Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do I get the feeling that an awful lot of people who want to allow transgirls to compete in high school athletics against girls are the sort of folks who didn't compete in high school athletics.
 
Meadmaker said:
Why do I get the feeling that an awful lot of people who want to allow transgirls to compete in high school athletics against girls are the sort of folks who didn't compete in high school athletics.
Click to expand...

Because people who enjoy their own athleticism, and enjoy the athleticism of others, understand that this is a bad idea?
 
BobTheCoward said:
A girl is a girl
Click to expand...

Bob discovers tautologies for the first time.

and they are girl.
Click to expand...

Under what definition?

Some girls will have natural athletic advantages than others for various reasons. This just so happens to be theirs.
Click to expand...

Your position is incoherent. If you want to desegregate sports completely, I can understand. I don't agree with that position, but it's a logically consistent one. This position, however is not. If sex segregation is valid, then it should actually be by sex.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bob discovers tautologies for the first time.



Under what definition?



Your position is incoherent. If you want to desegregate sports completely, I can understand. I don't agree with that position, but it's a logically consistent one. This position, however is not. If sex segregation is valid, then it should actually be by sex.
Click to expand...

Sex segregation is not valid. It is used to arrive at gender. For example, there is talk about scholarships. The scholarship is not there to engage in a technocratic position that sex absent any other type of
meaning of men and women.

Sex segregation is not valid because it is an arbitrary basis to assign level of play when we can just simply allocate level of play. Have the twenty year old females played with 13 year old boys and we have solved the issue of competitiveness. But no, people want the sex splits because it isn't a competitive argument but an expression of identity.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Sex segregation is not valid.
Click to expand...

Which side of that segregation you let transwomen compete in doesn't matter if the segregation was invalid to begin with. So why are you even talking about that when your objection is far more fundamental?

Sex segregation is not valid because it is an arbitrary basis to assign level of play when we can just simply allocate level of play.
Click to expand...

OK. But sex segregation is still closer to level of play segregation than letting transwomen compete against ciswomen.

So why are you advocating a position that doesn't address what you see as the actual problem, but actually makes things worse according to your own criteria?

Oh, that's right: I forgot for a second who I was talking to.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which side of that segregation you let transwomen compete in doesn't matter if the segregation was invalid to begin with. So why are you even talking about that when your objection is far more fundamental?



OK. But sex segregation is still closer to level of play segregation than letting transwomen compete against ciswomen.

So why are you advocating a position that doesn't address what you see as the actual problem, but actually makes things worse according to your own criteria?

Oh, that's right: I forgot for a second who I was talking to.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing for competitiveness. I'm pointing out that arguments that sex segregation is about competition are hollow.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am not arguing for competitiveness.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be arguing for anything comprehensible. You want to change how sex segregation is implemented, even though you don't think it should be implemented at all. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm pointing out that arguments that sex segregation is about competition are hollow.
Click to expand...

If it were only about competitiveness, you would be correct. But it isn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to be arguing for anything comprehensible. You want to change how sex segregation is implemented, even though you don't think it should be implemented at all. It doesn't make any sense.



If it were only about competitiveness, you would be correct. But it isn't.
Click to expand...

Outside of competition, what is a reason for sex segregation of athletes that doesn't implicate gender?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Outside of competition, what is a reason for sex segregation of athletes that doesn't implicate gender?
Click to expand...

Why is that even a relevant question? Hell, what does "implicate gender" even mean?

If you don't believe in sex segregation in sports to begin with, where you put the trans athletes doesn't matter, because segregation will remain no matter what your answer is. And you have stated that you don't believe in sex segregation in sports. So why do you care where in the trans athletes get put?
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is that even a relevant question? Hell, what does "implicate gender" even mean?

If you don't believe in sex segregation in sports to begin with, where you put the trans athletes doesn't matter, because segregation will remain no matter what your answer is. And you have stated that you don't believe in sex segregation in sports. So why do you care where in the trans athletes get put?
Click to expand...

I would oppose sex segregation even if it was the only way to accomplish an important goal. I'm not arguing that position right now, I'm addressing what I think is a flaw in the argument of others.

The sex segregation for competition reasons is disingenuous. There already exists a method to ensure competitiveness and that is tryouts.

Unless there is some other reason for sex segregation of athletes that doesn't touch on gender, then it is a gender issue and about identity.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I would oppose sex segregation even if it was the only way to accomplish an important goal. I'm not arguing that position right now, I'm addressing what I think is a flaw in the argument of others.
Click to expand...

No. You said you thought trans children should be able to compete against children of their assumed gender. That's a position you took. Or have you already forgotten? Let me remind you:

BobTheCoward said:
You know, I'm back on the position that socially transitioned girls are girls and should be free to compete.
Click to expand...

When you find a flaw in an argument, that doesn't actually invalidate the position the argument is in favor of, because other valid arguments may still support that position. So you have done more than just address a flaw in an argument. You have explicitly taken a contrary position. But it's still a position which accepts sex segregation, which you have also explicitly said you oppose. You are essentially contradicting yourself.

BobTheCoward said:
The sex segregation for competition reasons is disingenuous. There already exists a method to ensure competitiveness and that is tryouts.
Click to expand...

First, competitiveness isn't the only reason for sex segregation. Second, that there are other ways to deal with competitiveness doesn't mean you have to use those other methods, or that those methods are better. In fact, the tryouts method is in some important ways worse. It's easy for someone to sandbag a tryout so that they can compete against people they can easily dominate. Tryouts also require more resources than category discrimination, and resource limitations are a valid concern.

Unless there is some other reason for sex segregation of athletes that doesn't touch on gender, then it is a gender issue and about identity.
Click to expand...

Again, so the **** what?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
First, competitiveness isn't the only reason for sex segregation. Second, that there are other ways to deal with competitiveness doesn't mean you have to use those other methods, or that those methods are better. In fact, the tryouts method is in some important ways worse. It's easy for someone to sandbag a tryout so that they can compete against people they can easily dominate. Tryouts also require more resources than category discrimination, and resource limitations are a valid concern.
Click to expand...

A) name another reason

B) It is easy to sandbag regardless of of sex segregation. Sex segregation doesn't alleviate it. What is this group that doesn't have tryouts, cares about competitiveness, but doesn't care about the competitiveness within a sex category?
 
Ziggurat said:
No. You said you thought trans children should be able to compete against children of their assumed gender. That's a position you took. Or have you already forgotten? Let me remind you:
Click to expand...

I have a black/white position (total indifference to sex segregation) and a hypothetical position if for sake of discussion I adopt more common axioms that I normally reject as not self evident (In a world where I think like someone who isn't totally indifferent to sex segregation, I would fall under a traditional side in the debate).
 
BobTheCoward said:
A) name another reason

B) It is easy to sandbag regardless of of sex segregation. Sex segregation doesn't alleviate it. What is this group that doesn't have tryouts, cares about competitiveness, but doesn't care about the competitiveness within a sex category?
Click to expand...

Sex segregation prevents some fraction of the total group of people from sandbagging to get into the less competitive field of competitors. Specifically highly competitive male athletes can't sandbag to compete against the female field of competitors.

That you don't care about this as an issue doesn't mean others don't. There's no flaw in our reasoning in that we care about this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom