Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Meadmaker]

Oh sorry, I'd thought that was obvious. This post (specifically the first sentence):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13835149#post13835149

Ok. So, the first sentence doesn't address your view, at all. It does address your approach.


I would be happy to get to an exchange of ideas and opinions. I think modesty is real and sports are important. I would elaborate if elaboration is needed, but I only want to do it as part of a meaningful dialog. I don't see that here.

ETA: And....I'm perfectly happy to address other peoples' concerns, too. I don't want to imply in my last sentence above that my issues, modesty and sports, are the only important ones. Yes, I'm willing to give my opinion on people with transgender identities and all sorts of other topics, too.

 

[Aber]

I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.

A consistent approach from you; let transwomen into female spaces unless and until you can prove actual harm.

And this completely ignores the work done by the UK Sports Councils.

Can you not see why women object to this?

 

[Aber]

And the poster was stating that literally any & all interested parties should/must be allowed to participate in the consultation process.

And you seem to oppose this, which is profoundly anti-democratic.

 

[Paul2]

And you seem to oppose this, which is profoundly anti-democratic.

I'm not aware of anything about democracy that gives anyone in particular the right to participate in consultations, presumably between legislators and lobbyists, interested parties, etc. This is different than everyone having the right to vote, the right to speak up in the public square, etc.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not aware of anything about democracy that gives anyone in particular the right to participate in consultations, presumably between legislators and lobbyists, interested parties, etc. This is different than everyone having the right to vote, the right to speak up in the public square, etc.

This is kind of a "what do you mean by democracy?" question. It is subject to multiple interpretations.

 

[shuttlt]

To LondonJohn or to anyone else reading this, I'm more than willing to answer any question at all on this topic, but after a few years of name calling and insulting, I really only want to do it with someone willing to do the same. That comment in my sig is only due to fatigue with beating my head against the wall, trying to get someone to talk to without insults. The bastard thing was the last straw.......but I'd be willing to give it a try again with anyone who seems willing to put forth a good faith effort to exchange opinions without insults.

Isn't the central truth that there is nothing really to discuss? The difference of opinion is theological. There is no experiment that could ever be done to demonstrate that trans-women are, or are not, women. There is nothing science can say about whether the trans-activists desire for inclusion should trump their opponents desire for female only spaces. Since the disagreement is theological, it is unresolvable and carries with it the implication that the other side are not just wrong, but are blaspheming.

 

[shuttlt]

So... female, the half of the population that has been systematically oppressed and abused by the other half for millennia, who are raped, sexually assaulted, and domestically abused by the other half at abhorrent levels today even in developed "progressive" nations...

It is possible to frame history as a struggle of trans-people against CIS oppression too. If one chooses to read history in this neo-Marxist way, it is always possible for somebody else to come along with some new version of the oppressor and the oppressed that makes you the bad guy. Obviously that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, but that can be rejected as misogyny or some other kafka trap of the oppressor class being blind to their own wickedness.

In your view, females are equivalent to the KKK because they don't want to allow penises into their vulnerable spaces?

And males with penises who are demanding the "right" to get naked in front of unwilling females are, in your view, equivalent to black people in the US who were denied equal rights?

Honestly, this entire approach to the argument blows my mind. "Females who don't want to have naked males around them against their will, or who are unwilling to strip off in front of males, are totally just like the KKK denying those males their rights!" It's such a bizarrely skewed perspective that I don't even know where to start.

So much for females being allowed bodily autonomy and boundaries, I guess.

Obviously there is a cost. Freedom of association was one of the costs of implementing the changes of the 60s. You like these costs when they are part of a reading of history that puts you as the oppressed class that society must be changed to raise up, but don't like it when the reading of history puts you as the oppressor who must be brought down. Freedom of association is always the price that the oppressor class must pay. That is the price you are now being asked to pay.

 

[Paul2]

This is kind of a "what do you mean by democracy?" question. It is subject to multiple interpretations.

I meant democracy as it is currently practiced by states in the West, generally.

