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

[Meadmaker]

Re: the debate on man/woman being gender, versus male/female being sex.


Men can't have babies.

At least, under my definition, men can't have babies. Some people buy into the whole sex vs. gender thing when it comes to definitions of man/woman, but I never have.

I would be willing to considered other definitions, if one were to be provided, but circular definitions aren't actually definitions at all. Until a non-circular definition of "man" is provided that is based on gender instead of sex, I will say that I prefer this culture's definition to be based on sex.

And all of this really is just wordplay. Let's cut out all of the problematic words for a moment, and get to practical implications.

If a person who is capable of becoming pregnant wishes to compete in sports, I believe there should be leagues where all the competitors are capable of becoming pregnant. If a person who is capable of becoming pregnant needs to change clothes in order to participate in any activity, I will support her desire to provide a space to change clothes where she cannot be seen by anyone capable of making her pregnant.


Oh, phooey, I said "her". Bah. I'm leaving it that way. Fill in your own words if you like. Everyone knows what I mean. And if any idiot says "hysterectomy", "menopause" or any of the other stupid things people sometimes say in these discussions, I will treat such fools as they deserve by saying "Ni" to them, in large type. You have been warned.

 

[d4m10n]

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow.

Okay, now it really seems like you're trying to reset the thread to be about what you'd like it to be about instead of what it was originally about. At the very least, I'd say we have to be willing to discuss sport as (at least arguably) one of the areas of human endeavor in which sex-segregation may continue to make sense, even as we tear down or reconfigure less justifiable barriers between the sexes.

Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

Boxing is segregated by both sex and weight class. Indeed, there is an entire wiki page on women's boxing^WP. Any guesses as to why it is considered a separate sport?

 

[theprestige]

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow. Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

Jesus Christ. This exact question has already been discussed at length in this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again that's just more "I don't care, it doesn't matter, therefore I should get my way."

If it doesn't matter it doesn't matter. It can't matter specifically because it doesn't matter.

If sports don't matter then it doesn't matter which category anyone person gets put in. But... it obviously does to some people.

 

[TomB]

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow. Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

If breaking out by one biological factor (weight class/body size) in order to create interesting competition, what is your objection to breaking out classes by another biological factor (sex) to create interesting competition?

What you are advocating is a system that defacto discriminates against sex. This is what female sports leagues were created to combat.

And yes, also because there is a market for watching female athletes. Which I don't consider a bad thing.

Honestly, are we arguing that we should not study and understand sociology because it might lead to tough questions that could impact an entertainment industry?

This is a strawman. And borderline dishonest. Supporting the existing sex-segregated sports framework has nothing to do with discouraging study and understanding of sociology. Further, studying sociology does not lead to a conclusion that sex-segregation is never appropriate.

Rethink this.

 

[Ziggurat]

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow. Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

Weight classes are used in sports where strength is a primary competitive factor (boxing, wrestling, weight lifting). While males tend to outweigh females, females are not as strong as males even at the same weight class, so mixing females and males within weight classes would still result in no women at the top ranks. Weight classes do not make sense for speed- or agility-dependent sports, such as running or tennis. One could imagine height classes for some sports where height is an advantage (basketball, hurdles, high jump), but again, even at the same height men are still stronger, faster, and more explosive than women. About the only physical advantage females have over males is increased flexibility, which is highly relevant to gymnastics, but not much else. Within that sport, the advantage is sufficiently large that a male version of the balance beam isn't even a contested event.

 

[TomB]

To be fair, bathrooms and locker rooms are a little more iffy, as the segregation itself is in many ways tied to culture.

But sports? Clear biological rationale. None of those namby-pamby feelings. Science!

Many cases of segregation have mutliple justifications. Arguable, there's a social component to sports as well, though I agree with you that the biological rationale is clearly primary.

