TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
There simply aren't enough trans people for this to be feasible at anything close to the local level. Nor do I think it's good policy.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
There simply aren't enough trans people for this to be feasible at anything close to the local level. Nor do I think it's good policy.
Which is pretty much every sport, apart from maybe driving (and perhaps some obscure stuff).
Exactly!
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Taking pills can't be seen either way. Smoking is recognizable by smell either way. Not that stupidity ever bothered lawmakers.
They were probably talking about injectables, assuming the reasoning is true.
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's not sufficient for anything beyond a friendly bout. It's not going to fly for the Olympics for example.
I just listened to that recording. They both sound reasonable. There is no indication that Strangio is a misogynist, or that Hilton is worried about misogyny. They were simply discussing the tradeoff between rights and abilities. Inasmuch as a single example can be considered evidence, this is very strong evidence against the trend you're fearing.
I read posts like that and think this person can’t be serious, and then I look at *gestures at this thread* — a “skeptics” forum where people are refusing to define their terms because they don’t like the logical implications of doing so,; where people appear to be in earnest claiming men should use women’s facilities etc.; and I realize this person is in all likelihood serious.
The other X-factor as far as sports is viewership. Professional Sports, College Sports (don't pretend otherwise), the Olympics, etc are all businesses and business need customers.
We can come to all the agreements and disagreements we want but if the whatever solution we come up with doesn't sell tickets at the gate, attract viewers on television, and move merchandise then it's not a solution.
At the end of the day "Will enough people pay to see/watch it in order to maintain it as a business model?" has to be our primary question here or all we're having is a thought experiment because if the answer to that question isn't "Yes" well then there's no actual team/sport/league/event to worry about and who's winning in that scenario?
I'm sure there's a few "Well if sports don't do this exactly as I want then they can just go under and go riddance" types in the margins, but I think most of us are more realistic than that.
You can love it, you can hate it, you can gush about it being the future, you can rail against it for being unfair, you can make any noise you want about it from any angle you want but if nobody shows up to watch it and you can't pay your players, your coaches, or the guy that sells the Cracker Jacks...I mean where do we go from there outside of purely detached from reality ideological dick waving?
And that question is just aggressively not getting asked. Who here wants to watch co-gender/co-sex, whatever the democartion you wish to make sports?
And this is sports. Sports fans don't like change. People are still mad the football team stopped using the Racial Slur as their team name. Every rule change is the one that ruined the sport forever according to *checks notes* every sports fan ever. Every uniform is the worst one the team's ever had. Every team was better when it was in City So and So before it moved to City This or That even if the team moved a hundred years ago.
We can come to all the agreements and disagreements we want but if the whatever solution we come up with doesn't sell tickets at the gate, attract viewers on television, and move merchandise then it's not a solution.
At the end of the day "Will enough people pay to see/watch it in order to maintain it as a business model?" has to be our primary question here or all we're having is a thought experiment because if the answer to that question isn't "Yes" well then there's no actual team/sport/league/event to worry about and who's winning in that scenario?
I'm sure there's a few "Well if sports don't do this exactly as I want then they can just go under and go riddance" types in the margins, but I think most of us are more realistic than that.
You can love it, you can hate it, you can gush about it being the future, you can rail against it for being unfair, you can make any noise you want about it from any angle you want but if nobody shows up to watch it and you can't pay your players, your coaches, or the guy that sells the Cracker Jacks...I mean where do we go from there outside of purely detached from reality ideological dick waving?
And that question is just aggressively not getting asked. Who here wants to watch co-gender/co-sex, whatever the democartion you wish to make sports?
And this is sports. Sports fans don't like change. People are still mad the football team stopped using the Racial Slur as their team name. Every rule change is the one that ruined the sport forever according to *checks notes* every sports fan ever. Every uniform is the worst one the team's ever had. Every team was better when it was in City So and So before it moved to City This or That even if the team moved a hundred years ago.
Last edited:
Louden Wilde
Muse
Strangio says patently false and/or 'out there' things at times (e.g. sex being made up by the patriarchy), but doesn't have as much of the misogynistic overtones that many activists do (possibly because he's female?). But I'd say if you are against female rights, you just might be a misogynist.....
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I think most of the focus here is on college and lower level sports, because federal law requires a non-discriminatory stance generally and Title 9 requires equal funding for women's sports.
