Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[d4m10n]

I presume you are making a point about your own opinion but I'm not getting it.

I basically agree with you, if you are saying that private organizations (e.g. DV shelters, Korean spas) ought to be allowed to segregate by sex; activists on both sides emphatically do not. They would prefer to write their own approaches into law.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Human rights is just another way of saying fairness.

Not in this case. In the context of trans activism, "human rights' is not about equality or fairness, it's about gaining special privileges by throwing females under the bus. None of the the things they are demanding are fair, or equal, or even rights. It's all special pleading that demands females must relinquish our boundaries, our dignity, and our rights so that some males can gain the extra privilege of doing the few things that are disallowed to males, despite the objections of females.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not in this case. In the context of trans activism, "human rights' is not about equality or fairness, it's about gaining special privileges by throwing females under the bus. None of the the things they are demanding are fair, or equal, or even rights. It's all special pleading that demands females must relinquish our boundaries, our dignity, and our rights so that some males can gain the extra privilege of doing the few things that are disallowed to males, despite the objections of females.

Trans men exist too, you know, and are very much interested parties when it comes to these discussions about trans inclusion.

Defending women's spaces from the dastardly male might be your exclusive focus of interest, but making sweeping statements like this while omitting the existence of trans men borders on bad faith.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was under the impression there was quite a bit of disagreement about how long exactly trans women should be on HRT before being considered on a level playing field. I imagine age of when HRT was taken (especially if pre-puberty transition occurred) would matter quite a bit, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I will admit I am not particularly well read on this specific topic.

Given that you are not well educated on this topic, it might behoove you to either refrain from making sweeping unfounded assumptions or to actually go do some research.

Hormones are not the only difference between males and females of the human species. This has been presented MULTIPLE times. Your unwillingness to read and to gain knowledge is your own failing.

Athletic advantages that males have:

• Taller than females
• Have longer legs than females
• Have larger hearts than females
• Have larger lung capacity than females
• Have femurs which connect to their hips with a plumb orientation, whereas the femurs of females are angled inward toward the knees - this alters gait with affects efficiency of running/jumping/swimming/all things involving the lower body
• Have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers
• Have less curvature of the lumbar spine do to their pelvis not being tilted
• Have stronger and less elastic tendons and ligaments, especially those associated with internal organs - this means their innards don't move as much under exertion, creating a more stable core
• Have broader shoulders relative to hip width than females
• Have a higher muscle density relative to fat content than females

The last item is the ONLY one that is affected by reducing hormone level. That's hardly sufficient to negate the other significant athletic advantages.

Edit: This study on US military servicemembers (a rare population in which physical fitness is regularly tested) found that 1 year was not enough time to totally eliminate any gender performance advantage, but found that after two years performance was approaching parity with their cis-gendered peers.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764

The highlighted is a misleading statement. They approached parity with females for the number of situps and pushups they could do in a given time, but the author also said:

Their running times declined as well, but two years on, trans women were still 12 percent faster on the 1.5 mile-run than their cisgender peers.

The linked research paper has the following to say:

Gender affirming blockage of testosterone and administration of oestrogen in transwomen (oestrogen) has the opposite effect, but transwomen retain an advantage in muscle mass, volume, and strength over female controls after 1 year on oestrogen. Most changes in body composition occur within the first year on testosterone or oestrogen, with slower changes after that time.

So most changes occur within the first year, and at the end of that first year, transgender identified males still retain an advantage in muscle mass, muscle volume, and overall strength.

The final conclusion is:

What are the new findings?

Transwomen retain an advantage in upper body strength (push-ups) over female controls for 1–2 years after starting gender affirming hormones.

Transwomen retain an advantage in endurance (1.5 mile run) over female controls for over 2 years after starting gender affirming hormones.

ETA: I have questions about why they're using Air Force data for this, rather than Army or Marines. Air Force has, on average, somewhat lower physical fitness requirements than other branches. Additionally, members of the Air Force are substantially less likely to be in a field that requires substantial physical fitness - the Air Force has extremely few direct combat members, most are in support roles for both the AF and other branches. Pretty much only Combat Control, Tactical Control, and Pararescue involve combat activities.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was under the impression that high PT scores were useful for those seeking advancement and placement into specialty programs, so maxing out your PT score is desirable.

For the Air Force, this is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Setting aside other issues, this goes back to my other point. You won't have enough trans athletes in many schools to fill out a soccer team. Reporting of these states passing trans-exclusion laws are having the practical impact of kicking out like a handful of trans athletes in the entire state.

I don't think you've thought this through.

