Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Rolfe]

Excluding those with SRY genes (and functional androgen receptors) would do the trick.

That's my view also, but having thought about the criterion which is actually been adopted by a number of sporting bodies recently, that anyone who has gone through any part of male puberty is excluded, I can't see anything wrong with that either.

In practical terms the same people will be in or out using either system.

 

[Rolfe]

Good to hear you are willing to disregard labeling when faced with a practical problem to solve. Perhaps it would be best to take that approach henceforth, instead of trying to get people to adopt awkward neologisms like "pre-male" and "post-female."

As a general principle I find that trying to talk someone off a furiously-ridden hobbyhorse is usually doomed to defeat. The best you can hope for is that in trying, you understand your own position better and are enabled to formulate your own arguments better.

This seems to apply here just as much as it did in the years spent fruitlessly arguing with the proponents of homoeopathy.

 

[smartcooky]

Glad you finally got that the definitions I've been quoting for male and female are in fact intentional definitions.

Do you actually read the posts you are replying to?

You are assuming that the definitions you gave were extensional definitions, which is to say, they list the objects that a term describes, whereas in fact they are intensional definitions - incapable of explanation solely in terms of the set of objects to which they are applicable, i.e. they try to give a sense of what a term means. In effect, your definitions are general, NOT specific and NOT exclusive. A pre-pubescent girl is still a female and so is a post-menopausal woman, even though neither produce gametes.

To which your reply was

horse crap

But you may have something of a point. At least at first blush, though looking under the hood reveals some "fatal flaws" - notably that the engine is missing, so to speak.

More particularly, your definition for "human being" depends on the definition for "species":

https://www.lexico.com/definition/species

Basically, bottom line, bipedality or "birth defects" and the like are "accidental properties" - ones that members MAY possess but whose absence doesn't, by themselves, exclude individuals from that category:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

Not at all the case with the stipulative definitions of biology.

To quote a recent poster, "horse crap"

Firstly, I used a definition from YOUR source, which you imply is a 'definitive' source.

Secondly, your definitions of "male" and "female" also rely on the definition of "species", which means that members MAY possess certain criteria, but their absence doesn't, by themselves, exclude individuals from that category.

 

[d4m10n]

That's my view also, but having thought about the criterion which is actually been adopted by a number of sporting bodies recently, that anyone who has gone through any part of male puberty is excluded, I can't see anything wrong with that either.

It is at least conceivable that some (XX) people have gone through male puberty as a result of puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones at an early stage of development. No examples come to mind, but who knows what Tavistock got up to prior to the recent reckoning.

 

[Rolfe]

That's a bit of a side issue, because taking testosterone comes under the normal anti-doping rules anyway. It's already established that if a woman who identifies as a transman wants to compete in women's events she has to stay off the anabolic steroids.

Also, cross-sex hormones in either sex do not produce anything even remotely resembling the puberty of the opposite sex, because they lack the basic structures to act on.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was LondonJohn, and I think it was actually in this thread.

No. It was not. Don't be accusing me of things I didn't say. Thanks.


What I did say was that, prior to issuing any bans, sports authorities have a duty - both ethically and legally - to build an evidence-based case that transwomen generally have a demonstrable performance advantage over ciswomen wrt the sport in question*. I said (correctly) that it would be very problematic for any sports authority to summarily ban transwomen without having carried out that process on a reasonable best-effort basis**. Though I've also said that it's proportionate and justifiable for administrators to issue quicker pre-emptive bans for transwomen where there are clear safety concerns regarding other competitors (the rugby codes being an obvious example).

(Oh and PS: what I've stated on this issue - previously and above - is exactly what is happening in the real world, well away from the low-grade toxic cesspit of this thread. Who'd'a thunk it?!)


* And for anyone who mistakenly believes that my position is actually nothing different from the accusation.... it doesn't have to be the case that transwomen in women's sports are materially outperforming their ciswoman competitors: even if (to take the 100m track event as an example) there was, say, one transwoman in the field of 8 and she finished 7th, that would have no bearing on whether or not transwomen should be banned. What would have a bearing would be proper study regarding things like musculoskeletal and physiological differences (and their relative performance benefits for the sport in question) - not race results per se.

** Note further that while I entirely support bans on transwomen in women's events at elite and sub-elite levels (and I've been consistent since "Day 1" about that), I neither believe nor predict that transwomen will/should be prevented from participating in women's sports at lower levels (and again, I've been consistent on that since "Day 1"). The safety caveat still applies though: I don't think transwomen should be allowed to participate at any level in any women's contact sports where they would pose a reasonable safety risk to other (ciswoman) participants.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, it was in fact LJ, in this thread, with the claim that sports leagues have an unmet burden to prove that men perform better than women at sports.

That is the absolute state of trans rights activism on this forum right now.

Nope, and nope.

