I agree, and that's why the instability of rules is really a problem. It's an even bigger problem for someone who transitions early, participates in good faith, only to learn that they'll be disqualified due to a rule change. They should really pick an evidence-based policy and stick with it.
I've yet to hear of this happening to anyone, but consider also the young women who trained for a decade and a half (in good faith) only to find that a rules change has put them in with male-bodied swimmers like Thomas for the first time in their competitive career.
Of course.
The whole idea of men needing to compete athletically as women is silly. The whole idea of men being entitled to compete athletically as women is silly. It has no basis in science or medicine. It has no basis in ethics. It's harmful to actual women. It's harmful to people who are actually afflicted with gender dysphoria. In fact I wouldn't so much say it's silly. I'd say it's perverse.
A rationale for justifying her transition to women's sports is completely absent from the equation. That's my point.
I have no idea how you got down this particular rabbit hole of misconception, but I'll leave you to it. Nobody was claiming or trying to be her caretaker.
Because you keep eliding it. What cruelty, exactly, are you talking about?
Not a strawman. The objective result of trans-inclusionist policies and policy proposals. Like I said, this has been extensively addressed in this thread. And trans-inclusionists keep ignoring or dismissing it. As you are doing right now. That's where on Earth I get the idea you're not concerned about it. Right here in this thread is where.
It does have such a basis--maximizing opportunity.
It needn't be harmful to women, and I'm at a loss as to how it's harmful to people with "actual" gender dysphoria.
If you're calling someone a scumbag for attending to her own well-being rather than maximizing her performance, I don't know what else to call it.
I don't have any interest in relitigating this for people with short attention spans.
It is a strawman. Nobody has said anything remotely like "women's well-being doesn't matter", and that isn't necessarily the consequence of trans-inclusive policies.
Me: We should look at race times rather than placements.
It does not maximize opportunity. It funges opportunity from one group to another. Repeated requests for an ethical justification for this funging have been met with silence, or hand-waving, or (in this case) empty equivocation.
Men transcending sex segregation in sports is necessarily harmful to women. The harm is unavoidable.
Any time someone adopts the identity of a medical condition they don't have, and demands accommodations based on that identity, at the expense of others, it's harmful to people who actually do suffer from that condition, and are looking to their society for a sane and humanitarian response to their actual needs.
You're begging the question that this is necessary for Thomas's well-being.
Are you talking about this post?
That women's well-being matters substantially less than trans-inclusion is a necessary result of the trans-inclusionist policies being proposed and enacted. Not only is it obvious just from examination of the policies in theory, but we actually observe it in practice wherever these policies are put into action.
Appeal to popularity. There are women in this thread who do not support the trans rights under discussion here. They have made rational arguments for why they do not support this. Can you address those arguments?
The ethical justification is that sex is a morally irrelevant characteristic in the first place, which is why we no longer tolerate sex discrimination. It's unclear why someone who does not have an untenable competitive advantage over women should not be competing with women.
I don't particularly think this argument works. It's harmful to women in more or less the same way that anti-discrimination in hiring laws were/are harmful to white people--losing opportunities that you didn't deserve, when competing on a level playing field, is not something I consider a harm. The only question is whether it is a level playing field.
No, I'm just taking her word for it that she has gender dysphoria.
The research on the benefits of hormone therapy to those with gender dysphoria seems to provide such reasons, yes.
No, that doesn't necessary follow. Trans-inclusionist policies run the gamut, and need not be blind to relevant differences. Just as women-inclusionist policies need not be.
No, not an appeal to popularity. A reminder that the "pro-trans" side is disproportionately female, and telling them that they're not considering their own interests is inescapably paternalistic.
I mean, I don't think we need much analysis in Thomas' case. It's clear that nobody did this prior to allowing her to compete, and it's also clear that she has an unfair advantage.Had you clicked on the link you would have found more information.
I suppose for the same reason Jerry Coyne does. I'm sympathetic to people who want to compete, but have no obvious place where they can fairly compete. Solutions do not seem readily forthcoming.
People can certainly be blind to their own interests, but as a strategic matter, telling a group that's disproportionately female that their favored policies are "anti-woman" is unlikely to be successful, and will almost certainly be regarded as paternalistic.
I took your charge of paternalism to be substantive and factual, not merely tactical. Some statement or position can be paternalistic beyond whether it is tactical or politic to hold that position or say that statement. That's the context I assumed we were working within. If you weren't, well, there's communication for ya.
I suppose whether or not it's substantively paternalistic will rest on how we approach the matter. If we tell them they're wrong, that's probably paternalistic. If we can successfully argue they're wrong, it's not. There needs to be some acknowledgement of autonomy to avoid paternalism.
