Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[shuttlt]

Interesting take. On that basis, for track and field events where contact is not a factor, males are generally likely to be more successful than females, and if fairness is irrelevant why should it matter if the males win all the time? so why shouldn't they all compete together?

I'm not arguing that trans-women should compete in women's sports. I think they shouldn't. I'm just saying that if they are allowed to compete, them having significant natural advantages is no more unfair than tall people finding basketball easier. It's as if we expect some kind of level playing field where sporting success is just about effort, and if you just try harder than everybody else you will win (wasn't that the plot of Gattaca?). Nonsense. Sport is about an unlevel playing field where natural advantages play a huge factor.

 

[d4m10n]

Came across this Tweet in my normal (local area related) Twitter feed today:

https://twitter.com/OkcPeriod/status/1549766849402912769

No one seems upset about the genderless language used.

 

[shuttlt]

Came across this Tweet in my normal (local area related) Twitter feed today:

https://twitter.com/OkcPeriod/status/1549766849402912769

No one seems upset about the genderless language used.

It suddenly felt very Handmaid's Tale to me, calling women "menstruators". You'd then get a bunch of inner monologue about it being a slight against women who were barren.

 

[Lplus]

I'm not arguing that trans-women should compete in women's sports. I think they shouldn't. I'm just saying that if they are allowed to compete, them having significant natural advantages is no more unfair than tall people finding basketball easier. It's as if we expect some kind of level playing field where sporting success is just about effort, and if you just try harder than everybody else you will win (wasn't that the plot of Gattaca?). Nonsense. Sport is about an unlevel playing field where natural advantages play a huge factor.

Different chromosomes could also be classed as a natural advantage, so again, why shouldn't all compete together on the basis that fairness is irrelevent?

If fairness is not relevant there is no reason all should not compete in non contact sports together. Once fairness is assessed as having some relevance then a line has to be drawn between "fair" and "unfair". Personally I consider differences in chromosomes should be that line.

 

[shuttlt]

Different chromosomes could also be classed as a natural advantage, so again, why shouldn't all compete together on the basis that fairness is irrelevent?

You are the one who seems to think fairness is the basis of letting some people compete and not others. I'm telling you that that is an incoherent basis unless you mean something very specific by "fairness" that could probably do with defining. I've not got a problem with basketball being dominated by tall people, any more than I have a problem with women's sports not allowing men to compete. Fairness has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

If fairness is not relevant there is no reason all should not compete in non contact sports together.

Are you sure? Again, you must have some pretty specific notion of fairness.

Once fairness is assessed as having some relevance then a line has to be drawn between "fair" and "unfair". Personally I consider differences in chromosomes should be that line.

A particular set of chromosomes is unfair, but great genetics is fair? Some people have blood that is naturally more efficient at carrying oxygen than other people. Why is one fair and the other not?

 

[Lplus]

You are the one who seems to think fairness is the basis of letting some people compete and not others. I'm telling you that that is an incoherent basis unless you mean something very specific by "fairness" that could probably do with defining. I've not got a problem with basketball being dominated by tall people, any more than I have a problem with women's sports not allowing men to compete. Fairness has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

Then what is your objection to transwomen competing in Womens sports? After all even the danger of injury to the weaker competitor is a result of an unfair advantage.

Are you sure? Again, you must have some pretty specific notion of fairness.

Yes, I'm sure. My notion of fairness is actually almost all encompassing. what about yours?

A particular set of chromosomes is unfair, but great genetics is fair? Some people have blood that is naturally more efficient at carrying oxygen than other people. Why is one fair and the other not?

Nope, neither of them are fair - life itself is unfair. To be absolutely fair, there should be no competition at all, since the winner will always have an advantage of some sort over the rest - even if that advantage is just greater determination.

You cannot have it both ways. Either fairness is irrelevent, in which case there is no grounds for separating competitors of any basis whatsoever, or it is relevant, in which case either competition itself is banned as inherently unfair or a point must be chosen beyond which a disparity between competitors is unacceptable. My personal choice for that point is at chromosome level.

 

[shuttlt]

Then what is your objection to transwomen competing in Womens sports? After all even the danger of injury to the weaker competitor is a result of an unfair advantage. Yes, I'm sure. My notion of fairness is actually almost all encompassing. what about yours?

That's not a definition of fairness.

Nope, neither of them are fair - life itself is unfair. To be absolutely fair, there should be no competition at all, since the winner will always have an advantage of some sort over the rest - even if that advantage is just greater determination.

You cannot have it both ways. Either fairness is irrelevent, in which case there is no grounds for separating competitors of any basis whatsoever, or it is relevant, in which case either competition itself is banned as inherently unfair or a point must be chosen beyond which a disparity between competitors is unacceptable. My personal choice for that point is at chromosome level.

You still haven't explained what you mean by fairness.

