Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Ziggurat]

I don't see any problem with drafting inclusion criteria around male puberty, though.

I do. I think it provides an artificial incentive to transition early, when we should generally be discouraging that. It may push some kids into making a decision too early.

 

[theprestige]

We make exceptions where there are good reason to do so, yes, but the neutral position is that sex discrimination is impermissible.

I think you have it backwards. The baseline is that sex segregation (discrimination) is necessary and appropriate. What we have done in recent decades is not make exceptions. Rather, we have been dismissing gender-based discrimination that is insufficiently rooted in the physical disparity between the sexes.

You have, like many people (including, I suspect, a lot of women who support transsexual privilege), fallen into the trap of thinking that dismissing sexist cases of gender discrimination is the same as abolishing good and proper sex discrimination.

That is not my claim. I've made that very, very clear.

Still trying to thread that needle?

So. We know you don't have a psychological or medical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

We know you don't have a moral or ethical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

Do you have any claim at all, for why she should be entitled to compete as a woman?

 

[shuttlt]

I don't see any problem with drafting inclusion criteria around male puberty, though.

ETA: It's already been done by World Rugby.

One can, sure.... but you are no longer talking about women's sports, you are talking about some other grouping. Any criteria excludes people for whom a case can be made that "more inclusive" criteria could have included them.

People are being included based on some universal principle of fairness. Salami style, we apply our universal principle to one case at a time and claim that each step will make little difference. Rather than reducing this to infinitesimals and pretending that the beginning and end of all objections is over whether this next infinitesimal will cause the world to end, why not look at the implications of these principles?

By restricting the discussion of the implication of these principles to the next step in the journey, the radical nature of the principles is hidden. Sport is not, and never has been, about cosmic fairness.

I know you know about the ratchet nature of these things, d4m10n. The more non-women you include in women's sports the less not being a woman becomes a bar to inclusion. The more people who aren't women get called women, the more the category of "woman" will be undermined. You are just making the typical call to conservatives that they should meet progressives half way, only for the game to begin again with yet more ground conceded.

The call for reasonableness, is a call to eternal surrender. Why not make this call to the other side? What is the problem with letting women keep women's sports as exclusive to women?

 

[Aber]

No. We get back to the claim that it’s reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty.

Where do you think the line should be drawn?

Tanner stages in males Age at the start Noticeable changes
Stage 1 After the 9th or 10th birthday None
Stage 2 Around age 11 Pubic hair starts to form
Stage 3 Around age 13 Voice begins to change or “crack”; muscles get larger
Stage 4 Around age 14 Acne may appear; armpit hair forms
Stage 5 Around age 15 Facial hair comes in

https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/stages-of-puberty#summary

 

[theprestige]

No. We get back to the claim that it’s reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.

We already have a word for that. If we're going back to where we started, we end up back at that word.

 

[crazycat]

There are several other female posters who share our views. But at some point, we all get tired of having to constantly guard our rights and safety against people (in this case predominantly male) who seem to think it's an intellectual exercise as to whether or not females should be able to refuse consent to having naked males in their presence or not.

Which makes me all the more appreciative of those tenacious male supporters in this thread.

Count me as one of the "other female posters" who agree with you. And I second the thanks to the male posters who support that position.

Trans-inclusivity, as it is now, can be incredibly damaging to cis-women. It doesn't have to be that way. If laws about transpeople were written more sensibly, there would be few problems.

The biggest single problem (as has been stated thousands of times) is self-id. At the very least a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be required where there are safety, legal, or sporting concerns.

 

[mumblethrax]

I think you have it backwards. The baseline is that sex segregation (discrimination) is necessary and appropriate. What we have done in recent decades is not make exceptions. Rather, we have been dismissing gender-based discrimination that is insufficiently rooted in the physical disparity between the sexes.

No, that's not correct. Moral reasoning is not contingent upon current practice at all, and as a matter of law (in the US) sex discrimination is constitutionally impermissible unless it can survive "intermediate scrutiny".

You have, like many people (including, I suspect, a lot of women who support transsexual privilege), fallen into the trap of thinking that dismissing sexist cases of gender discrimination is the same as abolishing good and proper sex discrimination.

Is "transsexual privilege" like "special rights" were for gay people? Anyway, I'm afraid I don't have any clue what you're trying to say here.

Still trying to thread that needle?

So. We know you don't have a psychological or medical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

We know you don't have a moral or ethical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

Do you have any claim at all, for why she should be entitled to compete as a woman?

I don't see why this is so difficult for you. I have not, at any point, argued that Lia Thomas should be competing against (non-trans) women. I've said she shouldn't be. The only needle I'm trying to thread is the one where you finally understand that.

 

[mumblethrax]

Sure, but lots of things give competitive advantage. Good genes give competitive advantage. The hormone levels you are exposed to in the womb gives competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, in and of itself isn't a problem. Competitive advantage is what sport celebrates.