But (not that I care about your answer...) why do you think that the various sports governing authorities are right now going through precisely the process that I predicted a long time ago - i.e. conducting appropriate studies to determine the general performance advantage of transwomen vs ciswomen, in order to build a reasonable evidence base upon which to issue/enact policy in this area? Why do you think that most/all such governing bodies haven't just summarily banned transwomen from competing in elite/sub-elite women's sports, without even bothering/needing to go through such a process? Do you think they've all been hopelessly "captured" as well? LOL


ETA:

1) I am not a trans rights activist.

2) The "state of trans rights activism on this forum" is that it's proven pointless to even try to argue the case - all the more so when one side has pompously (and, of course, totally erroneously) decided that it's figured everything out and has reached some sort of settled consensus (LMAO). Fortunately the real world, and the real experts, and the real outcomes, are all a very long way away from this overzealous little thread on an utterly inconsequential internet forum

 

[smartcooky]

What I did say was that, prior to issuing any bans, sports authorities have a duty - both ethically and legally - to build an evidence-based case that transwomen generally have a demonstrable performance advantage over ciswomen wrt the sport in question*. I said (correctly) that it would be very problematic for any sports authority to summarily ban transwomen without having carried out that process on a reasonable best-effort basis**. Though I've also said that it's proportionate and justifiable for administrators to issue quicker pre-emptive bans for transwomen where there are clear safety concerns regarding other competitors (the rugby codes being an obvious example).

There there is no need for them to reinvent the wheel. All they need do is point to the extensive history of men's v women's records in their sport, since men and transgender women are essential indistinguishable in matters of performance due to physiology. (see Lia Thomas and Kate Weatherly as examples)

 

[LondonJohn]

There there is no need for them to reinvent the wheel. All they need do is point to the extensive history of men's v women's records in their sport, since men and transgender women are essential indistinguishable in matters of performance due to physiology. (see Lia Thomas and Kate Weatherly as examples)

And elite-level performance measures for male and female competitors would indeed be taken into consideration as part of the evidence set. But it's not quite as simple as that - one also has to conduct studies on transwoman competitors themselves, to provide evidence that these performance advantages are also present in transwomen wrt the particular sport in question.

If it were as simple as saying something like "The men's 100m world record is 9.58s while the women's 100m world record is 10.49s, and on this basis we are banning transwomen from competing in elite women's 100m events", it would have been done by now. In reality, there needs to be a significantly wider evidence set than just a simple analysis of male-vs-female outcomes/results. Which is precisely how/why pretty much every global sports administration body is, right now, going through the process of gathering and analysing an appropriate amount of data upon which to base policy in this area.

 

[Graham2001]

I don't think you get to say "pretending to be transgender". Since "transgender" doesn't actually mean anything. An unintended consequence, perhaps, of diluting the meaning of "gender".

But what you probably can say is that there are a growing number of men who are pretending to be transsexual, if not for nefarious purposes, then perhaps not realizing what they're actually trying to do, and what it actually means.

Which seems to be the thrust of this article from the Contrarians at Spiked who chose to ask a politically conservative Gay individual for their commentary:

So many veteran homosexual-rights campaigners, and gay men and lesbians in their 50s and 60s, are fed up with the so-called LGBTQIA+ movement. Some are starting to see it as a hostile takeover of a homosexual-rights movement by straight people. Worse still, many now think of it as among the most regressive social movements of the past century. The reason lies in the growth of that acronym, with the forced teaming-up of diverse groups which have divergent and even opposing interests.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/21/how-trans-ideology-hijacked-the-gay-rights-movement/


Which is as good a summary of Spiked's editorial attack on the Trans lobby as any.

 

[Rolfe]

If it were as simple as saying something like "The men's 100m world record is 9.58s while the women's 100m world record is 10.49s, and on this basis we are banning transwomen from competing in elite women's 100m events", it would have been done by now.

No it wouldn't. Don't be naive. Every aspect of society has been captured by the trans lobby, and everyone from professors of medicine to prison governers to sports authorities is far more afraid of being branded "transphobic" than they are concerned about being fair to women. Until very recently all the trans-activists had to say was "you wouldn't want to be seen not to be inclusive, would you?" and men were being admitted to women's prisons even. And medical schools can't even teach students that there are two sexes.

We're seeing the early effects of the women's counter-attack now, but this will obviously take time.

 

[d4m10n]

...one also has to conduct studies on transwoman competitors themselves, to provide evidence that these performance advantages are also present in transwomen wrt the particular sport in question.

You must know by now that no amount of hormone replacement is necessary to claim to be a transwoman in sport, as we've seen in specific cases like Andraya Yearwood. Why the need for separate studies if there is no reason to suspect any differences in performance?

 

[Steersman]

<snip>
Fortunately the real world, and the real experts, and the real outcomes, are all a very long way away from this overzealous little thread on an utterly inconsequential internet forum

"The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to your regular scheduled programming." ...

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman
Glad you finally got that the definitions I've been quoting for male and female are in fact intentional definitions.

Do you actually read the posts you are replying to?