In an over 50s category, we don't allow under 50s. In a flyweight category, we don't allow heavyweights. In a women's category we should only have females, that is clearly what the category is for and changes in language don't alter that. We don't allow overweight people into flyweight boxing because they are super unfit and in some convoluted way we think the advantages of their weight and the disadvantages of their complete lack of cardio somehow balance out. We don't let 20 year old women into over 50s men's tennis tournaments because somehow we think the advantages and disadvantages balance off. The categories are to find the best person in a given category. The categories seem to need to be meaningful, we don't generally have the hundred metres for women and men carrying 20lbs strapped to their back.

Where fairness comes in is whether you meet the rules to compete in the category. Trans-women aren't female. We aren't pushing at weight limits, or age limits like this crying "fairness". They aren't female. They shouldn't compete. If women's sports becomes females + men medicated to reduce their performance, then it's fair that they compete in as much as sport is ever fair, but it becomes a ******** category.

 

[Paul2]

That's not a definition of fairness.


You still haven't explained what you mean by fairness.

In an over 50s category, we don't allow under 50s. In a flyweight category, we don't allow heavyweights. In a women's category we should only have females, that is clearly what the category is for and changes in language don't alter that. We don't allow overweight people into flyweight boxing because they are super unfit and in some convoluted way we think the advantages of their weight and the disadvantages of their complete lack of cardio somehow balance out. We don't let 20 year old women into over 50s men's tennis tournaments because somehow we think the advantages and disadvantages balance off. The categories are to find the best person in a given category. The categories seem to need to be meaningful, we don't generally have the hundred metres for women and men carrying 20lbs strapped to their back.

Where fairness comes in is whether you meet the rules to compete in the category. Trans-women aren't female. We aren't pushing at weight limits, or age limits like this crying "fairness". They aren't female. They shouldn't compete. If women's sports becomes females + men medicated to reduce their performance, then it's fair that they compete in as much as sport is ever fair, but it becomes a ******** category.

The question, then, though, is why do we have a category for females but not tall people?

Perhaps here's a way: the tallness of tall people is the actual characteristic that affects whether they have an advantage or not in basketball, say, and is also the characteristic by which we have classed those people together. But having ovaries (or having had them, in the case of an ovarectomy (?), or having the body for having them, etc., let's not get bogged down in the exceptional cases) is the characteristic by which we class people together into the category of females but the ovaries themselves are *not* the actual characteristic that affects an advantage or disadvantage. If a woman had their ovaries removed, that would not affect their competitive status. If a man, having undergone male puberty, had their testes removed, that would not affect their competitive status (I think).

I have no idea whether this holds up consistently, but I'm sure someone will let me know if it doesn't. But maybe this is a step in the direction of explaining *why* we have different categories of competition for males and females.

 

[theprestige]

The question, then, though, is why do we have a category for females but not tall people?

The answer is because nobody is interested in them.

But that's not the question. The question in this thread is, as always, are transwomen women (and if so, to what extent, and why, and with what implications for public policy).

Perhaps here's a way: the tallness of tall people is the actual characteristic that affects whether they have an advantage or not in basketball, say, and is also the characteristic by which we have classed those people together. But having ovaries (or having had them, in the case of an ovarectomy (?), or having the body for having them, etc., let's not get bogged down in the exceptional cases) is the characteristic by which we class people together into the category of females but the ovaries themselves are *not* the actual characteristic that affects an advantage or disadvantage. If a woman had their ovaries removed, that would not affect their competitive status. If a man, having undergone male puberty, had their testes removed, that would not affect their competitive status (I think).

I have no idea whether this holds up consistently, but I'm sure someone will let me know if it doesn't. But maybe this is a step in the direction of explaining *why* we have different categories of competition for males and females.

No, it doesn't hold up consistently. Male puberty confers a real statistical physical advantage, just as gerater height is a real statistical physical advantage.

But again, that's not the question.

 

[Paul2]

No, it doesn't hold up consistently. Male puberty confers a real statistical physical advantage, just as gerater height is a real statistical physical advantage.

I don't see anything in that that makes what I said inconsistent. What exactly do you think I said that is inconsistent given the above?

 

[Lplus]

That's not a definition of fairness.


You still haven't explained what you mean by fairness.

In an over 50s category, we don't allow under 50s. In a flyweight category, we don't allow heavyweights. In a women's category we should only have females, that is clearly what the category is for and changes in language don't alter that. We don't allow overweight people into flyweight boxing because they are super unfit and in some convoluted way we think the advantages of their weight and the disadvantages of their complete lack of cardio somehow balance out. We don't let 20 year old women into over 50s men's tennis tournaments because somehow we think the advantages and disadvantages balance off. The categories are to find the best person in a given category. The categories seem to need to be meaningful, we don't generally have the hundred metres for women and men carrying 20lbs strapped to their back.

Where fairness comes in is whether you meet the rules to compete in the category. Trans-women aren't female. We aren't pushing at weight limits, or age limits like this crying "fairness". They aren't female. They shouldn't compete. If women's sports becomes females + men medicated to reduce their performance, then it's fair that they compete in as much as sport is ever fair, but it becomes a ******** category.