There are lots of unearned advantages in sport, sure. But there are also impermissible advantages. As Bill Burr put it, we make fake legs so good now that it's better to have no legs if you're an Olympic runner (well, it was). Doping gives an advantage, but it's notionally banned. The distinction, as one paper I read put it, is between tolerable and intolerable unfairness. Sports does not celebrate competitive advantage, but competition--the problem with intolerable unfairness is that it ruins the competition by creating advantages that crater the sense that there's a real chance of a game, or it creates harmful incentives. If China created an army of genetically engineered athletes that performed 10% better than everyone else, the Olympics would be even more boring than they already are.

The category of women's sports exists because, culturally, "women's sports" is meaningful, and "women and eunuchs sports" is not.

You're so close to a crucial realization here.

Sport is not about "fairness" in the way that you are using the word. Sport is a celebration of cosmic unfairness. Kenyans and Ethiopians have huge advantages in marathon running, for example. Different people have different advantages. Women's sports exists because "women" is a culturally meaningful category, not because we are trying to erase the unfairness of some people having no chance of winning.

It's odd that it took so long for people to realize that "women" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of women's sports. (Strangely, we in the US figured out much earlier that "race" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of negro leagues.) Women's sports exist for the same reason that men's sports do--because sport is just one of those things that human beings do, in every culture. Women's teams/leagues/competitions/divisions exist for a variety of reasons, but are justified today because women can't hope to compete with men in most sports. It's about including people, and ensuring they get similar resources (a different sense of "fairness"--distributive justice).

 

[d4m10n]

The call for reasonableness, is a call to eternal surrender. Why not make this call to the other side? What is the problem with letting women keep women's sports as exclusive to women?

This is the maximalist conservative outcome, keeping the sexes completely separate.

The maximalist progressive outcome is self-i.d. for everyone, in all situations.

The "call for reasonableness," (IMO) is somewhere in the middle, around where World Rugby spotted the ball. [emoji464]

 

[mumblethrax]

Where do you think the line should be drawn?

Oh, let's say stage 2. As I understand it, boys and girls don't attain physical fitness attributes in the same order, so it might be a bit different in any given sport. I assume that Rolfe is right and this would be more of an "in principle" olive branch.

 

[d4m10n]

I think it provides an artificial incentive to transition early, when we should generally be discouraging that.

I suppose that might be a legit concern, but I wouldn't concede that the sports associations need to concern themselves with shaping broader cultural trends. If young males are transitioning prior to the virilization phase of puberty, I don't think the usual concerns of safeguarding and fairness will apply when considering whether they should be allowed to play with other people who never experienced those physiological advantages.

 

[Rolfe]

I think if they damage themselves by blocking puberty early enough then going on wrong-sex hormones, they won't have a hope in hell in any competitive sport and may do themselves serious injury.

 

[TomB]

No. We get back to the claim that it’s reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.

Distinction without a difference. Hear me out....

Those born female...whose birth certificates say female...can present that or other commonly held ID as evidence of eligibility. Those born male would not.

We do not get "puberty" certificates.

A person who was born male who has not gone through male puberty would need to provide medical evidence to that effect to be eligible for the female...excuse me...non male pubescent division. This evidence would have to be evaluated as several factors, such as when suppression began relative to the individual's development and how it was maintained would need to be considered.

This is really not significantly different than making an individual determination for a trans athlete in general. Lack of male puberty is stronger evidence than, say, length of time on hormone therapy, but is not necessarily a given.

Similarly, other edge cases, such as those with DSDs merit individual consideration.

 

[mumblethrax]

A person who was born male who has not gone through male puberty would need to provide medical evidence to that effect to be eligible for the female...excuse me...non male pubescent division. This evidence would have to be evaluated as several factors, such as when suppression began relative to the individual's development and how it was maintained would need to be considered.

Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.

This is really not significantly different than making an individual determination for a trans athlete in general. Lack of male puberty is stronger evidence than, say, length of time on hormone therapy, but is not necessarily a given.

I'm just not sure how you would make such an individual determination, particularly if there's no record of performance in the men's division.

 

[TomB]

Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.


I'm just not sure how you would make such an individual determination, particularly if there's no record of performance in the men's division.

And therein lies the question.

I don't think there is one answer. Certainly not for all sports.

My answer is to let sports leagues sort it out for themselves. That is to say, no laws either way. Let the people who run the leagues make judgment calls on individual cases.

 

[shuttlt]

There are lots of unearned advantages in sport, sure. But there are also impermissible advantages. As Bill Burr put it, we make fake legs so good now that it's better to have no legs if you're an Olympic runner (well, it was). Doping gives an advantage, but it's notionally banned. The distinction, as one paper I read put it, is between tolerable and intolerable unfairness. Sports does not celebrate competitive advantage, but competition--the problem with intolerable unfairness is that it ruins the competition by creating advantages that crater the sense that there's a real chance of a game, or if it creates harmful incentives. If China created an army of genetically engineered athletes that performed 10% better than everyone else, the Olympics would be even more boring than they already are.