 

[lionking]

Isn't the central truth that there is nothing really to discuss? The difference of opinion is theological. There is no experiment that could ever be done to demonstrate that trans-women are, or are not, women. There is nothing science can say about whether the trans-activists desire for inclusion should trump their opponents desire for female only spaces. Since the disagreement is theological, it is unresolvable and carries with it the implication that the other side are not just wrong, but are blaspheming.

Oh what utter nonsense. There is no science that says that blacks and women should vote. Does this mean there is nothing to discuss about voting rights?

 

[Brainster]

It is interesting now that it appears more girls than boys are identifying as trans, that we never hear anything about these sorts of problems on that side. Granted, because of the physical differences, trans-men do not gain any advantages in sports by transitioning. But we also never hear about trans-exclusionary gay men.

 

[shuttlt]

Oh what utter nonsense. There is no science that says that blacks and women should vote. Does this mean there is nothing to discuss about voting rights?

That depends. Would there be much to discuss with a conservative Saudi who believed women shouldn't have the vote? Your cultural and religious assumptions about the world are different. Debate on theology is only really possibly within the theology. Can a Hindu and a Christian have a useful conversation about the sacred status of cows? I'm not sure that they can.

 

[theprestige]

It is interesting now that it appears more girls than boys are identifying as trans, that we never hear anything about these sorts of problems on that side. Granted, because of the physical differences, trans-men do not gain any advantages in sports by transitioning. But we also never hear about trans-exclusionary gay men.

This has been addressed more than once, both explicitly and implicitly.

 

[Cain]

All of these things can and will be fixed appropriately over time, once a good body of representative evidence has been able to be gathered.

...

But when it comes to transgender athletes vs cisgender athletes (and specifically transwoman athletes, of course), it's already abundantly clear that a) it's actually quite difficult to figure out the appropriate comparator metrics in principle, b) it's difficult to figure out the appropriate allowable spectrum edges for many metrics (eg testosterone), and c) there's simply not yet sufficient evidence for gathering real-world evidence comparing elite-level transgender athletes against their cisgender competitors.

My own opinion (which I've stated many times here) is that within the next few years, most major sports administration bodies will have been able to gather & collate sufficient real-world evidence to enable them to make proper evidence-based judgements. And I strongly believe that the evidence will show that 1) transwoman elite athletes do indeed hold various unfair advantages over ciswoman elite athletes, and therefore 2) transwoman athletes will be banned from elite- (and sub-elite-) level competition for all sports where musculoskeletal and cardiovascular capabilities are significant factors determining performance.

But I am also strongly against sports administration bodies imposing policies before they have sufficient evidential data upon which to base those policies. For example, if I were currently part of the IAAF committee which regulates in this area, I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.

All of this certainly sounds reasonable, but opponents can reasonably argue that transwomen athletes should be provisionally barred from participation, at the elite level in particular, pending further investigation. In terms of due process, the disposition you suggest gives the benefit of the doubt to a historically oppressed minority. It also has political advantages of operating in good faith, especially since you personally believe that when these disputes are thoroughly adjudicated transwomen will (generally) be prohibited. Similarly, instead of President Biden declaring from the outset, "I'm going to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court," he just says, "I'm going to pick the best person" (but knew all along he would likely select a Black woman).

On the other side, there's also a historically oppressed group: Women. By the numbers, there are many more women than transwomen. If you already have grounds to believe transwomen will be prohibited anyway, then, proportioning our belief to the evidence, we can provisionally bar them. In a criminal justice system, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but some are held in jail pending the trial (and not as a form of punishment).

Given that real life involves a lot of muddling, let's just do both, and like it (as opposed to doing both and not liking it). In some countries, states, sports, leagues, there will be one guidance, while others take a different approach. Laboratories of experiment.

Sports are ******** [BS] anyway, especially women's sports. I know it's been said before, but it's incredible to me conservatives suddenly care about women's athletics. Not too long ago, the women who played sports were regarded as angry, want-to-be-men lesbians.

 

[TomB]

It is interesting now that it appears more girls than boys are identifying as trans, that we never hear anything about these sorts of problems on that side. Granted, because of the physical differences, trans-men do not gain any advantages in sports by transitioning. But we also never hear about trans-exclusionary gay men.

Not directly, at least not in terms of sexual preference. But the small subset of people who advocate against genital preferences tend to apply that as a blanket statement.

