Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Rolfe]

The only remaining areas of difficulty in public policy, where we are struggling to be inclusive, but also fair and safe and rational, are areas of sexual disparity, not gender conformity.

The thing is, nobody is being excluded. Everybody has a changing room or an athletics event he or she is eligible for. One of the nicest things I saw in all this sports debate was a photo of Emily Bridges posing with his medal along with the rest of the men's team, long hair and "feminine" presentation and all, and the whole team had their arms round each other and nobody was getting dirty looks or feeling cheated. But he couldn't be content with that, he wanted the women's events, where obviously his chance of medals is a lot greater.

I read an article earlier today where the author explained that sports categories as they have been devised have been so devised precisely to maximise inclusivity. Otherwise young fit men would win everything.

It's not so much inclusivity that is the issue, it's eligibility. The heavyweight boxer is not eligible for the lightweight competition, in order not to exclude lightweight competitors from contention. The 20-something is not eligible for the under-12s race in order not to exclude children from contention. The paralympics take this principle to an extreme degree.

What we are seeing now is not males demanding to be included in female events, so much as males demanding to be eligible for female events. But female events were devised precisely in order to maximise inclusivity for females, because, yes, otherwise young fit men would win everything. And middle-aged flabby men would still be in with a pretty good shout. (McKinnon/Ivy, that one's for you.)

When males came insisting on being made eligible for female events, the response should have been (quite literally in the case of swimming), stay in your lane. Instead the authorities seemed quite paralysed by the fear of being called transphobic and just made some **** up and said, on you go.

It's all very well to say, well we need research and data on how we can downgrade a man's performance so he's somehow performing at the level he would have done if he'd been born female, but we all know what the results of that are going to show. And given that rather obvious situation, there should have been no instant capitulation and then waiting until a number of girls had had their chances at prizes and records and college scholarships wrecked before even starting to do the research.

The whole thing has been led by the nose by trans activists putting the fear of God into half the planet as regards being called transphobic, and it's good to see the tide turning. It should never have got this far though.

Transwomen are not women, they cannot be women and they never will be women. The sooner they make their peace with that reality the happier they will be, and the sooner the rest of the planet realises that trampling all over the rights and protections of half the human race in order to prevent a bunch of over-indulged brats calling you names, the happier everyone else will be.

 

[Rolfe]

So you're saying here that in your view, transwomen are actually "men"? And that pregnant transmen are "women"? Have I got that right?

Yes. YES!

You're starting to get it. Hold that thought.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is only as long as we define sex in a way that you can't transcend it. Why would this stop at gender?

I don't really care how it is "defined". No matter what term you use, no matter how draped in euphemism and obfuscating language... at the end of the day, reality exists. And in reality, males and females are different, and those differences CANNOT be transcended.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion (everywhere, not just ISF) is that a whole lot of people seem to believe that they can just wave their hands around and redefine reality out of being. As if the mere act of calling a dog a cat transforms them into a feline.

Words have the meaning we give them. Reality doesn't give a **** about what words we use.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you're saying here that in your view, transwomen are actually "men"? And that pregnant transmen are "women"? Have I got that right?

That is completely accurate. Transwomen are men, transmen are women. No scare quotes required.

 

[theprestige]

Exactly. Trying to claim that transwoman bans in elite-level sports are somehow a generalised endorsement for the idea that biological sex is the only important differentiator.... is both reductive and wrong.

As you point out, these sports rulings are in a very specific and narrow area: that of elite-level (and probably also sub-elite-level) sports. Transwomen and transgirls will still be permitted to - and will continue to - compete against ciswomen/cisgirls at all lower levels of sport*, for example.

To focus on one narrow example and then claim it is illustrative of (let alone supportive of or validating of) a wider truth is the same, in effect, as claiming "Short dumpy girls are prohibited from becoming haute couture runway models..... and this validates the view that short dumpy girls should generally be treated less beneficially than tall willowy girls".



* The exception being certain sports - or certain team positions in certain sports - where there might reasonably be injury considerations at risk.

It's not that everything has to be handled the exact same way as elite sports. It's that the reasons why we have to handle elite sports the way we do, tell us a lot of what we need to know about how to handle all the other stuff:

There are significant biological differences between men and women. These differences matter in serious, practical ways. We can, to a first approximation, pass all the other questions through that filter.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for preferred pronouns? No, not really.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for what color clothes your kids wear, or what toys they play with? No, not really.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for whether it's okay to discriminate against you for gender nonconformity in the workplace? No, not really.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for evaluating inclusion/representation in commerce and politics? Yeah, probably.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for inclusion in prisons and sports? Yes, absolutely.

