Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Meadmaker]

If I'm way off in my understanding of this, I apologize. The only sport I've ever been involved in was martial arts, and we were always paired up for sparring by belt-rank. Gender wasn't usually a factor. The men did usually kick my ass, but not always. Sometimes you can get a lucky shot in, based on skill.

I routinely compete in a form of martial arts against women, and it's interesting that in my sport (which is simulated medieval combat, but not the heavy duty stuff you see on a couple of recent TV series) there are almost never female-only competitions, and most of the women don't want them.

A lot depends on culture. In my sporting area, we have created a little subculture where it works, but we aren't a spectator sport, and we are small enough that an impressive woman can still be noticed and stand out even if she is eliminated in the third round of the tournament. As long as plenty of men are eliminated in the second round, the advancement to the third round is noticed.

It's conceivable that a skills-based league could work at the high school level for individual sports, but even there, the problems become obvious fairly quickly. High school kids compete to "make the team". Ordinarily, you have X slots per school for a track meet. Do you reserve a few of those slots for girls? If not, no girls go to the track meet. There aren't two track meets, one for the best, and one for the next tier.

In spectator sports, you don't have competitions for "athletes that aren't good enough to be on the top pro teams." The closest anyone comes to that are baseball's minor leagues. They only exist as a training ground for potential major league players someday, and to provide casual, low cost entertainment. And to the best of my knowledge, no woman has every competed in the minor league baseball.

Serena Williams is an incredibly impressive tennis player, but if she were competing against men she would be a footnote.

ETA: There have been three women who have played minor league professional baseball in America.

 

[Paul2]

I've made this clear in the past to others. No.

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

On the other hand, I respect the right of anyone not to engage in conversation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again since people are missing my follow-up post.

- "What makes sports fans happy" only applies to sports, it shouldn't be used as a litmus test for wider society.

- Sports fans are never happy.

 

[caveman1917]

This is axiomatically true, with the proper choice of definition for "woman".

But you have never made that definition clear. Attempts have all resorted to circular reasoning. And that's before we even get to the question of whether we should prefer that definition, and use it to make the sort of distinctions under discussion here.

Nothing new under the sun.

It seems to me that much sloppy thinking in Science Studies, like that in Latour's Third Rule of Method, involves conflating concepts that need to be distinguished. Most frequently this conflation is accomplished by terminological fiat: the author intentionally uses an old word or phrase in a radically new sense, thereby undermining any attempt to distinguish between the two meanings. The clear goal here is to achieve by definition what one could not achieve by logic.

 

[The Atheist]

"Because it makes sports fans unhappy" is not something we should be using to judge this on.

Other than the entire reason elite sports exist, the fans don't even matter in this.

What pisses me off is some bloke in panties turning up and beating women who have trained for years to reach the top of their sport.

I've already posted in this thread how the Williams sisters thought they'd be competitive against men ranked lower than 200, only to be wheeled by a bloke ranked #203 who got drunk beforehand to give them a chance, and even that failed to help the sisters.

The idea that any kind of level playing field is possible between the sexes is absurd.

 

[Boudicca90]

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

On the other hand, I respect the right of anyone not to engage in conversation.

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

 

[theprestige]

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

If you meet one jerk, you've met a jerk. If everyone you meet is a jerk, then you're the jerk.

You ever stop to consider that the fact you don't have a good answer may actually mean it's a bad idea?

 

[Boudicca90]

If you meet one jerk, you've met a jerk. If everyone you meet is a jerk, then you're the jerk.

You ever stop to consider that the fact you don't have a good answer may actually mean it's a bad idea?

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman. The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me. So sorry, but find another way to dissect me.

 

[d4m10n]

RBG once said "You tell me what a sandwich is, and I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich." Similarly, it's impossible to say whether "Trans women are women" if you're unwilling to define the key terms.

 

[cullennz]

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman. The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me. So sorry, but find another way to dissect me.

Have you thought about just going with what actual women say, as you know, they might be quite good at letting you know, given they are, like, women, and that?

Or is it full on just override the people you are talking about with your own internal definition coming from someone who isn't a female?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman.

So tell us.

Define woman (as you are using it.) and explain why you are one in a way that isn't entirely self-defined and "I am because I say so" circular and that doesn't make us re-write the concept in every other scenario.

Your anger does not change the fact that they are people in this discussion who want nothing more than to understand what you are trying to tell us so we can work toward some level of making all of this work.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've longed dismissed arguments when they are either "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" arguments or "I say I have 8 fingers and two thumbs, you say we have 10 fingers" arguments.

I'll be good and goddamned if I'm going to be called a bigot because nobody will clarify "How many legs does a dog have if you call a thumb a finger?"

 

[cullennz]

RBG once said "You tell me what a sandwich is, and I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich." Similarly, it's impossible to say whether "Trans women are women" if you're unwilling to define the key terms.

A bit like down here what americans call a chicken sandwich (chicken in a burger bun), we just call a chicken burger.

Now you could get all sensitive and say yanks are breadfillingacists or flourycistic against chicken, but it actually comes down to straight what is a burger.

