorry, you were born with ovaries and that means sports are not for you. From a utilitarian point of view, you know, the good of the many before the good of the few, and all that.
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), ...
Click to expand...

HansMustermann said:
TBH, I don't even buy his "but it's only the 0.1% most biologically advantaged" argument.

You know why? Because sport is also about inspiring people to try. I don't think 99.999% of the guys playing football in school or 99.999% of the girls playing, dunno, basketball used to be popular in my school, are ever going to be pro athletes. But the pro athletes inspired them to at least like that sport, and like to play it at least for fun. And inspired some to at least think they can try for a sports scholarship or such, even if it turned out they weren't that good.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree and I think we are both emphasizing the same point.
 
theprestige said:
I think that's probably the most rational and humane solution. But it does have one gaping loophole to close: Transwomen who have not yet started any hormone manipulation.
Click to expand...

Yes. Perhaps acknowledging that elite sport is segregated by biological sex rather than gender helps here. As such, a trans-woman should retain the right to compete in male sports, regardless of degree of transition.
 
attempt5001 said:
Yes. Perhaps acknowledging that elite sport is segregated by biological sex rather than gender helps here. As such, a trans-woman should retain the right to compete in male sports, regardless of degree of transition.
Click to expand...

That is one of the man issues

A certain group of people that keep trying to manipulate the words gender and sex into being the same thing

They ain't
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently the government of Canada disagrees. They think parents can be excluded from the decision.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trans-...oy-or-its-family-violence-canada-court-rules/
Click to expand...

In this case the 14-year-old transgender child consented (the court agreed with the medical experts that this 14-year-old was capable of consenting - capacity to consent is not based upon age - for this treatment, so no further family consent was required, yet the medical experts felt it would be best for the family if both parents were also in agreement), his mother consented and medical experts all agreed that the treatment was in the best interests of the child's wellbeing.

The father refused to consent.

So how much sway should he have?

I would say zero. The courts correctly agreed. The father, who the court's written decision, listed as disingenuous, and as trying to delay court proceedings to delay a decision and thereby delay treatment, has probably permanently destroyed his relationship with his child in favour of pushing his worldview and ideology.
 
I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.
 
Lithrael said:
I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.
Click to expand...

Hi Lithrael. That's seems like a strategy that might work well for recreational competition, where, like you say, the goal is a fun and exciting finish to a race for example. I think the subtleties of coming up with an appropriately precise handicap system would be very difficult, unless it's the type of competition where all the competitors have one (such as for golf). I'm not familiar with any elite sports that use a handicap system. It seems counter to the spirit of maximum competitiveness that defines them, so I don't think it would work well in that context.
 
Lithrael said:
I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but it would have to be an extremely over complicated system for all sports, it would be undoable....Well obviously doable, if they spent years and years working it out and then reorganising the entirety of all world sport globally and spend billions, over a few thousand trans athletes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom