[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Collin237]

Sorry, but no. This is bloody stupid, and rests on a fundamental misconception.

The problem isn't that expertise can't determine a policy, but only deal with it on a case-by-case basis. The problem is that expertise doesn't determine values. And there is a conflict of values here. I'm not talking religious values or anything like that. I mean that there are multiple parties with competing interests. Any solution is a tradeoff between these parties' interests. Different solutions produce different losses and gains for these parties. Which of these tradeoffs is preferable isn't a matter of expertise, it's a matter of values. That cannot be determined even on a case-by-case basis by any amount of expertise.

As to the need for policy, well, if you don't have a policy to settle this (and it need not be national, it can be at a much lower level), then you won't get any consistency in decisions even within groups that should be consistent, because you will need multiple decision-makers, and they won't share values. And that inconsistency will end up being worse. It's OK if, say, track and field has different policies than swimming. But if you have inconsistent policy within one league, that's going to mess things up.

The expertise is for keeping them away from each other's throats. And differing views is precisely the point. There can't be a compromise unless all parties know firsthand what all the others want. If people don't learn in school, while their bosses are still informal, how to work out the hard problems of being part of a democratic society; they'll never learn.

Membership in a sports league should be whatever is mutually judged to best ensure fair and safe competition -- what else could caring about sports mean? -- and that cannot be determined by generalizations.

 

[Meadmaker]

Penis inspection day kiddos, drop your drawers for the kind doctor



https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/1382706325424111622

I repeat myself, but if you think the assault on civil rights is going to be contained to only targeting trans kids, you're mistaken. These bigoted laws are not about protecting girls, and none of these ghouls are going to care about the collateral damage done in their crusade to demonize trans people.

Hmmm......I'm just not seeing it that way.

The chance of that particular clause of the law ever even coming into play seems very, very, close to zero.

The kids involved share locker rooms, and they are in high school. Do you think that there will ever be a case where the people don't know whether or not a person is trans? How would that ever happen? If it did, it would be because the person is so good at "passing" that no one will ever think to challenge them.

If it did ever happen, it's not like anyone will have to drop their drawers, because they have doctors. The doctors are already performing physical exams as a condition of participation, so the doctors will have already seen these people with their drawers dropped, so it's not like a special, extra examination is required.

So, how does this come about? A coach presents a girl for competition, knowing that she's trans. Well, that's a problem right there, since transgender girls are supposed to be in the male division under that law. That's a big time violation by the coach right there, but suppose that the coach disagrees with the law and, as a matter or principle, presents the kid anyway.

Now, the opposing coach challenges her. Then, if the kid is trans, the kid lies. Eventually, proof is demanded. So, in the case of an actual trans girl, it can only come about by lying, on the transgirl's part, and probably by the coach, too. If it did, the doctor, who would presumably tell the truth, would say that the kid is a male.

Now let's take the not so trans person.

So a female is presented for competition. Maybe the female is a bit butch, and very athletic, and wins. People start asking questions. Eventually, an opposing coach goes in and says, "I think your athlete is a male." Would they do that? I can't see it. i would say that they would make discreet inquiries, and they would end up talking to a bunch of people who have probably known the kid a long time and find out that she really is a female. There would be no rumors going around that the kid is trans.

But, what if there were false rumors, of if circumstances still left some doubt. Well, they would ask the coach, who may very well have been present when the kid is changing clothes, who would vouch for her female nature. And if for some reason that couldn't happen? Well, they would make the challenge, which would be kind of humiliating for the kid, but it wouldn't involve a medical exam because that already had to happen in order for the kid to participate in the first place.

So, it's awkward, but let's keep to reality when imagining problems.


Anticipating a response to that last line, "my side" does that, too. I, myself, thought trans-imitating voyeurs would be a problem. I looked it up. They aren't much of a problem. It's not that they are non-existent, but it's close to non-existent. That surprises me, but data is data, so once I learned that my expectations didn't happen, I gave up that line of argument.