The meaty bit or the bunny bit, or the whole thing.

Sorry, that was an odd post, my mind wondered

 

[Boudicca90]

So tell us.

Define woman (as you are using it.) and explain why you are one in a way that isn't entirely self-defined and "I am because I say so" circular and that doesn't make us re-write the concept in every other scenario.

Your anger does not change the fact that they are people in this discussion who want nothing more than to understand what you are trying to tell us so we can work toward some level of making all of this work.

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, just to put us in our place based on your preconceived notions.

I've longed dismissed arguments when they are either "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" arguments or "I say I have 8 fingers and two thumbs, you say we have 10 fingers" arguments.

I'll be good and goddamned if I'm going to be called a bigot because nobody will clarify "How many legs does a dog have if you call a thumb a finger?"

No, you have provided many other reasons for that.

 

[TomB]

Yes, and that's why I did try to emphasize that I don't know whether it would work or not. I don't like to get too far into the sports debate, because I admit that I know nothing. I'm not a sports fan, but I'm also not a sports hater. I defend sports against their haters, in fact. I think they're an important part of human culture, down through the ages. I would like a solution that worked for most people.

Skill leagues are generally said to be a bad solution by sports fans. Would that be very different from the way things are now, though? Wouldn't we still end up with a league that consisted of mostly cis-women?

Yes, you would find such a league. But it would only exist at the recreational/amateur level. (This is assuming the skill level option. The hormone level option might produce a different result.)

The sex-segregated sports system creates two distinct tracks from beginning amateur all the way up to elite professional. The professional level is dependent on either viewership or sponsorship (which is also dependent on viewership). Right now, people will watch the upper levels of both tracks (NBA/WNBA) or the upper levels of the two amateur tracks (NCAAM/NCAAW). Granted, there is a larger audience for the men's track.

The next tier down are minor or developmental leagues for the pros or Division 3 college for the amateur track. A few people watch these. But on the pro side, they are more of a training or test league for the top level. So they are subsidized by the top tier. On the amateur side, Division 3 doesn't include scholarships. There is a much smaller audience. Mostly parents, students, and alumni.

If you did a skill level track, nearly all of the people who benefit monetarily, either with paying careers or scholarships, will be male. On the pro-level at least, it's already much more rewarding on the men's track than the women's. (Title IX requires equal numbers of scholarships, I think.)

There is a market for the top of the women's track because people see it as the best of the best women and don't compare them directly to the men. If you make it a skill level, the women start appearing several levels down, and are mixed with mediocre men. The audience isn't going to watch Tier 1 and Tier, say, 4. They will watch tier 1 and maybe a little bit of tier 2. No viewers, no league revenue, no sponsorships, and no money to pay female athletes.

On a recreational level, sure. Who cares, they are all there to have fun, right? But planning a park district recreational program that served as many women as men would be a little challenging.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

Why? Outside of just staying angry what possible use does NOT clarifying the entire core principle you claim to be so up in arms about get you?

I'm sorry but "You're a bigot because you won't accept the thing I'm angry that you even ask me to clarify" is a very shaky moral high ground you've built for yourself there.

So your argument is I'm a bigot because I want to know what you mean by "woman" when demanding to be seen as a woman? That's really where you are taking this?

I'm here, rationally and calmly asking you to please help me understand what you are trying to say so I can help. And this is your response?

 

[Paul2]

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

I get that, but how do you expect anyone to understand what you actually mean when you say you're a woman? If I don't know what definition of woman I should be understanding you mean, I won't know what you mean. It would be as if you said, "I am a kunzorenplat."

 

[TomB]

Again since people are missing my follow-up post.

- "What makes sports fans happy" only applies to sports, it shouldn't be used as a litmus test for wider society.

- Sports fans are never happy.

True on both points.

Competitive sports and access to locker rooms/bathrooms are separate issues. I think these threads were initially referring to sports, specifically, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[cullennz]

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, just to put us in our place based on your preconceived notions.



No, you have provided many other reasons for that.

Not really sure how getting angry on an anonymous forum would have any point, but I think you might want to rethink your post.

"You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, "

And realise people wouldn't be asking if they had no desire to understand your points.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

You are using a radically different definition of the word than most other people, you are basing your argument on that definition as if it should be universally accepted, but you won't tell anyone what it is.

Can you imagine any possible reason that other people might not be willing to accept your arguments under such conditions?

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

It's been my experience that people who refuse to define their terms are playing motte and bailey games with word definitions.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

It doesn't matter if your definition satisfies anyone. That's not the point of offering it. The point is so people can understand what it is you're actually saying. You provide a definition, and that's the definition you use. Nobody can claim that your definition is wrong, because you are the only authority on what it is that you mean. People may argue that your definition is non-standard and not generally accepted, but we already know that's the case, withholding it isn't preventing that judgment. The only risk (and it's not really a risk at all) is that people won't accept your argument based on that definition. But they aren't going to accept your argument if they don't even know what the definition you're using is.