Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[smartcooky]

That doesn't seem to be the case - as can be seen by the huge amount of debate caused by various national and international sport organisations struggling with their criteria for who is allowed to compete in their female competitions.

We had this example just a little while back in the thread:

IMO, the "Harm Principle", often phrased as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", should be the key guiding axiom in deciding this issue... and harm is not just the physical kind. Trans activists demand rights for their minority of trans people, but those rights must not impacts on the rights of the majority.

If transwomen in women's sport becomes generally allowed, and it damages women's sports by dissuading and discouraging actual biological females from taking up those sports at the grass roots level (which is something we are already seeing happen), then it becomes very, very difficult down the track to unring that bell.

 

[lionking]

IMO, the "Harm Principle", often phrased as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", should be the key guiding axiom in deciding this issue... and harm is not just the physical kind. Trans activists demand rights for their minority of trans people, but those rights must not impacts on the rights of the majority.

If transwomen in women's sport becomes generally allowed, and it damages women's sports by dissuading and discouraging actual biological females from taking up those sports at the grass roots level (which is something we are already seeing happen), then it becomes very, very difficult down the track to unring that bell.

Totally correct.

 

[Rolfe]

IMO, the "Harm Principle", often phrased as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", should be the key guiding axiom in deciding this issue... and harm is not just the physical kind. Trans activists demand rights for their minority of trans people, but those rights must not impacts on the rights of the majority.

If transwomen in women's sport becomes generally allowed, and it damages women's sports by dissuading and discouraging actual biological females from taking up those sports at the grass roots level (which is something we are already seeing happen), then it becomes very, very difficult down the track to unring that bell.

The problem that has arisen (one I note LondonJohn fully supports) is that rather than say, we must have evidence that transwomen do not retain any male-puberty advantage before we open women's sports to them, which would of course be the logical position, sports authorities have been so brainwashed into the "be kind to this incredibly marginalised minority" mindset that they opened their doors immediately on request.

Then, to compound the issue, they attempted to silence anyone criticising this by threatening girls and women who complained with loss of team places and sponsorship, and they saying, look, the actual women athletes have no problem with it. You bigot.

We're now in the position that should have been the initial move - looking at the evidence to see if men retain the advantages of male puberty when they transition. Which of course they do, it's freaking obvious, you just have to look at Liam Thomas. There is no possible way to unbake that (beef)cake.

So now we have the trans lobby even more up in arms about having "rights taken away from them" (rights they should never have been given in the first place) and being "banned from sports" (no, sunshine, you're not banned, you're just being told to compete in the correct category).

What a mess.

 

[Darat]

We seem to be back to the LondonJohn argument. How dare you point out that "transwomen" are a subset of men, that is a morally repugnant position and I'm surprised anyone would own up to it in public.
For crying out loud, this is a sceptics forum. We're supposed to be grounded in physical reality and debating from a logical standpoint. In actual physical reality transwomen are men and it is logical to consider them as such in discussions such as this.

Why ever not? Of course the context will always matter - I wouldn't call anyone wanting to be known as he or she by the opposite pronoun, that's simply rude. But if I was setting up a screening program for prostrate cancer I would consider trans-women a subset of men. In other circumstances, for example perhaps setting up a woman's clothing line I would consider them a subset of women.

It is why I am uncomfortable with the idea that in NHS England you can have your "gender marker" changed on your medical record simply by requesting it. I think it is very important that in terms of medical records your sex is clearly identified and accessible at all times by medical professionals since biology plays such an important part in healthcare (obviously that doesn't mean you can't expect politeness from medical professional to call you he or she as you wish). But am comfortable for a driving licence to be changed on request since it is no more important than your name on such a document and you can change your name on request.

I find the idea that there is a binary choice at all times in all different situations i.e. that trans women are women or that trans women are men silly given the multitude of ways gender and sex interact across our society and our many cultures.