And I know of some pretty anti-trans gay men.

My daughter used to tend bar at a local sports bar. One of the frequent customers was a trans woman. there was never a problem with how most of the customers...mostly a mix of working class redneck types and uber sports fanatics...treated her. I'm sure they weren't exactly supportive, but they kept their opinions to themselves and were not overtly hostile.

Except for one couple, which happened to be a gay male couple. They would constantly and loudly make jokes and comments directed towards the trans person. After multiple times asking them to leave her alone, my daughter had to kick them out. The next time they came back, they started up again, so she banned them.

 

[Lithrael]

But we also never hear about trans-exclusionary gay men.

True, and conversely I’ve never really heard accusations suggesting any significant proportion of trans men are actually just really dedicated okoge.

 

[crazycat]

Quite.

All of these things can and will be fixed appropriately over time, once a good body of representative evidence has been able to be gathered. In the case of blade runners, it's relatively simple to apply physics to the problem, in order to work out - reliably - whether blades confer an unfair advantage over various distances. For many race distances, when comparing athletes with similar VO2 MAX levels, muscle mass, skeletal anatomy (to the knee, obv) and muscle twitch profiles.. one can form an evidence-based conclusion that blades confer a significant benefit (mostly owing to their higher mechanical advantage and efficiency relative to motion generated via lower legs and feet).

But when it comes to transgender athletes vs cisgender athletes (and specifically transwoman athletes, of course), it's already abundantly clear that a) it's actually quite difficult to figure out the appropriate comparator metrics in principle, b) it's difficult to figure out the appropriate allowable spectrum edges for many metrics (eg testosterone), and c) there's simply not yet sufficient evidence for gathering real-world evidence comparing elite-level transgender athletes against their cisgender competitors.

My own opinion (which I've stated many times here) is that within the next few years, most major sports administration bodies will have been able to gather & collate sufficient real-world evidence to enable them to make proper evidence-based judgements. And I strongly believe that the evidence will show that 1) transwoman elite athletes do indeed hold various unfair advantages over ciswoman elite athletes, and therefore 2) transwoman athletes will be banned from elite- (and sub-elite-) level competition for all sports where musculoskeletal and cardiovascular capabilities are significant factors determining performance.

But I am also strongly against sports administration bodies imposing policies before they have sufficient evidential data upon which to base those policies. For example, if I were currently part of the IAAF committee which regulates in this area, I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.

We've already seen the UCI (cycling) take the first steps in excluding elite transwoman athletes, because it's relatively easy to identify, bmeasure & compare the relevant performance metrics for transwomen vs ciswomen. I will be very surprised if weightlifting (for example) doesn't follow suit very soon (again, it's relatively straightforward to gather the appropriate evidence for that sport). But for many other sports - including most track & field events, football (ie soccer), and swimming - it will necessarily take more time to gather the appropriate evidence. I wouldn't envisage it taking much more than a couple of years from now though, so I therefore believe that by around 2025, transwomen athletes will be prohibited - justly, and based on proper supporting evidence - from participating in most elite-level women's sports.

In the meantime though, it's both saddening and wearily predictable to see transwoman elite athletes themselves being targeted for personal abuse and vilification. I would suggest that those who are acting in such a manner should leave the athletes alone, and instead focus their attention upon the relevant administration bodies - while also (critically) having the perspicacity to understand that those administration bodies must gather the right amount/quality of evidence before bringing down the ban hammer upon elite transwomen in their sports.....

The best solution would have been to let transwomen prove they should be included in women's sports and under what conditions. But that ship has already sailed.

Another good solution would be to (perhaps temporarily) ban transwomen athletes from competing in women's sports until a full evaluation was made as to how various treatments (different hormone regimens, for instance) or restrictions (as in having a later start time in swimming) allowed ciswomen and transwomen to compete fairly. This is what sports governing bodies should have done, and what seems to be what they are starting to do belatedly.

Data already exists to show how much advantage male puberty gives (a lot) and how testosterone reduction reduces that advantage (not much). The male advantage was known at the start of trans activism. No amount of hormone therapy will decrease a male-bodied person's height, the length of their arms and legs, the types of muscles, etc.