So let's go through the entire progression. For the non-US among us, let me define some language. Elementary School spans from Kindergarten (age 5/6) to Fifth Grade (age 10/11). Middle School spans from Sixth Grade (age 11/12 to Eight Grade (13/14). High School spans from Ninth Grade (age 14/15) to 12th Grade (17/18). In some areas there can be a bit of squish - some areas have Middle School for only Sixth and Seventh, or only Seventh and Eight grades, but this is the most common separations. It more or less aligns with "mostly pre-pubertal", "in the process of attaining reproductive maturity", and "fully reproductively capable but still maturing".

For school sports, most sports become both competitive and sex-separated in Middle School. There's some competition among Elementary schools for sports, but it's not as common and not as intense. Middle is where we begin having extracurricular school teams, with try-outs, and frequently with a distinction between Junior Varsity and Varsity teams. In Middle, there are still a lot of non-competitive intramural teams. By High school, nearly all of the school teams are competitive JV or V teams, and there are few intra-mural teams.

A note on the term "competitive" in this context. Intra-mural teams are essentially open to anyone who wants to play, with very few people being excluded. They still participate against each other as well as against other schools. But they aren't part of a Competitive Circuit, involving play-off rosters, increased levels of competition at regional/state/national levels, and significantly less focus on trophies or anything resembling a competitor ranking system.

So now that we've got the basics out of the way... What is the impact of allowing transgender identified males to participate in female sports in "non-elite" school sports ?

This means that in Middle School, some males will be on the female JV and V teams. For each male included on those teams, there will be a female who is EXCLUDED from those teams. Those females will then miss out on the opportunity to practice and grow their skills, as well as the opportunity to engage in competition against other schools and athletes. You might say this is no big deal, but I disagree.

Without that middle school participation, those excluded females will be unlikely to participate in high school sports. Some of that will be because they have lost interest because they have been denied the ability to compete in middle school. Some of it will be because without that middle school practice and competition, they will not have grown their skills sufficiently.

So then... exclusion of females from female sports in middle school in favor of allowing males to compete on the female teams, reduces access to high school participation for females. Here we've already got a loss of opportunity for females.

In high school, if males are allowed to participate on female teams, this impact gets amplified. In High school, those athletes are being scouted for college athletics as well as continuing to grow and hone their skills. For every male who participates on a female team in High school... those are females who are being excluded from consideration for College teams. They will not be scouted, they will not be monitored, and they lose the opportunity for athletic scholarships.

Now, we have excluded females from female sports in both Middle and High school. We have provided expanded opportunities for males - they can participate in both male and female sports, whereas females are inarguably uncompetitive in male sports because biology is real.

College is the prime location for entry into professional athletics.

By actively allowing males to exclude females from female sports in Middle School... you are reducing significant opportunities for females in professional sports.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My son and my daughter were in the Air Force as enlisted. The most desirable jobs require high asfab scores, not high PT scores. Promotions require an academic test.

The easiest to get into is security forces, which is also the most physical. My daughter was in that. My son did better and was a dental assistant and then a recruiter.

I'm sure there are additional fitness requirements for some jobs, like pilot. But most airmen are not competing for jobs in the gym.

My father, sister, brother in law, 3 uncles, and countless cousins, as well as my spouse, two of my spouse's uncles, and numerous of my spouse's cousins are all either currently active duty or retired Air Force.

AF has very few combat MOSs. Test scores are more important in AF than PT times.

I also suspect that Turkey is rolling together all ROTC participants, and then pretending that they're all comparable to AF PT scoring. In reality, I suspect many of those ROTC members are aiming for other service branches than just AF.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The demarcation is very real. There's even different divisions for school sports.

My wife competed in NCAA track and field and it wasn't the tiny pittance of a scholarship that attracted her to it. Division II and III sports remain popular for students with no illusions of attaining full ride scholarships or professional sporting careers. Why do you think that is?

How well do you think your female spouse would have done if they were competing against males in track and field?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think you've thought this through.

So let's go through the entire progression. For the non-US among us, let me define some language. Elementary School spans from Kindergarten (age 5/6) to Fifth Grade (age 10/11). Middle School spans from Sixth Grade (age 11/12 to Eight Grade (13/14). High School spans from Ninth Grade (age 14/15) to 12th Grade (17/18). In some areas there can be a bit of squish - some areas have Middle School for only Sixth and Seventh, or only Seventh and Eight grades, but this is the most common separations. It more or less aligns with "mostly pre-pubertal", "in the process of attaining reproductive maturity", and "fully reproductively capable but still maturing".