That should happen here, too. There won't be humiliating draw-dropping going on because of this law. It might happen in some extremely bizarre circumstances, but they will be incredibly rare.

The real issue is that a lot of people want to allow males into the female leagues, disregarding any anatomical differences. A lot of other people don't want that to happen, for reasons discussed at length. We don't have to exaggerate the problem, on either side, when talking about it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe it's just the ones who introduced the concept of "chestfeeding".

Firstly, there are many reasons why that term is gaining in usage and acceptance, not all of which are to do with transgender identity. Many ciswoman new parents, when consulted, have also been in favour of the change, on account of the potentially-demeaning sexual connotations around the word "breast".

And secondly - and far, far more importantly in this context - he's condemning mainstream medicine for being "woke" (used in a pejorative sense by him, of course) by being "unequivocally on the side of anything the trans activists want" (which isn't even close to being true, but perhaps that's for another time...). He's effectively accusing mainstream medicine of being improperly/unfairly in thrall to trans activists. Which, as I said, is a pretty breath-taking position to be taking up.

 

[LondonJohn]

I just came across an episode of the Science of Sport Podcast explaining this process in some detail:

https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1323999693798580226

At ~33:45 or so, they finally come around to the key question:
"Does the lowering of testosterone take away the biological differences that necessitated separation in the first place?"

(Surprised if we haven't quite covered this ground before, but I did take a break for a bit so perhaps I missed it.)

The (very obvious) answer: No. It somewhat reduces/mitigates the biological advantages that, owing to evolutionary factors, males have over females.

As I've said many times, I don't think there should be a debate wrt transgender people in elite-level competitive sport. Not only do I think that shouldn't happen - I don't think it will happen.

At school and sub-elite levels, transgender people (IMO) should be allowed to compete (should they so wish) within the gender group which most closely matches their trans gender. But elite sport is different. Elite sport effectively exists primarily for the direct or indirect benefit of spectators from the general public. And it's the spectators' money - either directly (eg gate receipts), indirectly (tv subscriptions), or even more indirectly (companies who sponsor sports or advertise within events) - which drives elite-level sport. It's part of the entertainment business.

I confidently predict that a) the organising bodies of every significant elite-level sport (for those sports where muscular strength, cardiovascular strength or skeletal factors are an advantage*) will ban transgender people from competing in their trans gender category, and b) no court (whether a sports arbitration court or national court) will ever overturn those bans. For the reasons I've given above.


As I also said before: where public entertainment is the driving factor in any pursuit, one simply cannot - and should not - legislate for these sorts of things. Otherwise (for example) short plump women would be legitimately able to claim discrimination in the field of catwalk modelling, or gay people would legitimately be able to take legal action over the casting of a straight actor to play a gay character.

I am steadfast in my views regarding transgender rights. And in my opinion - and, I predict, the opinion of the courts in years to come - my strong support for transgender rights is not contradicted by my belief (and prediction) wrt the participation in elite sports of transgender people in the category matching their trans gender.


* For sport where these things appear to confer little or no advantage to males - curling, darts and snooker are three which spring to mind - I would imagine that transgender people will be allowed to compete in their trans gender category. Indeed, sports such as snooker already allow females to compete in any tournament (provided that they qualify, in exactly the same way as the non-seeded male players need to qualify)

 

[Aber]

Many ciswoman new parents, when consulted, have also been in favour of the change, on account of the potentially-demeaning sexual connotations around the word "breast".

Evidence please.

UK evidence suggests otherwise:

An NHS Trust is introducing terms like 'chestfeeding' and 'human milk' in a bid to become more inclusive.

The decision was taken following discussions with experts in trans and non-binary healthcare

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/parenting/hospital-tells-staff-use-terms-19809496

 

[d4m10n]

At school and sub-elite levels, transgender people (IMO) should be allowed to compete (should they so wish) within the gender group which most closely matches their trans gender.