I consider "fair" to be synoymous with "equitable" and "just". You appear to use it to mean eligible to meet certain criteria. So far so good, but how are you deciding on those criteria? What logic is behind the decision to eliminate those who are not female - other than the very fact of the difference in chromosomes between male and female?

 

[d4m10n]

The question, then, though, is why do we have a category for females but not tall people?

On the rare occasion when height is used as an exclusion criterion in sport, no one complains that doing so has infringed anyone's human rights.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, it absolutely does. And it's been formulated (and will almost certainly be implemented) following an evidence-based review - precisely as should have happened.

I hope and expect other sports administration bodies to be going through a similar exercise right now. And my hoped-for & expected outcome is that in those sports (such as rugby of both codes) where the safety of participants is determined to be at significant and proximate-causal risk, there will be a blanket ban on transwomen/transgirls in the women's category; but for those sports in which there are no safety concerns (e.g. track and field sports) I expect transwomen/transgirls to be allowed to compete in the women's category at all levels of the sport except the elite and sub-elite levels.
As has been my position for a long time now.

Nope, I disagree with this 100%. What part of "stronger by 25% to 50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females" escapes you?

Fairness and equity are also vitally important if a sport is to have and maintain any integrity at all. Allowing transwomen to compete in women's track & field makes a mockery of women's sport in general. Advocates for women's sport have fought long and hard to have supporters and sponsor take women's sport seriously. These advocates are the core reason why we now have well funded domestic competitions in Soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby League, right up to the level of world cups in these sports.

If transwomen are permitted to compete against biological women, then ultimately, biological women will be pushed down or out of their own sports as all the top performers who hold all the records will be transwomen. Why should a tiny minority group of people be allowed the unfair physiological advantage of going through male puberty, something that biological females are denied.

Perhaps WADA should consider classing hormone treatments given to transitioning transpeople as performance enhancing drugs.

 

[smartcooky]

Tall athletes have a huge advantage over short ones in basketball. Kenyans have advantages in distance running. That some people have natural physical advantages that mean they are almost always going to win is nothing new. If "fairness" is going to be the key thing, it needs to be a notion of fairness that isn't about subsets of the population not having big advantages.

True but irrelevant.

Kenyan's come from Kenya, they were born there, they were born with those natural advantages and they are not changing anything to gain access to those advantages. Transpeople are changing something to gain this access.

 

[smartcooky]

On the rare occasion when height is used as an exclusion criterion in sport, no one complains that doing so has infringed anyone's human rights.

B.. b.. but why shouldn't seven foot tall players be allowed to play in the under six foot league? Surely, all they need to to is feel they are less than six feet tall, and then they can declare that they are less then six feet, and then all the height-activists can demand society accepts them for who they are!

 

[lionking]

True but irrelevant.

Kenyan's come from Kenya, they were born there, they were born with those natural advantages and they are not changing anything to gain access to those advantages. Transpeople are changing something to gain this access.

As has been explained countless times in this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope, I disagree with this 100%. What part of "stronger by 25% to 50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females" escapes you?

None of it escapes me.

Fairness and equity are also vitally important if a sport is to have and maintain any integrity at all. Allowing transwomen to compete in women's track & field makes a mockery of women's sport in general. Advocates for women's sport have fought long and hard to have supporters and sponsor take women's sport seriously. These advocates are the core reason why we now have well funded domestic competitions in Soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby League, right up to the level of world cups in these sports.

If transwomen are permitted to compete against biological women, then ultimately, biological women will be pushed down or out of their own sports as all the top performers who hold all the records will be transwomen. Why should a tiny minority group of people be allowed the unfair physiological advantage of going through male puberty, something that biological females are denied.

Perhaps WADA should consider classing hormone treatments given to transitioning transpeople as performance enhancing drugs.

I think you might possibly have either missed or misunderstood these words in my post: "...except the elite and sub-elite levels".

 

[LondonJohn]

I read through what you wrote in the previous post three times, and can't make any more sense of it than I did the first time. If I got it wrong, I don't care anymore.

It's a red herring anyway. The questions are other than the ones you're trying to answer. And they need to be answered by trans-activists. A whole page since I asked LJ to explain his position on women's sports. Nothing from him, but a whole lot of noodling from you and a few others about stuff we've already covered and isn't even the issue.

1) I am free to participate in this thread exactly as I wish. And I choose to visit this thread more and more infrequently - mainly since I tend not to find it particularly interesting, informative or worthwhile any longer to engage with the amount of anti-transgender-identity animus dressed up as a narrow set of concerns over things like women's sport or women's prisons. Oh, and I certainly don't feel any obligation at all to answer questions, whether in (what my interlocutor might consider) a timely manner or not.

2) I've explained my position on women's sports probably a dozen times now in this thread. Including, as it happens, about 16 hours ago.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: I am not a trans-activist.

 

[Samson]

I have figured a solution to the birth problem, "it's a boy or it's a girl" are out.

"They are starting life with/without a penis" is in.

Can anyone do better?