Do the biological differences matter in any serious, practical way, for choosing a sex partner you're sexually attracted to? Yes, absolutely.

I bet if we look at any point of contention raised in this long long, thread, we will find that the point is one where the biological differences matter in some serious, practical way.

 

[smartcooky]

Woman and former Olympic swimmer Sharon Davies speaks out in favor of fixing what the trans-activists broke:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...l-but-female-athletes-must-speak-up-xllplkmp3

This is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with you

Biology beats gender: If I was a young woman who has spent a good deal of my life so far training to become a world class sportswoman, only to find that I suddenly had to compete against opponents who had unfairly gained the advantage of being bigger, faster, and more muscled up by being being male before they transitioned to female, then I would be extremely pissed off.


Biology beats gender: You only have to look at what happened with Will Thomas who was, at best, no more than an average swimmer, if that. He changed gender, became Lia Thomas and immediately started beating NCAA women's swimming records... not just beating them, smashing them. At a time when NCAA swimming records are being occasionally eclipsed by less than tenths of a second, Thomas was shaving whole seconds and more off records.

Biology beats gender: Even as far back as the late 70's early 80's, it was clear that formerly male trans athletes and sportspeople had an unfair physiological advantage when competing against women. Famous American Tennis star Chris Evert, who was in her 20's at the time, struggled to beat Rene Richards, a trans tennis player, even though Richards was 20 years her senior, and out of shape..... and Evert was the world No. 1 at that time!

"The wingspan. The size of the heart. The size of the lungs. The speed. The fast twitch muscles. The testosterone. There’s just everything pointing to the fact that men are quicker, stronger, etc. than women — especially after puberty." - Chris Evert​

Even Rene Richards herself agrees..

"Now, I think it would be wrong for me to compete because if I was 25, I would wipe everyone off the court." - Rene Richards​

Biology beats gender

tl;dr - the trans ban should be extended to all sports.

This is the only part where I disagree. I see no problem with trans-gender athletes competing in sports and games where physiological attributes are not a factor, such a ball table sports (snooker, billiards, pool), equestrian sports & horse Racing, car racing and rallying, croquet and rifle shooting.

 

[d4m10n]

They're still not male though. Even Buck Angel gets it.

Is Buck among the "group of people with a mental illness that causes them to be both narcissistic and extremely demanding" or is he someone we should take seriously?

Nobody cares where anyone shops for clothing. It is not something that is or should be regulated by law.

OP was about policy created by private groups (i.e sporting organizations) rather than lawmakers. I'm all for discussing both, and I don't accept the premise that we have to confine ourselves to discussing the latter.

People care when they find other people of the opposite sex in their changing rooms, which need to be segregated by sex.

This can be treated as a matter of legal policy or a matter for private companies to decide or a matter governed entirely by cultural norms. I'd prefer that we let the free market sort this one out, instead of having one set of legal rules in blue states (where I grew up) and another set of legally binding rules for red states (where my kids grew up).

I understand that Scotland has it's own devolution issues, which are mildly analogous to what we call federalism over here, but that may not be helpful at this point.

Find some other way to allow males to select and purchase clothing designed for females, which they should be perfectly at liberty to do.

One solution would be to build an array of completely private single-person changing stalls between the ladies and gentlemen's clothing departments. That only works for the big box stores, alas.

Nothing needs to be segregated by anyone's chosen "gender identity" as far as I can see.

The clothes shelves are literally segregated by gender expression^WP, as far as I can tell.

Sport is showing the way as regards how to define sex and make that stick by enforceable regulations. That absolutely needs to become the norm in absolutely all areas of human endeavour.

The possession of a functional SRY gene (along with functional androgen receptors) is vastly less important in most areas of human endeavor than in sport.

 

[Rolfe]

Bear in mind that Renée Richards had full sex reassignment surgery. Renée Richards was castrated. Renée Richards had a plasma testosterone concentration way lower than any drugs could deliver for an intact male. Probably lower than most of the women in the competition.

That alone should have been enough to let these idiots devising arbitrary testosterone limits (which can't be enforced anyway as the half-life of testosterone in plasma is very short) that current measurable testosterone concentration is the very least of it.

 

[theprestige]

Well, quite.

It's merely that it's useful to understand (with sufficient clarity) people's differing points of view here.

For example, the stated view of some people in this thread is that they accept and support the concept of transgender identity, and that they recognise transgender people accordingly.... but that they have issues over certain specific areas such as prisons, changing rooms, etc.