I was referring to your earlier comment where you SAID:

You are assuming that the definitions you gave were extensional definitions, which is to say, they list the objects that a term describes, whereas in fact they are intensional definitions - incapable of explanation solely in terms of the set of objects to which they are applicable, i.e. they try to give a sense of what a term means. In effect, your definitions are general, NOT specific and NOT exclusive. A pre-pubescent girl is still a female and so is a post-menopausal woman, even though neither produce gametes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13882453&postcount=1992

I had explicitly said the Lexico definitions - the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, & Lehtonen - were intensional definitions. They most certainly don't "list the objects that [the] term describes"; they give the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership - i.e., functional gonads.

<snip>

To quote a recent poster, "horse crap"

Firstly, I used a definition from YOUR source, which you imply is a 'definitive' source.

Secondly, your definitions of "male" and "female" also rely on the definition of "species", which means that members MAY possess certain criteria, but their absence doesn't, by themselves, exclude individuals from that category.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

Pray tell, exactly where do those Lexico definitions say ANYTHING about species, much less give any definition for them?

male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Perchance you've seen that between the first and second lines? Second and third?

They say diddly-squat about any species. They're stipulative definitions; they say that, by definition, those who produce gametes are males or females, that those who produce neither are thereby sexless.

 

[smartcooky]

And elite-level performance measures for male and female competitors would indeed be taken into consideration as part of the evidence set. But it's not quite as simple as that - one also has to conduct studies on transwoman competitors themselves, to provide evidence that these performance advantages are also present in transwomen wrt the particular sport in question.

If it were as simple as saying something like "The men's 100m world record is 9.58s while the women's 100m world record is 10.49s, and on this basis we are banning transwomen from competing in elite women's 100m events", it would have been done by now. In reality, there needs to be a significantly wider evidence set than just a simple analysis of male-vs-female outcomes/results. Which is precisely how/why pretty much every global sports administration body is, right now, going through the process of gathering and analysing an appropriate amount of data upon which to base policy in this area.

Yes, it is 100% as simple as that. This was explained to the last time you brought it up - you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Males outcompete females at at ALL levels of ALL sports in which the physical attributes of the competitor give them an advantage. How do I know this? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DO!!! Across across the board, at all comparable post-puberty levels, biological males are 25% to 50% stronger, 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females. These are facts; they are attributes acquired by biological males as they go through male puberty - this cannot be undoned with any kind of hormone therapy, drug regimens or woo-woo treatments . Puberty cannot be mitigated to any significant degree and it certainly cannot be reversed... period! End of story! Fact!

If you allow transgender women to compete in female sports at lower levels, you eventually WILL have very few cisgender women competing in elite level sports for the simple reason that they will not get advanced to that level, and when that happens, and continues to happen (and it will), women will be discouraged from even participating in sport where that have no chance of winning. You don't just automatically advance to elite level on seniority, you have to be faster, stronger, more powerful that your opponents. Not only do athletes have to meed a minimum standards for selection, they must also place high in the event in question. With the spots available limited to just a couple (in some sports just ONE spot) transgender women (in other other words, men) will dominate, they will eventually fill the top spots, and no real women will get even close to a look in.

 

[smartcooky]

I was referring to your earlier comment where you SAID:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13882453&postcount=1992

I had explicitly said the Lexico definitions - the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, & Lehtonen - were intensional definitions. They most certainly don't "list the objects that [the] term describes"; they give the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership - i.e., functional gonads.



https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

Pray tell, exactly where do those Lexico definitions say ANYTHING about species, much less give any definition for them?



Perchance you've seen that between the first and second lines? Second and third?

They say diddly-squat about any species. They're stipulative definitions; they say that, by definition, those who produce gametes are males or females, that those who produce neither are thereby sexless.

Sorry, your position on this in utter nonsense as well as being wrong.

 

[Steersman]

Sorry, your position on this in utter nonsense as well as being wrong.

LoL - "Off with his head!"

But just the facts, man, just the facts. You might try taking a look at them with something approaching an open mind.

Far too many people have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on "mythic essences". Although the transgendered in particular have crossed the Rubicon into outright pathology. But they're only the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Calling menopausees "female" won't magically restore their fertility. As "GlennB" calling his non-functional 4-wheeled thingy a "car" won't magically turn it into one.

As the old Zenith commercials put it, "The quality goes in before the name goes on":

 

[Aber]

What I did say was that, prior to issuing any bans, sports authorities have a duty - both ethically and legally - to build an evidence-based case that transwomen generally have a demonstrable performance advantage over ciswomen wrt the sport in question.

As opposed to a duty on sports authorities to show that transwomen do NOT have an advantage before allowing them to compete.

 

[Matthew Best]

So I think we've established that trans women aren't women, because, contrary to popular belief, most women aren't women either.

 

[lionking]

So I think we've established that trans women aren't women, because, contrary to popular belief, most women aren't women either.

Very very good. Can this thread now be closed?