For school sports, most sports become both competitive and sex-separated in Middle School. There's some competition among Elementary schools for sports, but it's not as common and not as intense. Middle is where we begin having extracurricular school teams, with try-outs, and frequently with a distinction between Junior Varsity and Varsity teams. In Middle, there are still a lot of non-competitive intramural teams. By High school, nearly all of the school teams are competitive JV or V teams, and there are few intra-mural teams.

A note on the term "competitive" in this context. Intra-mural teams are essentially open to anyone who wants to play, with very few people being excluded. They still participate against each other as well as against other schools. But they aren't part of a Competitive Circuit, involving play-off rosters, increased levels of competition at regional/state/national levels, and significantly less focus on trophies or anything resembling a competitor ranking system.

So now that we've got the basics out of the way... What is the impact of allowing transgender identified males to participate in female sports in "non-elite" school sports ?

This means that in Middle School, some males will be on the female JV and V teams. For each male included on those teams, there will be a female who is EXCLUDED from those teams. Those females will then miss out on the opportunity to practice and grow their skills, as well as the opportunity to engage in competition against other schools and athletes. You might say this is no big deal, but I disagree.

Without that middle school participation, those excluded females will be unlikely to participate in high school sports. Some of that will be because they have lost interest because they have been denied the ability to compete in middle school. Some of it will be because without that middle school practice and competition, they will not have grown their skills sufficiently.

So then... exclusion of females from female sports in middle school in favor of allowing males to compete on the female teams, reduces access to high school participation for females. Here we've already got a loss of opportunity for females.

In high school, if males are allowed to participate on female teams, this impact gets amplified. In High school, those athletes are being scouted for college athletics as well as continuing to grow and hone their skills. For every male who participates on a female team in High school... those are females who are being excluded from consideration for College teams. They will not be scouted, they will not be monitored, and they lose the opportunity for athletic scholarships.

Now, we have excluded females from female sports in both Middle and High school. We have provided expanded opportunities for males - they can participate in both male and female sports, whereas females are inarguably uncompetitive in male sports because biology is real.

College is the prime location for entry into professional athletics.

By actively allowing males to exclude females from female sports in Middle School... you are reducing significant opportunities for females in professional sports.

You're not accounting for slots on girls sports that would be, according to your accounting, made available by the existence of trans boys. Every trans boy athlete would be one more opportunity slot for girls to use, and one less slot for boys.

A zero-sum accounting of this doesn't make much sense once you acknowledge the existence of both trans boys and trans girls.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd like the world to be different in many ways.

I'd like the world to be different too. I'd like females and males to have comparable levels of physical ability. I'd like to see females have an equal foothold in leadership roles in both private and public undertakings. I'd like females to have equal representation in politics. I'd like females to have complete control over our own ******* anatomy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

More often scholarships are not on the line. Plenty of students participate in organized school sports with no illusions about it paying off in any material way. Extracurricular activities, including competitive ones, are popular for reasons beyond material gain.

"Well, not all of the people who participate in competitive high school sports is going to get a scholarship, so it's perfectly fine if we take steps to reduce the opportunities available to females, and increase the opportunities to males"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Well, not all of the people who participate in competitive high school sports is going to get a scholarship, so it's perfectly fine if we take steps to reduce the opportunities available to females, and increase the opportunities to males"

Snip whatever you like out of context.

Do you deny that students often engage in sports for reasons other than hoping to secure the relatively small number of available scholarships?

My point remains that there are educational issues at play in school environments that are not a factor in pro sports. There's a reason why youth sports are often organized through the educational system and not solely through athletic clubs that are not publicly funded.

Your personal distaste for them aside, trans kids have as much right to a public education (including participation in sports) as any other student, and the school owes them a legal duty that a pro sports league would not. I was merely pointing out that schools sports have special considerations in any public policy debate that don't apply to strictly private organizations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Short sighted and wrong.

In YOUR PERSONAL opinion.

In my opinion, as a female who would be affected by this, it is 100% correct.

Someone like Andreja Pejic, who is biologically still male, but has had gender reassignment surgery, could not and should not be sent to a men's prison if she broke the law.

Then send them somewhere else, or allow a case-by-case consideration with input from the female prisoners with which they would be housed. FFS, full surgery including penectomy and orchiectomy doesn't diminish the differences in physicality, nor does it alter offending patterns. If the male prison is not safe for a particular subset of males, then take steps to make it safe, or develop a third space alternative. Don't foist males off onto females because males are safe from males. Females aren't safe from males either, by a significantly higher rate, and putting more males in with females increases the risk for females.

Why have you decided that the feelings and potential safety of some males is more important than the safety, dignity, and rights of ALL females?

It all goes back to legitimate trans women and fakers. Sadly, the trans lobby don't want to conceded the fakers exist.