Where I went to college, we had an intercollegiate rugby team for females and one for males. These teams weren't exactly elite (even by NCAA standards) and the ladies team had the better record in league play. That said, there were fairly good safety reasons why they didn't scrimmage together, and good fairness reasons why they didn't compete in the same league. Do you think those reasons matter significantly less b/c these players were amateur student athletes rather than elite professionals?

 

[Meadmaker]

The (very obvious) answer: No. It somewhat reduces/mitigates the biological advantages that, owing to evolutionary factors, males have over females.

As I've said many times, I don't think there should be a debate wrt transgender people in elite-level competitive sport. Not only do I think that shouldn't happen - I don't think it will happen.

At school and sub-elite levels, transgender people (IMO) should be allowed to compete (should they so wish) within the gender group which most closely matches their trans gender.

Could you elaborate on why? I know this subject has come up before, but I can't recall it being addressed. Is it that because there's no money involved it doesn't matter anyway? It seems like you are basically saying that school athletics simply isn't important enough to worry about.

In my discussion recently of Terry Miller I asked that question, that no one picked up. I wonder if you could do so now. Allowing Terry Miller to compete in the girls' section, which was intended to be for females at the time it was named, affirmed Terry's gender identity, but it diminished Selina Soule's identity. The third place finisher in those races was the fastest female in the race. That's something that is a pretty significant accomplishment that she earned, but did not receive, at least officially. I don't see why that's less significant than whatever it is that Terry got by competing as a girl.

(Language is so difficult. Because the division is named "girl" instead of "female", it sometimes gets confusing which definitions are being used in my post. Not only is there the newfangled definition of "girl" as "young person with feminine gender identity, but now we have an all new definition of "girl" as "someone competing in the girls' division.)

I know that an awful lot of my memories from my adolescence involve extracurricular activities, including athletics. I don't think the concerns of the student athletes' concerns about the importance of the competition should be dismissed so cavalierly.

 

[Meadmaker]

To rephrase my question from a different angle,

Why would sports be segregated by gender? Why should gender play any role at all in separating competitors into divisions?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a weird law.

Why would a child's sex ever be in dispute anyway? As in, what's the scenario in which a child doesn't have their sex on file for medical reasons.

The vanishingly few cases of a person having a DSD that makes them androgynous in a meaningful way.

In other words... nothing at all to do with transgender.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Firstly, there are many reasons why that term is gaining in usage and acceptance, not all of which are to do with transgender identity. Many ciswoman new parents, when consulted, have also been in favour of the change, on account of the potentially-demeaning sexual connotations around the word "breast".

Can you provide support for this assertion, please?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Could you elaborate on why? I know this subject has come up before, but I can't recall it being addressed. Is it that because there's no money involved it doesn't matter anyway? It seems like you are basically saying that school athletics simply isn't important enough to worry about.

In my discussion recently of Terry Miller I asked that question, that no one picked up. I wonder if you could do so now. Allowing Terry Miller to compete in the girls' section, which was intended to be for females at the time it was named, affirmed Terry's gender identity, but it diminished Selina Soule's identity. The third place finisher in those races was the fastest female in the race. That's something that is a pretty significant accomplishment that she earned, but did not receive, at least officially. I don't see why that's less significant than whatever it is that Terry got by competing as a girl.

(Language is so difficult. Because the division is named "girl" instead of "female", it sometimes gets confusing which definitions are being used in my post. Not only is there the newfangled definition of "girl" as "young person with feminine gender identity, but now we have an all new definition of "girl" as "someone competing in the girls' division.)

I know that an awful lot of my memories from my adolescence involve extracurricular activities, including athletics. I don't think the concerns of the student athletes' concerns about the importance of the competition should be dismissed so cavalierly.

There's also a dynamic relationship between school sports and elite sports, that I think keeps getting swept aside.

I think we all pretty much agree that elite sports should be sex segregated as a generality, and allow some exceptions based on individuals and the specifics of that sport. As mentioned, in some sports like darts and curling, sex doesn't seem to confer a meaningful advantage, so there seems no reason to have sex segregation.