On the other hand, the stated view of some other people in this thread is that they do not accept or support the concept of transgender identity, so therefore they do not recognise transgender people... and of course they (by definition) also share the concerns of the first group.

I accept and support the concept of transgender identity. I just think it doesn't have any practical applications, especially for public policy. And I think that all the areas of practical concern are areas of binary sex disparity, not gender nonconformity.

I.e., transwomen are women in every way that doesn't really matter, and in every way that does matter transwomen aren't women at all.

 

[Rolfe]

Is Buck among the "group of people with a mental illness that causes them to be both narcissistic and extremely demanding" or is he someone we should take seriously?

OP was about policy created by private groups (i.e sporting organizations) rather than lawmakers. I'm all for discussing both, and I don't accept the premise that we have to confine ourselves to discussing the latter.

This can be treated as a matter of legal policy or a matter for private companies to decide or a matter governed entirely by cultural norms. I'd prefer that we let the free market sort this one out, instead of having one set of legal rules in blue states (where I grew up) and another set of legally binding rules for red states (where my kids grew up).

I understand that Scotland has it's own devolution issues, which are mildly analogous to what we call federalism over here, but that may not be helpful at this point.

One solution would be to build an array of completely private single-person changing stalls between the ladies and gentlemen's clothing departments. That only works for the big box stores, alas.

The clothes shelves are literally segregated by gender expression^WP, as far as I can tell.

The possession of a functional SRY gene (along with functional androgen receptors) is vastly less important in most areas of human endeavor than in sport.

Buck Angel is female. Female people do not get AGP, the condition which causes men to become narcissistic and extremely demanding.

I think the OP was a long time ago. And if you read my post properly you will note that I was talking about any situation where segregation is enforced by regulation or law. I specifically noted that does not include shop displays of clothes or toys.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a situation where it is important to make an enforceable distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex. Who gets to shop in the ladies' lingerie section is not a legally enforceable issue.

While the possession of a functioning SRY gene is extremely important in sport, it is also highly important in many other situations. It's quite noteworthy that it is generally the people who have one who are quite relaxed about declaring situations where the people who don't ought to put up and shut up.

Not putting up and not shutting up.

 

[theprestige]

This is the only part where I disagree. I see no problem with trans-gender athletes competing in sports and games where physiological attributes are not a factor, such a ball table sports (snooker, billiards, pool), equestrian sports & horse Racing, car racing and rallying, croquet and rifle shooting.

Maybe extending the ban to all sports is a bit of overkill on my part. But I started this thread thinking much as you do, that there are lots of sports where the disparities between the sexes don't matter. But then I learned that men dominate the highest levels of chess competition, and that women have their own separate grandmaster rankings.

So I would take a careful look at mens' stats vs womens' stats, for any sport, before allowing transwomen to compete as women.

 

[lionking]

Do you mean "being beaten by a transwoman"?

No. If Lia Thomas was a member here I would be more careful with my words.

 

[TomB]

The only remaining areas of difficulty in public policy, where we are struggling to be inclusive, but also fair and safe and rational, are areas of sexual disparity, not gender conformity.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. There's the issue of how one addresses or refers to a coworker, which seems to be controversial. I'm not talking about the freedom to have or express an opinion on the issue, although, like a lot of other things, it might not be professional to spend time at work doing so.

Yes, I'm talking about pronouns and stuff. Now, I'm not suggesting that misgendering or "dead naming" ought to be illegal. But I think if you are using terms to describe your coworker that you know they don't like you are being an *******. People who are ******** to their coworkers don't make good employees. I don't even see that as a trans issue. The same is true if someone uses a disliked nickname to refer to coworker.

Or continually using a prt or form of their name that they have requested that you not. I have a coworker named Debra Nichole XXXXX. She does not like the name Debra and goes by Nichole. If I were to continue referring to her as Debbie, Debra, or (worse) Little Debbie, I would be an ******* and bad coworker. My employer would be correct in disciplining me, up to and including termination.

 

[Elaedith]

For all practical purposes, yes. As the thread title says: Transwomen are not women.

Honestly I'd be very surprised if at this point anyone got my clearly-stated and extensively-argued position wrong. Okay, maybe not very surprised, but perhaps at least a little surprised.

In my experience, genderists almost always get this wrong.

