Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Samson]

Is that all there is to it? Being called "cis" is an unwelcome reminder that trans people exist? Assumed there was more to it than that.

Well non man is a versatile term these fine days.

 

[Lplus]

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it's an insult except for some of the anti-trans people.

I guess the person calling Musk a cis scum in the twitter post shown in reply 1193 was just being friendly then...they didn't seem to be part of the anti trans grouping.

 

[Ziggurat]

ETA: if the highlighted were true, that'd be better than Michael Phelps... its not.

I was wondering about this, and decided to find out if there was an error somewhere. The Wikipedia page does list Lia's time as 1:41.93, and that is faster than Phelps, which didn't make sense. I tried following the Wikipedia source, and this page doesn't include Lia's time, but the internet archive does, and lists that as the time. So the first thing of note is that the Penn Athletics page seems to have removed Lia's times. The second issue, which is what you're talking about, is the times relative to other swimmers. Given that some of the women's times were only a few seconds slower than Phelps, I was wondering what was going on, since Phelps should certainly be blowing them out of the water. So what's going on?

And I think I figured it out. By chance I hovered over the SCY acronym above the tables on the Wikipedia page. That indicates that it's a "short course" pool. Olympic pools (long course) are 50 meters, short course pools are 25 meters. On a 200m swim, you hit 3 turns on a 50 meter pool, but you hit 7 turns on a 25 meter pool. Each turn shortens the distance you actually swim, and allows a kickoff for additional speed, so the more turns, the faster the time should be. We aren't really comparing apples to apples. So it's entirely possible that Lia's short course 200m time is faster than Phelps' long course 200m freestyle.

ETA: and actually, it's even more than just that. SC is short course. SCY is short course yards, which means the pool is only 25 yards, not 25 meters, and the distance only 200 yards, not 200 meters. So that is an additional factor which would reduce those times compared to 200 meter long course times.

tl;dr: they're not equivalent races, so Lia's time being lower than Phelps' time is likely correct but doesn't mean Lia is faster than Phelps.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess the person calling Musk a cis scum in the twitter post shown in reply 1193 was just being friendly then...they didn't seem to be part of the anti trans grouping.

having to use "scum" to make it an insult kinda shows that maybe "cis" on its own isn't a slur.

 

[JoeMorgue]

having to use "scum" to make it an insult kinda shows that maybe "cis" on its own isn't a slur.

I hear cis-scum about as much as I hear cis in literally any other context, take that for what you want.

It might not be an insult, but I think pretending it's generally a full, honest positive is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Lplus]

having to use "scum" to make it an insult kinda shows that maybe "cis" on its own isn't a slur.

Why bother with the cis bit at all in that case. Nah, it was being used as an insult.

 

[Samson]

having to use "scum" to make it an insult kinda shows that maybe "cis" on its own isn't a slur.

Novel, but cis is certainly a stand alone offence.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I hear cis-scum about as much as I hear cis in literally any other context, take that for what you want.

It might not be an insult, but I think pretending it's generally a positive is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think it's positive either, it's basically a neutral descriptor.

I mean, plenty of anti-trans people couple the descriptor "trans" together with insult words in a sentence, but I don't think that makes "trans" an inherently insulting term.

Cis-scum seems to me its own unique insult word/phrase. I would certainly interpret "cis-scum" as being intended as an insult, but not interpret being described as a cis man (or straight man, or white man) as being inherently derogatory.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gender identity is irrelevant. You need a human female. They can feel however the hell they want inside the privacy of their mind-brain-gendery-soul. They can identify as a stapler for all the relevance that has.

Sloppy language on my part. You are correct that how they identify is irrelevant, but it's not irrelevant if they've had sex change surgery that includes hysterectomy, since that removes the ability to gestate a fetus. That was the point I intended to convey, but not very successfully.

 

[theprestige]

To be fair, your posts are kind of difficult to parse. It's really hard to tell where you stand on the issue.

Or even what you're trying to say.

Haha, this is completely hilarious! I tell you in so many words that I don’t think that letting loose transwomen onto women’s categories makes for a fair resolution of the nuanced question of fairness in sports; and you end up telling me, with a straight face, that you “think” I’m doing this, that and the other to “wedge in some idea of transwomen competing with women”. I tell you, again in so many words, that I’m speaking only and specifically of sports, and not of prisons at all: and there you go, solemnly mindreading away, and telling me, again with an apparently straight face, that I'm trying but failing to "force women's prisons and women's shelters into whatever gap you imagine must exist for sports", and that I “cannot come up with (some system) for putting a rapist in women’s prison”, et cetera.