When it comes to many other sports, however, high school sports does matter. Setting aside the matter of safety in contact sports, there's also the progression and recognition that results from it.

In the case in CT that you've mentioned, Miller and Yearwoods wins against female competitors resulted in them being passed forward to the next level of competition... and it resulted in Soule, the best female competitor in that event, not going on to the next level.

The overall effect of allowing transgirls to compete against females in middle school and high school is a cumulative one. The middle school females are less likely to have good spots on their teams, thus having less competition in positions they would otherwise have had were those spots not taken by males. This means that when they get to high school, those females are less likely to gain a spot on the JV teams - they've had less experience, and they're competing against the same males that displaced them in middle school. Those that do make a spot on the JV team are less likely to have a spot on the varsity team, because they are competing against males for those same spots. Not having made the cut for varsity because a male took that spot means that the female is extremely unlikely to be accepted into a collegiate team, because they would not have varsity records to consider. And not being in a collegiate team means that it's virtually impossible that the female athlete would go on to a professional, elite level career at all.

By displacing females at the stage where biological sex-based factors become a factor in differing performance levels, we end up displacing those females from the opportunity to compete at the elite levels as well.

 

[Collin237]

To rephrase my question from a different angle,

Why would sports be segregated by gender? Why should gender play any role at all in separating competitors into divisions?

It shouldn't. But when the government passes laws saying it mustn't, people rebel. It's just human nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Could you elaborate on why? I know this subject has come up before, but I can't recall it being addressed. Is it that because there's no money involved it doesn't matter anyway? It seems like you are basically saying that school athletics simply isn't important enough to worry about.

In my discussion recently of Terry Miller I asked that question, that no one picked up. I wonder if you could do so now. Allowing Terry Miller to compete in the girls' section, which was intended to be for females at the time it was named, affirmed Terry's gender identity, but it diminished Selina Soule's identity. The third place finisher in those races was the fastest female in the race. That's something that is a pretty significant accomplishment that she earned, but did not receive, at least officially. I don't see why that's less significant than whatever it is that Terry got by competing as a girl.

(Language is so difficult. Because the division is named "girl" instead of "female", it sometimes gets confusing which definitions are being used in my post. Not only is there the newfangled definition of "girl" as "young person with feminine gender identity, but now we have an all new definition of "girl" as "someone competing in the girls' division.)

I know that an awful lot of my memories from my adolescence involve extracurricular activities, including athletics. I don't think the concerns of the student athletes' concerns about the importance of the competition should be dismissed so cavalierly.

Damn I'm here again.. oh well.

I have one honest question regarding your sports example. Because I am struggling to see how you arrived at the conclusion that Selina's identity was somehow diminished by being third rather than first.

You seem to be tied up on some genetic advantage argument but I'm fairly sure that had a new girl transferred into the school who was 6'4 of pure muscle and knocked 5 seconds off everyone's times you would have been absolutely OK with that. And yet she would have had a biological advantage too. Would being second to a ciswoman who had a biological advantage not dent her identity? What's the important difference there that I am missing?

Is there not also the danger that you are employing the same logic that failed you previously and exaggerating a perceived threat into a real one? After all as far as I know trans people have been competing in women's sport for a while now and it hasn't been taken over and destroyed by 'men'?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's a weird law.

Why would a child's sex ever be in dispute anyway? As in, what's the scenario in which a child doesn't have their sex on file for medical reasons.

I suppose "on file" isn't going to matter if there's a "dispute". Seems like a law that is rife for abuse, and given the relatively few number of trans people, is more likely to be used maliciously against cis-girls that are accused of being too "manly".

Any girl with broader than normal shoulders, more heavily muscled, or otherwise an outstanding athlete could easily be targeted by spurious allegations that would force them to produce medical records to the school to prove they are who they say they are. I'm sure this won't have any negative psychological effects, I hear teenage girls are very confident about their bodies and won't mind being accused of being crypto-men.