Is you define 'woman' as 'adult human female', they will believe (or pretend to believe) that you are still saying that 'woman' is a gender, but that only female people can have this gender: all males have the gender 'man' and all females have the gender 'woman'. Since gender is usually defined as some collection of socially-expected roles, behaviours, or traits, they will then pretend that you are attempting to enforce gender conformity.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't really care how it is "defined". No matter what term you use, no matter how draped in euphemism and obfuscating language... at the end of the day, reality exists. And in reality, males and females are different, and those differences CANNOT be transcended.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion (everywhere, not just ISF) is that a whole lot of people seem to believe that they can just wave their hands around and redefine reality out of being. As if the mere act of calling a dog a cat transforms them into a feline.

Words have the meaning we give them. Reality doesn't give a **** about what words we use.

Well, the desire to transcend such limitations has a long history. Transhumanism etc... I know you won't agree, but I see your desire for a society without gender roles, or without sex based stereotypes to be an analogous attempt to escape these limits. Clearly reality is still there. At the moment, I don't think the question is so much whether reality can be escaped, but how much damage can be done in a futile quest to escape it. A society is a complicated thing. If the harm is only women getting pushed out of sports, some sexual assaults, and a bunch of children needlessly sterilised, I think we are getting off lightly.

 

[shuttlt]

This can be treated as a matter of legal policy or a matter for private companies to decide or a matter governed entirely by cultural norms. I'd prefer that we let the free market sort this one out, instead of having one set of legal rules in blue states (where I grew up) and another set of legally binding rules for red states (where my kids grew up).

This is libertarian fantasy nonsense. The "free market" doesn't decide. Cultural norms don't decide. What decides is an organised minority who get establishment backing. Progressive advances are rarely if ever achieved by the "will of the people". They are imposed on the people, and then the people are re-educated and pressured into accepting the new normal.

 

[Ziggurat]

my own opinion is as it's always been: that it's likely that over time every body administrating a sport where musculoskeletal and cardiopulmonary factors confer a performance advantage will indeed enact bans against transwomen competing in the women's category (at elite and sub-elite levels only though).

I’m curious: in what sports are musculoskeletal or cardiopulmonary factors NOT a performance advantage? Maybe curling, which is hardly even a sport, but I’m having a hard time thinking of any others.

 

[Rolfe]

FINA was effectively duty-bound (for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with swimming per se) to allow transgender athletes to compete in their trans gender class...... until/unless FINA was in a position to make an evidence-based ruling on the matter.

This is complete rubbish by the way. Swimming classes have always been separated by sex, not gender. There was never any obligation or duty on FINA to allow males into the female events pending the gathering of evidence to prove the bleedin' obvious.

These testosterone-lowering requirements were more or less picked out of thin air to appease these fragile snowflake men who seem to think that the purpose of women's sports it to validate their delusions, because FINA, like other sports, was terrified of the backlash from the trans lobby if they didn't find a way to let them in. There's nothing worse these days than being labelled transphobic! Basically, they caved.

They seem to have been hoping that somehow it would all work out, but the spectacle of a 22-year-old man winning a race by a margin of 32 seconds even with the prescribed testosterone suppression probably concentrated a few minds.

It was never going to work, it never could work, but some heads were buried in the sand.

 

[Rolfe]

I’m curious: in what sports are musculoskeletal or cardiopulmonary factors NOT a performance advantage? Maybe curling, which is hardly even a sport, but I’m having a hard time thinking of any others.

I'm curious, why pick out curling? I'd have thought that was a pretty obvious one where these factors are important. (And don't come anywhere near here and declare that it's hardly even a sport, if you want to leave with your limbs intact.)

I'd have thought maybe shooting, but apparently it's not as simple and there are features of male physiology that provide some advantage.

The equestrian one is interesting, especially as the horses compete on an even playing field; mares geldings and stallions together without a huge advantage to the ones that have gone through male puberty or the ones with real-time testosterone in situ. As I rider I can see male advantage in riders, particularly the way young men who start riding manage to stay on much better by sheer force of muscle. I'm a better rider than they are because of years of balance becoming instinctive, despite being much weaker.

I think there may be some innate female advantage there, whether it's lighter weight or better balance or something, that can at least partly compensate for the lack of sheer muscle power. But it has been noted that at the early stages equestrian events are massively skewed to female competitors, but the relatively few men rapidly rise through the ranks so that by the time you get to élite level the proportions are a lot more even.

 

[smartcooky]

I’m curious: in what sports are musculoskeletal or cardiopulmonary factors NOT a performance advantage? Maybe curling, which is hardly even a sport, but I’m having a hard time thinking of any others.

Olympic equestrian sports
Horse racing
Rifle and pistol shooting
Pool, Snooker, Billiards