The key really, is to look at each case and decide if the primary reasons are biological or social. Or even social relating to biology. (Privacy) From there, try to find a means of inclusion that satisfies the primary and as many of the secondary rationales as possible.

Note that means that the goal is to be as inclusive as possible without sacrificing the underlying reasons behind the segregation.

 

[Upchurch]

Supporting the existing sex-segregated sports framework has nothing to do with discouraging study and understanding of sociology.

I agree. They have little, if anything, to do with one another. Somehow, it keeps being brought up in response to the concept of cultural-based gender systems.

Just to re-iterate in case someone feels the need to ask me once again, I don't care who plays games with who.

 

[Meadmaker]

My basic position is that generally nobody should be excluded from ANYTHING without good reason.

This then puts the onus on people who want to exclude transwomen from female spaces to justify it. Some people here have found that position troubling (i don't know why as yet).

So far, we're in agreement.

We are no doubt going to disagree in many cases on what 'good reason to exclude' is going to mean

It does seem likely.

and no doubt we will go round in circles on that one yet again as you claim that possession of a penis is OBVIOUSLY good reason to exclude transwomen from locker rooms and shared hotel rooms and anyone who disagrees is just being ridiculous.

What is clear from these 5 threads is that the anti-trans posters are pretty damn well entrenched in their positions and will find any edge case or random anecdote they can to justify their positions. And that a bunch of largely reactionary old white men are going to keep pretending to really really care about women only shortlists for town councils and girl's high school sports if it helps them win an argument.

(emphasis added)

You owe me an apology.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just to re-iterate in case someone feels the need to ask me once again, I don't care who plays games with who.

Taking that statement at face value, that would mean that you would find it acceptable if high school transgirls were only allowed to compete in the boys' division. You aren't adamant that it be that way. From your perspective, they could be allowed to compete in the girls' division, or they could be excluded from the girls' division, but you wouldn't care either way.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

(And if I am wrong, I would refer you to Joe Morgue's post on the subject a page or so ago.)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You owe me an apology.

Hope you aren't holding your breath for it.

A huge proportion of the people arguing for all these awful consequences couldn't and never did give the slightest **** about these topics until they became an anti-trans hobby horse.

 

[Butter!]

So far, we're in agreement.



It does seem likely.

(emphasis added)

You owe me an apology.

I told you! Another person has stated it.

This discussion won't move because one side doesn't believe the other side's positions are honest. They think anyone with concerns about sports, jails, medicine, terminology, statistics, or whatever is lying and making up those concerns to use as shields. Shields for, I'm assuming, just plain old dislike of trans people, or in the case of ladies, dislike of trans people mixed with gatekeeping of the feminine essence.

It's so insulting, because the whole point of this forum is to discuss things to death. But more than that, it's disheartening, because MOST of the people in here posting questions or concerns do not sound bigoted in the slightest. (Again, I said most. I will not deny that there has been some charged rhetoric at times, but those people aren't posting anymore.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

r all these awful consequences couldn't and never did give the slightest **** about these topics until they became an anti-trans hobby horse.

Ah yes the "Everything we say is really some cover for an anti-trans agenda" excuse that Butters already noticed and brought up.

Well yeah because nobody with a penis was demanding to be let into the girl's locker room before there was a trans-agenda. This ain't complicated or sinister.

 

[Upchurch]

Taking that statement at face value, that would mean that you would find it acceptable if high school transgirls were only allowed to compete in the boys' division. You aren't adamant that it be that way. From your perspective, they could be allowed to compete in the girls' division, or they could be excluded from the girls' division, but you wouldn't care either way.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

(And if I am wrong, I would refer you to Joe Morgue's post on the subject a page or so ago.)

Sports are the boring bits that happens between marching band shows and pep band songs. It does not matter to me in the slightest what mixture of chromosomes are in the team, cheerleading, or referee uniforms.

 

[theprestige]

If breaking out by one biological factor (weight class/body size) in order to create interesting competition, what is your objection to breaking out classes by another biological factor (sex) to create interesting competition?