Surely if this was true, when there is a truly dominant performer like Usain Bolt interest in their sport would wane, only to return when nobody stood out? Have you seen the dominance of Kenyans and Ethiopians in distance running? A white man hasn't held the record since the 80s. Would people rather see a nail bitingly close little league game, or a historically talented MLB team destroy the opposition?

The critical thing is that the story playing out be meaningful. Usain Bolt was meaningful, because he was the fastest human who ever lived. If Lia Thomas was an actual woman, then we would be watching a stunningly good female swimmer. Even the Battle of the Sexes tennis matches had some type of meaning. I'm not sure many people feel that much meaning in a competition between a man on female hormones, competing against women. Maybe as a one off, but it's just not a generically meaningful category to people.

You're so close to a crucial realization here.

You are wrong about what is interesting in sports.

It's odd that it took so long for people to realize that "women" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of women's sports. (Strangely, we in the US figured out much earlier than "race" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of negro leagues.) Women's sports exist for the same reason that men's sports do--because sport is just one of those things that human beings do, in every culture. Women's teams/leagues/competitions/divisions exist for a variety of reasons, but are justified today because women can't hope to compete with men in most sports. It's about including people, and ensuring they get similar resources (a different sense of "fairness"--distributive justice).

Part of the reason women's sports exist is because they can't compete with men, but also because "women" is a meaningful category. Short men can't compete in men's basketball much better than women (I know there was Muggsy Bogues). Short men's basketball is not a thing because who the best basketball player, if you exclude everybody over 2m, is not interesting to people. Women's sports as a whole kind of suffers from this problem because people would rather watch the best human, than the best woman.

It isn't about inclusion and certainly not "distributive justice". The same people who want trans-women swimmers are trying to make it about inclusion and "distributive justice". All these sports systematically exclude classes of people. What we do is pick the new progressive pet victim class and myopically focus on them. Sport isn't, and can't be made, cosmically fair. Cosmic fairness is antithetical to the nature of sport.

 

[shuttlt]

I suppose that might be a legit concern, but I wouldn't concede that the sports associations need to concern themselves with shaping broader cultural trends. If young males are transitioning prior to the virilization phase of puberty, I don't think the usual concerns of safeguarding and fairness will apply when considering whether they should be allowed to play with other people who never experienced those physiological advantages.

Back in the days of the castrati, deliberately castrating your kids was banned, but supposedly people did it anyway because of how lucrative it was. They would claim bizarre accidents had taken place.

It is being claimed that trans-women should be included in women's sports to achieve social goals. If we accept that argument, I think impact on other cultural trends should be in scope.

 

[shuttlt]

This is the maximalist conservative outcome, keeping the sexes completely separate.

The maximalist progressive outcome is self-i.d. for everyone, in all situations.

The "call for reasonableness," (IMO) is somewhere in the middle, around where World Rugby spotted the ball. [emoji464]

The eternal struggle. Conservatives say, "let's keep the ball where it is"... progressives say "let's kick the ball a mile down the road"... centrists say "the reasonable position is in the middle"... so the ball is kicked half mile down the road. We catch up with the ball and the conversation begins again with the ball moving down the road in half mile steps.

Haggling over this step, or the next step is a distraction that will keep us marching onwards. Where does this road actually lead? What are the implications of these arguments if we follow them to their conclusions? These changes are always far harder to unwind once they are implemented.

 

[mumblethrax]

My answer is to let sports leagues sort it out for themselves. That is to say, no laws either way. Let the people who run the leagues make judgment calls on individual cases.

Yeah, I don't see the need for laws, either. But if the Equality Act, if it passes, might force the issue.

It isn't about inclusion and certainly not "distributive justice". The same people who want trans-women swimmers are trying to make it about inclusion and "distributive justice". All these sports systematically exclude classes of people. What we do is pick the new progressive pet victim class and myopically focus on them. Sport isn't, and can't be made, cosmically fair. Cosmic fairness is antithetical to the nature of sport.

Just about any category you could name is "meaningful", I suppose you mean something like a natural category? I'll just say again that there wasn't much interest in this a century ago, until women started agitating for their own interests, and that prior to that, "natural" categories were used to exclude people. I'm unconcerned with "cosmic fairness", just dealing with the ordinary kind. And it is about distributive justice (no need for the quotative distance). Women's sports were chronically underfunded in the US prior to Title IX.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.

Just a moment ago* you were taking me to task for pointing out that Lia Thomas has shown no medical history, and that the NCAA doesn't require any medical history.

But at least we're moving away from the idea that fiat self-ID should carry any weight at all, for any practical matter.