The worst situation is the one you propose - letting transwomen ruin women's sports - while we collect data for some indeterminate amount of time, and maybe still ban the transwomen in the future as a result (as if the TRAs would let that happen). It pretends that there is no difference in male-bodied people and female-bodied people and the issue must be "studied". Darn near every sport has a male and female division and they know perfectly well the difference in speed, strength, or agility, in male and female competitors.

For the thousandth time, women's sports associations were created because in most sports, the top women wouldn't even rank if they played against men.

 

[p0lka]

Quite.

All of these things can and will be fixed appropriately over time, once a good body of representative evidence has been able to be gathered. In the case of blade runners, it's relatively simple to apply physics to the problem, in order to work out - reliably - whether blades confer an unfair advantage over various distances. For many race distances, when comparing athletes with similar VO2 MAX levels, muscle mass, skeletal anatomy (to the knee, obv) and muscle twitch profiles.. one can form an evidence-based conclusion that blades confer a significant benefit (mostly owing to their higher mechanical advantage and efficiency relative to motion generated via lower legs and feet).

But when it comes to transgender athletes vs cisgender athletes (and specifically transwoman athletes, of course), it's already abundantly clear that a) it's actually quite difficult to figure out the appropriate comparator metrics in principle, b) it's difficult to figure out the appropriate allowable spectrum edges for many metrics (eg testosterone), and c) there's simply not yet sufficient evidence for gathering real-world evidence comparing elite-level transgender athletes against their cisgender competitors.

My own opinion (which I've stated many times here) is that within the next few years, most major sports administration bodies will have been able to gather & collate sufficient real-world evidence to enable them to make proper evidence-based judgements. And I strongly believe that the evidence will show that 1) transwoman elite athletes do indeed hold various unfair advantages over ciswoman elite athletes, and therefore 2) transwoman athletes will be banned from elite- (and sub-elite-) level competition for all sports where musculoskeletal and cardiovascular capabilities are significant factors determining performance.

But I am also strongly against sports administration bodies imposing policies before they have sufficient evidential data upon which to base those policies. For example, if I were currently part of the IAAF committee which regulates in this area, I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.

We've already seen the UCI (cycling) take the first steps in excluding elite transwoman athletes, because it's relatively easy to identify, bmeasure & compare the relevant performance metrics for transwomen vs ciswomen. I will be very surprised if weightlifting (for example) doesn't follow suit very soon (again, it's relatively straightforward to gather the appropriate evidence for that sport). But for many other sports - including most track & field events, football (ie soccer), and swimming - it will necessarily take more time to gather the appropriate evidence. I wouldn't envisage it taking much more than a couple of years from now though, so I therefore believe that by around 2025, transwomen athletes will be prohibited - justly, and based on proper supporting evidence - from participating in most elite-level women's sports.

In the meantime though, it's both saddening and wearily predictable to see transwoman elite athletes themselves being targeted for personal abuse and vilification. I would suggest that those who are acting in such a manner should leave the athletes alone, and instead focus their attention upon the relevant administration bodies - while also (critically) having the perspicacity to understand that those administration bodies must gather the right amount/quality of evidence before bringing down the ban hammer upon elite transwomen in their sports.....

I agree, wait for the data and a conclusion before banning and what not.

It does feel unfair in the meantime though to me.

 

[theprestige]

Quite.

All of these things can and will be fixed appropriately over time, once a good body of representative evidence has been able to be gathered. In the case of blade runners, it's relatively simple to apply physics to the problem, in order to work out - reliably - whether blades confer an unfair advantage over various distances. For many race distances, when comparing athletes with similar VO2 MAX levels, muscle mass, skeletal anatomy (to the knee, obv) and muscle twitch profiles.. one can form an evidence-based conclusion that blades confer a significant benefit (mostly owing to their higher mechanical advantage and efficiency relative to motion generated via lower legs and feet).

But when it comes to transgender athletes vs cisgender athletes (and specifically transwoman athletes, of course), it's already abundantly clear that a) it's actually quite difficult to figure out the appropriate comparator metrics in principle, b) it's difficult to figure out the appropriate allowable spectrum edges for many metrics (eg testosterone), and c) there's simply not yet sufficient evidence for gathering real-world evidence comparing elite-level transgender athletes against their cisgender competitors.