This far into the debate, as best I can tell the underlying objection is that sex is kryptonite to trans-activism.

"I'm just as much a woman as any other woman," said the trans-activist.

I said, "What about sex?"

"Shut up," she explained.

 

[Joe Random]

Hope you aren't holding your breath for it.

A huge proportion of the people arguing for all these awful consequences couldn't and never did give the slightest **** about these topics until they became an anti-trans hobby horse.

Shame the $1mil prize for mind reading isn't a thing anymore since evidently you know precisely what posters in this thread really think.

 

[Paul2]

Re: the debate on man/woman being gender, versus male/female being sex.


Men can't have babies.

At least, under my definition, men can't have babies. Some people buy into the whole sex vs. gender thing when it comes to definitions of man/woman, but I never have.

I would be willing to considered other definitions, if one were to be provided, but circular definitions aren't actually definitions at all. Until a non-circular definition of "man" is provided that is based on gender instead of sex, I will say that I prefer this culture's definition to be based on sex.

And all of this really is just wordplay. Let's cut out all of the problematic words for a moment, and get to practical implications.

If a person who is capable of becoming pregnant wishes to compete in sports, I believe there should be leagues where all the competitors are capable of becoming pregnant. If a person who is capable of becoming pregnant needs to change clothes in order to participate in any activity, I will support her desire to provide a space to change clothes where she cannot be seen by anyone capable of making her pregnant.


Oh, phooey, I said "her". Bah. I'm leaving it that way. Fill in your own words if you like. Everyone knows what I mean. And if any idiot says "hysterectomy", "menopause" or any of the other stupid things people sometimes say in these discussions, I will treat such fools as they deserve by saying "Ni" to them, in large type. You have been warned.

May I offer a friendly amendment? Different sports leagues based on whether a person has gone through male puberty or not. Hormone therapy does not, IIRC, wipe out the advantages of male puberty.

This would not hold for all sports, however. Achievement in some sports is not very dependent on having gone through male puberty (rifle shooting?), so this would not apply to all sports, but it would to track and field, weight lifting, and others.

 

[theprestige]

Sports are the boring bits that happens between marching band shows and pep band songs. It does not matter to me in the slightest what mixture of chromosomes are in the team, cheerleading, or referee uniforms.

Sociopathic solipsism in action. Nothing that matters to other people really matters unless it also matters to you.

 

[Butter!]

Hope you aren't holding your breath for it.

A huge proportion of the people arguing for all these awful consequences couldn't and never did give the slightest **** about these topics until they became an anti-trans hobby horse.

I don't even know what you mean by this. When would topics like the segregation of sports by sex or the differences/similarities between sex and gender come up in any other context?

 

[Meadmaker]

May I offer a friendly amendment? Different sports leagues based on whether a person has gone through male puberty or not. Hormone therapy does not, IIRC, wipe out the advantages of male puberty.

This would not hold for all sports, however. Achievement in some sports is not very dependent on having gone through male puberty (rifle shooting?), so this would not apply to all sports, but it would to track and field, weight lifting, and others.

In reality, I have opinions on the subject, but I think sports leagues ought to be allowed to work it out for themselves based on whatever factors affect them the most. I worry about the medical implications of some policies, but I'll leave that to people who are more knowledgeable to work out the details.

Where I have strong opinions and actually care about the answer has more to do with scholastic competitions and those where youths are competing. In those cases, there absolutely should not be entrance criteria based on hormone levels, for reasons related to everything from privacy to safety, and I have a very strong opinion that untransitioned males should not be allowed to compete in the girls' division.

As an aside, I am not certain, but I think in rifle shooting, men's scores typically are significantly better than women's scores. I think the extra strength does matter in holding the rifle at exactly the right position, where a fraction of a millimeter matters. I know the only sport in the Olympics where men and women compete against each other is Equestrian.