 

[Collin237]

Could you elaborate on why? I know this subject has come up before, but I can't recall it being addressed. Is it that because there's no money involved it doesn't matter anyway? It seems like you are basically saying that school athletics simply isn't important enough to worry about.

In my discussion recently of Terry Miller I asked that question, that no one picked up. I wonder if you could do so now. Allowing Terry Miller to compete in the girls' section, which was intended to be for females at the time it was named, affirmed Terry's gender identity, but it diminished Selina Soule's identity. The third place finisher in those races was the fastest female in the race. That's something that is a pretty significant accomplishment that she earned, but did not receive, at least officially. I don't see why that's less significant than whatever it is that Terry got by competing as a girl.

(Language is so difficult. Because the division is named "girl" instead of "female", it sometimes gets confusing which definitions are being used in my post. Not only is there the newfangled definition of "girl" as "young person with feminine gender identity, but now we have an all new definition of "girl" as "someone competing in the girls' division.)

I know that an awful lot of my memories from my adolescence involve extracurricular activities, including athletics. I don't think the concerns of the student athletes' concerns about the importance of the competition should be dismissed so cavalierly.

Taking a look at what the House is actually proposing

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5

I noticed that it uses the word "facility". This brings up an important distinction.

There are in-school sports that take place in a common gym room. In that case, there is only one facility.

There are out-of-school sports that are scheduled for specific teams to attend. The scheduling could easily be arranged to that the girls' team pair and boys' team pair go to the same outing, and one pair waits in the bleechers while the other pair plays. Then than would also be one facility.

It would be possible to decide at any time, with the agreement of all present, for an individual student to be placed on the girls' or boys' team. Since this would be in the same facility, it wouldn't violate the law. And since it could be reversed at any time, it would carry no implication of whether anyone "is" a girl or a boy. And since it would require general agreement, it would allow all concerns about fairness and safety to be addressed.

Sounds like a win-win-win to me.

 

[d4m10n]

I want to add that I don't think the idea of a gender identity is rubbish. I think it does make sense to say that certain people have a very real sense of gender that doesn't match their sex, and we can call that very real sense a "gender identity". I don't think that's rubbish.

The more I try to wrap my head around identity the more it slips through my mental tendrils. I identify as left-handed because my left hand seems more dexterous most of the time (e.g. throwing, penmanship); I identify as Puerto Rican because that's where my ancestors came from, I identify as green-eyed because that's what the mirror tells me about my eyes, I identify as a sci-fi geek because I've read all the Hugo and Nebula Award winners, I identify as heterosexual because hetero sex is the highlight of my week.

When I try to think about the sense in which I identify as a man, it's basically that I accept my body, or rather that I am my body. It's more like the green eyes or maybe the left-handed thing than anything else listed above. It's not an achievement, it's not an affinity, it's just having to exist in a certain form. Does it involve acceptance of the norms of masculinity? Of this, I remain skeptical.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .
You seem to be tied up on some genetic advantage argument but I'm fairly sure that had a new girl transferred into the school who was 6'4 of pure muscle and knocked 5 seconds off everyone's times you would have been absolutely OK with that. And yet she would have had a biological advantage too. Would being second to a ciswoman who had a biological advantage not dent her identity? What's the important difference there that I am missing?

The difference is not visible with specific cases, like the one you offered about the new 6'4" girl of pure muscle; it's visible in the aggregate, statistically, and overall. The differences in height and bone/muscle mass that going through male puberty creates makes a significant difference overall - over many people, not individual cases necessarily - such that girls generally will wind up not winning nearly as much as boys generally.

Now, one can make the case that this doesn't matter. If boys who have gone through male puberty wind up being better athletes for some sports, so be it. But that case would have to be made acknowledging the benefits that male puberty give boys for some sports.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have one honest question regarding your sports example.

I was kind of hoping for an answer instead of a question, but ok...