It's a big complicated mess because school sports are ostensibly for the benefit of the student, and many students participate that have no ambitions to become a professional athlete. higher level sports, such as high school and college, become a blend of spectator events and school instruction.
The whole thing is a mess of competing interests, such as the debate about head injuries in football.
Strictly professional sports have much more latitude to demarcate wherever they feel fit, but school funded events are required by law to have non-discriminatory policies.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I think sports leagues should remain free to create different categories of competition (e.g. weight, height, disability, experience level, male vs. female puberty) while remaining bound by antidiscrimination laws when it comes to characteristics which have little or nothing to do with athletic competitiveness (e.g. racial or ethnic background, nation of origin, political party affiliation).
How so?
Last edited:
Huh? I didn't hear anyone mention patriarchy. I don't know what you're talking about.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
That's where the "skill based" divisions idea falls apart. People will watch the best female athletes compete against each other. People will not watch the best female athletes compete against some mediocre guys.
Ever since the designated hitter rule....
ETA: And, to ST's point, considerations are different in high school, but even there, our high school girls' basketball team went to the state championships one year. That team wouldn't be able to compete against our town's third string benchwarmers on the boys' team. How do you make that into a good situation without sex based segregation?
Last edited:
Louden Wilde
Muse
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Hmmmm.
Who's "refusing to define their terms because they don't like the logical implications of doing so"?
I hope you're not referring to me, because 1) I've defined my terms more than once within these threads already; 2) I take significant umbrage about practically being ordered to do so in a most bizarre and authoritarian manner, in an online forum; 3) in any event, I provided a link to a definition of terms which chimes precisely to my own definition; and, not least, 4) they're not "my" terms (in the sense that they're somehow unique to me) - they're the generally-accepted terms that are used within the likes of DSM5, the wider medical community, legislatures, and serious commentators the World over.*
If you were not referring to me, then all this is moot of course.
And I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say that some within these threads "appear to be in earnest claiming men should use women’s facilities etc". For a start, "some" here (including me) are claiming that certain males (specifically transgender males, ie transwomen) should use women's facilities.
But I presume that's what you meant, even though you misused the word "men", right? And that being the case, seeing as you appear to treat that idea as either wrong or ridiculous (or both), I'd have to ask where you would have transwomen change when using communal changing facilities in sports centres etc? In the men's changing rooms? In the disabled changing rooms? In their car or at home? Or should transwomen be effectively prohibited from using sportscentres like these?
* And frankly, if regular participants to this thread are not conversant with the standard definitions of terms (which are precisely the definitions which I myself have adopted and used), then I might suggest that the proverbial shoe should be on the other foot: it is perhaps I who should be asking of others what their definitions are, if they're going to be different from the generally-accepted definitions as used for debate/diagnosis/understanding/legislating around gender dysphoria and transgender identity....
Last edited:
'The notion of "biological sex" was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people'.
I could have sworn the notion of biological sex also applies to other species. I'm not sure how one weaponises this against individuals of other species when one cannot ask them to declare their gender identity. I suppose having been developed as a weapon against people, it just turned out by happy coincidence to be useful elsewhere.
Make of that what you will, but that's completely opposite to the way he presents the issue in the recording.
Also, this isn't a new idea. Andrea Dworkin said practically the same thing.
http://bostonreview.net/gender-sexuality/john-stoltenberg-andrea-dworkin-was-trans-ally
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Well you say that.... but people pay many millions of dollars to watch more mediocre athletes compete against each other on a regular basis. In boxing.
If boxing (for either sex or gender) was strictly "watchable" on a best-vs-the-best basis, then the only elite-level boxing would be in the heavyweight class, since it's an undisputed fact that heavyweights would win in pretty much every contest against boxers of other weight divisions. And yet the likes of Floyd Mayweather, Roy Jones Jr, Oscar de la Hoya, Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran have had *fairly* successful and lucrative careers regardless.....
And on a non-human sports level, if horse racing were strictly the best vs the best, it would soon become near unwatchable. Alternatively, if we force the better horses to carry additional weights to handicap their performance (which is what happens in the majority of horse racing), we get something more watchable (and bettable, of course).
(Btw I say all of this while holding the firm views that a) at an elite level, transwomen should not be permitted to compete in the women's categories in almost all instances in almost all sports, and b) this is indeed the decision that the governing authorities in those sports (and the national and supranational courts) will come to.)
I don't understand it either. I wonder if these people are arguing from some kind of Creationism.
- Status