Nothing is possible when it's self-declaration running the game, without clinical diagnosis and without a requirement for surgery.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But yes, exceptions like Pejic should be accommodated with women.

Look, I generally appreciate your support and your views.

But I'm also completely fed up with males making sweeping decisions about what females should be FORCED to accommodate, without bothering to actually talk to females and determine whether or not we agree.

Males are deciding that some males are not sufficiently male to be counted as males, and should be relegated to the realm of "other" where they've placed females.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Look, I generally appreciate your support and your views.

But I'm also completely fed up with males making sweeping decisions about what females should be FORCED to accommodate, without bothering to actually talk to females and determine whether or not we agree.

Males are deciding that some males are not sufficiently male to be counted as males, and should be relegated to the realm of "other" where they've placed females.

I'm not seeing how a general rule about non-discrimination wouldn't also similarly apply to cis-men bigots who insisted on excluding trans men.

You may not care about trans men, but they do exist and have similar rights to nondiscrimination among cis men.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For example, I can't see why a refuge for women who are victims of domestic abuse shouldn't be able to take in a trans woman if they judge their circumstances to be suitable for their services. That should be down to the providers.

Sure, sure. And whether or not a female victim of rape is ALLOWED to have a female medical examiner should be up to the providers, who are in a position to decide whether or not a particular male examiner is "suitable" to do an intimate exam, the views of the female victim just don't really count, right? I mean, males are totally in a better position to decide what's best for females than females are.

As another example, with trans prisoners we should be looking at both the risk they have from inmates and of course the risk they are to inmates rather than again having a one rule fits all. And this should really be part of our standards for prisons regardless of sex or gender, sadly safety and wellbeing of prisoners is often low down on the priorities in prisons.

Sure, sure. I mean, we can't have short males, or somewhat effeminate males being placed at risk by other more "manly" males. I mean, really, if they're not "manly" enough, are they even really males at all? If they don't meet some bar for "manliness", they can just be dumped in with the "non-men" right? Never ******* mind that there are still material ******* differences between males and females... no, let's make sure we're giving lots of thought and consideration to what's best for the males. The females don't really get a say, males are in a position to make the best decisions for females, right?

Where I think you can have straightforward rules is in specific circumstances so a trans woman who has sexually assaulted women in any way should never be in the general population of a women's prison, whether they have a gender reassignment certificate or not.

Oh yay! It's so very considerate of you to decide that males who have sexually assaulted females should be excluded! But you know, for any other males, well, that's up to males to decide where they belong. And well, if they haven't sexually assaulted females then they're really just "non-men" and can get a free pass to be dumped in with the other "non-men", regardless of whether the females agree or not. I mean, they're just females, they don't really know their own minds, and they don't know what's best for themselves. It's really only males that count at the end of the day.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ones in which animus towards trans people generally are the obvious driving motive for passing exclusion laws and fairness in sports is just a useful pretext.

What do you consider animus?

Because it really seems as if any female who does not accept that males with feminine gender feels are somehow the "same" as females seems to fall into that category in your brain.

It seems as if females who object to males being given the legal right to voyeurism and exhibitionism in female-only spaces is someone you view as having "animus".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Worth pointing out that the cis woman making a big fuss about Lia Thomas tied with her in fifth place. Both were beat by cis women.

never has being a fifth place finisher been such a boon to clout.

Worth pointing out that Thomas threw that race, after having garnered scrutiny for absolutely ******* DEMOLISHING female records with ease.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I basically agree with you, if you are saying that private organizations (e.g. DV shelters, Korean spas) ought to be allowed to segregate by sex; activists on both sides emphatically do not. They would prefer to write their own approaches into law.

I'm happy to allow the private organizations to make determine whether or not they are sex-specific, as well as whether or not they reserve the right to make case-by-case exceptions for specific individuals.

I object to laws making it illegal to recognize sex and being forced to accept a person's claim to a gendered soul as sufficient to override existing sex-based separations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trans men exist too, you know, and are very much interested parties when it comes to these discussions about trans inclusion.

Defending women's spaces from the dastardly male might be your exclusive focus of interest, but making sweeping statements like this while omitting the existence of trans men borders on bad faith.

Trans men aren't out there demanding that they must be allowed by law to go into male-only spaces. They're not demanding that they must be granted the right to be placed in prisons with males. They're not demanding that the requirements for participation in male sports be changed so that they can compete against males.

And the handful of transgender identified females who have made the atrocious demand that gay males must be open to having penetrative sex with the vaginas of transmen, or must learn how to perform cunnilingus on transmen have -rightly- been met with opposition from males who are same sex attracted.