 

[Darat]

IMO, the "Harm Principle", often phrased as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", should be the key guiding axiom in deciding this issue... and harm is not just the physical kind. Trans activists demand rights for their minority of trans people, but those rights must not impacts on the rights of the majority.

That is never going to happen in a clean cut manner - all our rights tend to compete with other people's rights - the issue is finding a compromise that works. (And of course what we mean by "works" is crucial.)

If transwomen in women's sport becomes generally allowed, and it damages women's sports by dissuading and discouraging actual biological females from taking up those sports at the grass roots level (which is something we are already seeing happen), then it becomes very, very difficult down the track to unring that bell.

Thankfully the evidence so far is that it isn't happening and isn't going to happen. As I said since this thread started we've seen plenty of sporting organisations changing or adopting policies that do restrict or completely block access to women's sports for trans women.

But access to sporting competitions is of course only one aspect of us acknowledging that trans people exist and should have rights and what may work for sports may not work in other areas.

 

[Samson]

That is never going to happen in a clean cut manner - all our rights tend to compete with other people's rights - the issue is finding a compromise that works. (And of course what we mean by "works" is crucial.)



Thankfully the evidence so far is that it isn't happening and isn't going to happen. As I said since this thread started we've seen plenty of sporting organisations changing or adopting policies that do restrict or completely block access to women's sports for trans women.

But access to sporting competitions is of course only one aspect of us acknowledging that trans people exist and should have rights and what may work for sports may not work in other areas.

The default position is all men can compete in women's sports until the code objects.
This is cart before horse in my simple world.

 

[Rolfe]

Why ever not? Of course the context will always matter - I wouldn't call anyone wanting to be known as he or she by the opposite pronoun, that's simply rude. But if I was setting up a screening program for prostrate cancer I would consider trans-women a subset of men. In other circumstances, for example perhaps setting up a woman's clothing line I would consider them a subset of women.

It is why I am uncomfortable with the idea that in NHS England you can have your "gender marker" changed on your medical record simply by requesting it. I think it is very important that in terms of medical records your sex is clearly identified and accessible at all times by medical professionals since biology plays such an important part in healthcare (obviously that doesn't mean you can't expect politeness from medical professional to call you he or she as you wish). But am comfortable for a driving licence to be changed on request since it is no more important than your name on such a document and you can change your name on request.

I find the idea that there is a binary choice at all times in all different situations i.e. that trans women are women or that trans women are men silly given the multitude of ways gender and sex interact across our society and our many cultures.

The only pronoun I call anyone by is "you". How I refer to people in the third person is my business and nobody has any right to compel my speech.

I am extremely uncomfortable with all these so-called "meaningless" changes. Human beings are all either male or female, and human beings are extremely good at recognising the sex of other members of their own species, irrespective of clothes or makeup. To allow someone to change their sex as recorded on documents is to perpetrate a lie and to open the doors for all sorts of confusion and indeed deception.

If you are developing a clothing range to accommodate both women and men who like to dress in clothing usually considered to be women's styles you are going to have to set up two pretty separate production lines, because the body shapes of men and women are different enough to make fit a problem. (I think of a guy I have encountered numerous times at conventions who appears typically male to me (short hair in a masculine style, no makeup or anything) but who favours floral print summer dresses. I often wonder where he gets them made, because they fit him well, and there is no way they are made for a female body.)

Of course anyone is free to dress and present themselves as they wish, but all this lying to pretend that men are in some way actually women, or some sort of subset of women, which then leads to arrogant, entitled demands to be included in everything from a women's football team to a lesbian dating app is not something I wish to encourage.

 

[Rolfe]

The default position is all men can compete in women's sports until the code objects.
This is cart before horse in my simple world.

Well said.

 

[lionking]

That is never going to happen in a clean cut manner - all our rights tend to compete with other people's rights - the issue is finding a compromise that works. (And of course what we mean by "works" is crucial.)