My own opinion (which I've stated many times here) is that within the next few years, most major sports administration bodies will have been able to gather & collate sufficient real-world evidence to enable them to make proper evidence-based judgements. And I strongly believe that the evidence will show that 1) transwoman elite athletes do indeed hold various unfair advantages over ciswoman elite athletes, and therefore 2) transwoman athletes will be banned from elite- (and sub-elite-) level competition for all sports where musculoskeletal and cardiovascular capabilities are significant factors determining performance.

But I am also strongly against sports administration bodies imposing policies before they have sufficient evidential data upon which to base those policies. For example, if I were currently part of the IAAF committee which regulates in this area, I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.

We've already seen the UCI (cycling) take the first steps in excluding elite transwoman athletes, because it's relatively easy to identify, bmeasure & compare the relevant performance metrics for transwomen vs ciswomen. I will be very surprised if weightlifting (for example) doesn't follow suit very soon (again, it's relatively straightforward to gather the appropriate evidence for that sport). But for many other sports - including most track & field events, football (ie soccer), and swimming - it will necessarily take more time to gather the appropriate evidence. I wouldn't envisage it taking much more than a couple of years from now though, so I therefore believe that by around 2025, transwomen athletes will be prohibited - justly, and based on proper supporting evidence - from participating in most elite-level women's sports.

In the meantime though, it's both saddening and wearily predictable to see transwoman elite athletes themselves being targeted for personal abuse and vilification. I would suggest that those who are acting in such a manner should leave the athletes alone, and instead focus their attention upon the relevant administration bodies - while also (critically) having the perspicacity to understand that those administration bodies must gather the right amount/quality of evidence before bringing down the ban hammer upon elite transwomen in their sports.....

There's a lot less to fix if you don't break it first and then start gathering data on how to fix it.

There's no reason for transwomen to compete as women right now, so no need to allow them to do so and then figure out what's going wrong and how to make it right again. It's already right, as things stand today. Men compete with men, women compete with women. We already have plenty of data to support this policy. All that transwomen are asking for, right now, is that we ignore all that data and let them compete as women anyway.

We have plenty of data telling us this is a bad idea. We have no data at all telling us it's a good idea, or what practical benefit we get in exchange for doing it even though we know it's a bad idea.

Enough of this "it will all be fixed in time" crap! Why break it in the first place? Where's the data that says this is a good thing to do?

 

[Matthew Best]

But we also never hear about trans-exclusionary gay men.

I think that's kind of what the LGB Alliance are, or at least have been accused of being.

 

[lionking]

All of this certainly sounds reasonable, but opponents can reasonably argue that transwomen athletes should be provisionally barred from participation, at the elite level in particular, pending further investigation. In terms of due process, the disposition you suggest gives the benefit of the doubt to a historically oppressed minority. It also has political advantages of operating in good faith, especially since you personally believe that when these disputes are thoroughly adjudicated transwomen will (generally) be prohibited. Similarly, instead of President Biden declaring from the outset, "I'm going to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court," he just says, "I'm going to pick the best person" (but knew all along he would likely select a Black woman).

On the other side, there's also a historically oppressed group: Women. By the numbers, there are many more women than transwomen. If you already have grounds to believe transwomen will be prohibited anyway, then, proportioning our belief to the evidence, we can provisionally bar them. In a criminal justice system, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but some are held in jail pending the trial (and not as a form of punishment).

Given that real life involves a lot of muddling, let's just do both, and like it (as opposed to doing both and not liking it). In some countries, states, sports, leagues, there will be one guidance, while others take a different approach. Laboratories of experiment.

Sports are ******** [BS] anyway, especially women's sports. I know it's been said before, but it's incredible to me conservatives suddenly care about women's athletics. Not too long ago, the women who played sports were regarded as angry, want-to-be-men lesbians.

You were going fine until the last paragraph. In my sports mad country, women athletes have been celebrated by entire 70 year old life and decades before I was born. Maybe not so much in the 19th century.