You seem to be tied up on some genetic advantage argument

Well, yes. That is kind of the point.

but I'm fairly sure that had a new girl transferred into the school who was 6'4 of pure muscle and knocked 5 seconds off everyone's times you would have been absolutely OK with that.

Yes.

And yet she would have had a biological advantage too. Would being second to a ciswoman who had a biological advantage not dent her identity?

Yes. That's the point, really. Being number 1 matters. Have you ever come in first at something? It matters. Have you ever come in 3rd? That matters, too, but there's a difference between first and third. Getting a bronze medal is pretty cool, but it's not a gold medal.

What's the important difference there that I am missing?

A complete answer to that would actually be quite lengthy, but it would be mostly describing things that people find glaringly obvious. I'll try to cut it a bit shorter.

We have competitions. Having observed that males have a competitive advantage over females, society has decided that there will be separate divisions for the people that have the advantage, and people who don't. Society has also decided that praise, attention, and sometimes even money should be given to the person who is best at the competition who does not have the advantage. That praise and attention should go to the person who actually meets that definition. It should go to the person who is the best among the disadvantaged.

If you want a deeper answer, you would have to go into the philosophy of competition, and human psychology, and the role of sport within society, and the science of self esteem, and really all sorts of subjects that I don't think you or I are really all that interested in. The fact is that the competitions exist, and they have criteria, so let's follow those rules instead of thinking of reasons why we can bend those rules for some unrelated reasons.

However, one thing that we could do, that might illuminate the question you asked, is to answer a different question.

Why should gender play any role at all in separating competitors into divisions?

Your question gets at the issue of whether anyone is truly harmed if we were to separate competitors by gender, but why would we even consider doing that? Why is gender any more significant than hair color, or hair length, or race? Why don't we have a division for people with long hair versus people with short hair? The answer is that there is no rational basis for using hair length as a separator? It doesn't convey an advantage. It isn't a meaningful separator for sport.

Neither is gender.

 

[Sherkeu]

I suppose "on file" isn't going to matter if there's a "dispute". Seems like a law that is rife for abuse, and given the relatively few number of trans people, is more likely to be used maliciously against cis-girls that are accused of being too "manly".

Any girl with broader than normal shoulders, more heavily muscled, or otherwise an outstanding athlete could easily be targeted by spurious allegations that would force them to produce medical records to the school to prove they are who they say they are. I'm sure this won't have any negative psychological effects, I hear teenage girls are very confident about their bodies and won't mind being accused of being crypto-men.

Way back when I was in HS, had to take a physical before being allowed into sports- even cheerleading required it. My daughter needs the same to play sports and go to camp in the summer - though camp had a waiver. It's about safety and liability.

The scenario you outline is more likely if it is known that male bodies are allowed on the teams. In that case, spectators might scan the female bodies at competitive events wondering if any are males (I imagine in most cases there wouldn't be, though that could change). Sure, there could be 'whispers' among them. If it's only females allowed, then no one needs to wonder at all. No young female will get those types of harmful comments and any psychological harm will be avoided.

 

[Meadmaker]

There was one aspect of AGG's post that I didn't address in my last effort.

Is there not also the danger that you are employing the same logic that failed you previously and exaggerating a perceived threat into a real one? After all as far as I know trans people have been competing in women's sport for a while now and it hasn't been taken over and destroyed by 'men'?

That's true. We shouldn't exaggerate the risk here. It affects a small number of people, which are transgender males (i.e. transgirls) and the people who compete against them. To carry on with the previous example, it affects Terry Miller and Selina Soule.

Perhaps we are making too big of a fuss about something that affects only two people, but if it is too big of a fuss to be made about two people, then surely it is too big of a fuss to be made about one.


And of course it affects more than those two. It affects all transgenders and all those who compete against them. I was just using two names as a simplification. The point is that all of the people affected are significant. All of the transgirls are significant. All of the people who compete against the transgirls are significant.