Thankfully the evidence so far is that it isn't happening and isn't going to happen. As I said since this thread started we've seen plenty of sporting organisations changing or adopting policies that do restrict or completely block access to women's sports for trans women.

But access to sporting competitions is of course only one aspect of us acknowledging that trans people exist and should have rights and what may work for sports may not work in other areas.

So why is Lia Thomas still swimming against and beating women?

Yes I know this example is difficult for you, but it exists.

 

[Darat]

So why is Lia Thomas still swimming against and beating women?

Yes I know this example is difficult for you, but it exists.

As ever you don't seem to read posts:

This is a very recent development and not widespread. Lia Thomas may not compete in the next Olympics, but he is competing in women's events in NCAA, which is an elite competition.

It doesn't seem like she can, she had been but no longer will be able to.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/fi...wimmers-in-elite-womens-events-181115435.html

"...Swimming's world governing body voted to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in women's events ..."​

...It also restricts NCAA swimmers since the organization said in January it would defer to the national and international bodies' rulings....​

(That was the latest article I saw when I searched for the criteria swimming organizations are applying - if it's been overturned or something so be it.)

Why is it a difficult example for me? As I've said several times before it is up to the sporting bodies who they allow to compete.

 

[Darat]

The only pronoun I call anyone by is "you". How I refer to people in the third person is my business and nobody has any right to compel my speech...snip...

Of course no one can or should be able to compel you

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Samson]

As ever you don't seem to read posts:





Why is it a difficult example for me? As I've said several times before it is up to the sporting bodies who they allow to compete.

There must be a range of sporting bodies dealing with women wanting to join men's leagues, but I have not heard of them. Has anyone?
ETA Equestrian is an interesting field, but who does the work?

 

[Rolfe]

Of course no one can or should be able to compel you

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

Here we go again. Trying to press your point of view by implying that your opponents' position is morally repugnant.

Way to go, sceptic.

 

[Darat]

I was curious whether my views have changed since this thread started - so I looked for an earlier post of mine that summed up the main areas we keep discussing and found this one.

...snip...

I have great sympathy for trans people, I can understand them just wanting to be themselves and they find it terrible when they can't be. I.e. a trans man being told they have to use the women's toilets.

I don't support the idea that one should be officially able to change their gender just by saying so, it isn't like changing a name.

If someone has as the case is currently in the UK been medically diagnosed and lived as their preferred gender for 2 years I think they should be able to have their gender officially changed.

The issue as I see it is then becomes a case of "what does it mean to officially change your gender?". And that is where various "rights" come into conflicts and it seems there is no way to make everyone 100% happy so whatever we come up with will result in no one being happy, the fine art of compromise.

Straight forward toilets? Your official gender should determine which you can use. Yes that will make some people uncomfortable but that's a "tough" from me. Going to the loo is just a bodily function.

Changing rooms such as in a sports venue? I would say you use the one you are most physically like, so if you are a trans man and still have female looking genitals you use the womens changing room, and vice a versa. Yes this make some people uncomfortable and others unhappy but that's another "tough" from me.

Sports? It is part of the entertainment industry so I say it is up to the private organisations involved to make their own calls. If some entertainments stop being fun for the participants or audiences they'll fade away and I am sure someone will innovate with something that captures people's attention.

Medically? That is based on your sex.

Services? Depends on what they are. So no no one should be forced to wax male genitals because they offer waxing of female genitals. But if it is say for getting your haircut then a trans person should be treated as per their official gender.

One area I have changed position on is sports. With regards to sports I was indifferent (on a personal level I still am) but the case is plain that if we want sport to continue to be segregated by sex than in (most) sports trans women have to be disqualified from entering women's sports. It's even more fundamental than a matter of biology - it's a matter of physics, male bodies on the whole are stronger and better adapted for the physical requirements of many sports even when treated with drugs to alter hormonal balances over a long time. This is a time when our individual rights do conflict and there isn't a compromise position - it is all or nothing.