Do you see it, now that I’ve pointed it out clearly for you, how completely weird and how utterly divorced from reality your “thinking” is? You’ll have to figure out for yourself why that is, and what “your real problem” might be!

Then I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with all this business about nuance in sports. As a basic measure of safety, fairness, viability, and equity in sports, sex segregation is simple and it works. Each sporting league will have its own degree of additional "nuance", depending on the nature of the sport, its athletes, and its audience. Weight classes, handicaps, major and minor leagues, etc. That's all immaterial to the actual question: Whether self-identified transwomen should be able to transcend sex segregation.

And not just in sports. The question isn't about sports. It's about trans ID and sex segregation. It comes up with sports because sports is one of the few places where sex segregation makes sense. This is not a complicated idea. It does not require a lot of nuance to understand or implement.

Likewise, it doesn't require a lot of nuance to understand or implement sex segregation in prisons and a few other places. For the same reason as sports.

And in all these places where sex segregation makes sense, trans-rights activists are pushing for the right to transcend sex segregation rules. If you have no policy proposal for the issue of sex segregation in all those venues, then what is your point?

What do you think the question of whether transwomen are women is really about? If you asked me, I'd tell you it's about whether transwomen have the right to transcend sex segregation on the basis of fiat self-ID. And that's across the board. The only reason to focus on sports is because sports is representative of the general problem of sex segregation, and has the added benefit of a lot of good data about why sex segregation makes sense for certain things.

We're talking about all those things, based on their common characteristic of benefiting from sex segregation. We're not talking about the unique nuances of sports that are irrelevant to the actual public policy questions being asked.

Do you have an answer to the question of whether transwomen are women, when it comes to sex segregation in sports, prisons, shelters, and other traditional safe spaces for women? If so, let's have it. If not, what relevant point are you trying to make in this thread? Because the nuances of sporting leagues ain't it.

 

[d4m10n]

Both "sides" ... aren't actually doing anything but trying to define themselves as right, not argue that they are right.

********.

I met your challenge to categorize sports without using any of the words under contention, and it wasn't even challenging since I recall the last five times Rolfe did the same thing.

 

[theprestige]

Again there's no "argument" in the traditional sense of the term here, it's just one big debate about categorization and labels.

Both "sides" (as much as I hate to over simplify it to that level) aren't actually doing anything but trying to define themselves as right, not argue that they are right.

It should be exactly zero % shocking that people getting annoyed at the language being used by the other side should come up from time to time.

The argument for sex segregation in sports and a few other things has been made repeatedly. The only discussion of definitions from that "side" has been to establish some terminology so the argument is clearer. We're not defining terms like "sex" and "female" to define ourselves as right, but so that you know what we're talking about, and can properly evaluate our arguments.

 

[d4m10n]

We're not defining terms like "sex" and "female" to define ourselves as right, but so that you know what we're talking about, and can properly evaluate our arguments.

The "sex matters more than subjective personal identity" side haven't been redefining any terms, IIRC. They are the ones who put up billboards with traditional simple definitions and the other side has them pulled down as hate speech.

 

[d4m10n]

Here is an interesting interaction from about an hour or two ago:



Personally, I'm not buying JKR's take here; it is not terribly difficult to define gender identity in terms which are verifiable or falsifiable. A cisgender person is anyone who feels no need to correct people when they are addressed or otherwise treated in accordance with their sex at birth.

 

[theprestige]

Here is an interesting interaction from about an hour or two ago:

View attachment 48177

Personally, I'm not buying JKR's take here; it is not terribly difficult to define gender identity in terms which are verifiable or falsifiable. A cisgender person is anyone who feels no need to correct people when they are addressed or otherwise treated in accordance with their sex at birth.

Yeah, "cisgender" makes sense, in that context. "Cismale", "ciswoman", etc., not so much. Cismale is just male. Ciswoman is just woman. Unless you're trying to redefine words like "male" and "woman" so that you are automatically right without having to argue your case.

 

[Lplus]

Here is an interesting interaction from about an hour or two ago:

View attachment 48177

Personally, I'm not buying JKR's take here; it is not terribly difficult to define gender identity in terms which are verifiable or falsifiable. A cisgender person is anyone who feels no need to correct people when they are addressed or otherwise treated in accordance with their sex at birth.