Anyone else changed their mind at all since the thread started?

 

[Darat]

Here we go again. Trying to press your point of view by implying that your opponents' position is morally repugnant.

Way to go, sceptic.

No Rolfe, it was merely a comment about what you posted. If you didn't post that you would be rude to a trans person and didn't post bigotry about trans folk I would not be able to say you did. Facts are facts even when unpleasant.

 

[Darat]

There must be a range of sporting bodies dealing with women wanting to join men's leagues, but I have not heard of them. Has anyone?
ETA Equestrian is an interesting field, but who does the work?

Because trans men are often woefully and shamefully marginalised by many, even in these types of discussions. And often they are allowed to compete in male sports at all levels without any issues being raised. For example, the international organisation that has ruled that trans women can't compete in women's swimming competitions allow trans men to compete in men's swimming competitions.

 

[Rolfe]

No Rolfe, it was merely a comment about what you posted. If you didn't post that you would be rude to a trans person and didn't post bigotry about trans folk I would not be able to say you did. Facts are facts even when unpleasant.

We have differing views. I do not consider this a matter of "being rude to a transperson" - especially as the situation we are discussing is talking about the person, not to them.

I consider the pronoun police to be one of the most insidious aspects of the mind control being exerted by the trans-activists. They insist that what is known to be the most deep-seated of all learning in one's native languave (the third person singular) be over-ridden by an act of will to demonstrate conformity with their agenda and acceptance of their belief system.

You choose to characterise my position as bigotry and rudeness. I do not consider that to be arguing in good faith.

 

[Rolfe]

Because trans men are often woefully and shamefully marginalised by many, even in these types of discussions. And often they are allowed to compete in male sports at all levels without any issues being raised. For example, the international organisation that has ruled that trans women can't compete in women's swimming competitions allow trans men to compete in men's swimming competitions.

Women who want to be considered as men are still women, and still eligible to compete in the women's events, which is as it should be as these events are classified by sex. The exception is where the woman has taken testosterone, which is a banned performance-enhancing drug. Any woman who has ever taken this (or perhaps there is some sort of time limit, I'm not sure) is excluded, irrespective of her reasons.

Women in the men's events will depend on the rules. Is it a male category or an open one? However the question of testosterone being a performance-enhancing drug then reappears. Testosterone is also performance-enhancing for males and is also banned in the men's events. If one competitor in these events is permitted to take testosterone, why not all of them?

I think this is something that hasn't yet been entirely thought through.

 

[Darat]

We have differing views. I do not consider this a matter of "being rude to a transperson" - especially as the situation we are discussing is talking about the person, not to them.

I consider the pronoun police to be one of the most insidious aspects of the mind control being exerted by the trans-activists. They insist that what is known to be the most deep-seated of all learning in one's native languave (the third person singular) be over-ridden by an act of will to demonstrate conformity with their agenda and acceptance of their belief system.

You choose to characterise my position as bigotry and rudeness. I do not consider that to be arguing in good faith.

You want to be rude for no reason but your own dislike of trans people. It costs no one any effort to refer to someone as they want to be referred to. Your objection is as baseless as those that are still against the likes of "Ms." for a woman who doesn't want to have to signify their marriage status in every encounter.

And your bigotry for me was established in the very beginning of these threads with your statements such as "..This is about very feminised homosexual men and boys, and very masculinised homosexual girls and women..."

 

[lionking]

You want to be rude for no reason but your own dislike of trans people. It costs no one any effort to refer to someone as they want to be referred to. Your objection is as baseless as those that are still against the likes of "Ms." for a woman who doesn't want to have to signify their marriage status in every encounter.

And your bigotry for me was established in the very beginning of these threads with your statements such as "..This is about very feminised homosexual men and boys, and very masculinised homosexual girls and women..."

Bigotry? Your disdain for those who don’t share your views is evident. It doesn’t make you right.