Agreed, though it has clearly been intended as an insult and the likes of JKR have decided to repudiate as an insult it instead of just laughing and saying "yep, it's just great to be cis!"

 

[Trausti]

"Cis is a way of marginalizing normal people." - Norm MacDonald.

 

[Chanakya]

For the vast majority of transwomen who want to compete in female sports, it has nothing to do with insisting on exercising their rights as transwomen... that's just a cover for what they really want... to win. They aren't good enough to win as men, but they only need to be of average ability to be a world beater among women.

A great example is mountain biker Kate Weatherly. As Anton Weatherly, he was no more than an average, middle of the field men's downhill mountain bike competitor. Now as Kate, a transwoman, Weatherly absolutely dominates the female division here. In a sport where the first half-dozen competitors are usually only separated by a few seconds across the whole half-dozen, Weatherley wins by half a minute or more. As a sport, female mountain biking has been losing numbers, and that is hardly surprising - who wants to participate when they best they can ever hope to achieve is a distant second.

If sports organizations continue to allow transgender women to compete in female sports, those sports WILL become dominated by transgender athletes, and actual biological women will effectively be shut out of their own sports. Fortunately, some sports women and sports organizations are beginning to push back on this insanity.

If you don't believe its all about winning, I will point out that there are many dozens of trans-women trying to become competitors in female divisions, and the numbers are on the increase. On the other side, there are almost no trans-men vying to participate in male divisions... Gee, now I wonder why that is?

Perhaps I didn't make my point well. So I'll be more clear: We will never be able to tell if transmen with a liking for sport are seeking to compete.

We won't be able to tell, because even if they are seeking to compete, they won't be competitive - they won't make the cut. Because they are female. They can seek to compete and try out as much as they want to... but they won't be successful.


Time for another attempt at a bad analogy, to try to demonstrate the dynamic I'm trying to highlight.

Let's talk about competitive can stacking! Let's say there are two leagues - one for people under 5'5", and the other for people over 5'5". The Under 5.5 league stacks on the second shelf of the grocery store. The Over 5.5 League stacks on the third shelf of the grocery store, which is a foot and a half higher than the second shelf.

Now, both of those categories contain people who are very competitive against each other, as well as people who are not competitive. The non-competitive people don't make it past try-outs, and we never see them again. But both groups also contain a handful of people who identify as a member of the other category. In colorful language, there are some transshort people and some transtall people.

Now, let's assume that the transheight people argue that the leagues should be inclusive of everyone's height identities, and should allow transheight people to compete on the team that aligns with their height identity. So the governing body for competitive can stacking thinks about it and says "Yeah, okay, we think inclusivity is a good idea, let's give this a shot, what could go wrong?"

Now let's put it into play. We've got trials coming up for each team, and each team can have 10 stackers. There are 25 cisheight people and 5 transheight people trying out for each of the two leagues.

Let's first look at the Under 5.5 tryouts. For that, there are 25 cisshort people and 5 transshort people. All of them, can reach the second shelf, where the stacking takes place. So for the Under 5.5 league, there are essentially 30 people trying out for 10 spots. Each of the transshort people has a 1 in 6 chance of making the team.

Now let's look at the Over 5.5 tryouts. There are 25 cistall people and 5 transtall people trying out. But here's where reality interferes with the noble ideal of inclusivity: The 5 transtall people cannot reach the third shelf. That means that none of the transtall people will make the team, even though they tried out in numbers equal to the transshort people.

At the end of the day, we're going to see an Over 5.5 League that is comprised only of people whose objective measurements are over 5'5" tall. But for the Under 5.5 League, we could end up seeing two people on the team whose objective measurement is 5'10 and 6'2.

Do you get where I'm coming from? Even if the impetus is for inclusivity, we will never be able to tell from the outcome. Because no matter how they identify, no matter how tall they envision themselves to be, the 5'2" tall people cannot reach the third shelf.

No matter how strongly a female might identify as a "man", they are still fundamentally female. They aren't going to make the cut to join a male team.

We will never be able to tell whether argument from inclusivity is genuine or not.


It doesn't though - we cannot tell whether the inclusion argument was initially meant sincerely or not. It very well may have been intended with completely honesty and sincerity... but the outcome makes it impossible to determine.

And when it comes to athletics, males and females are NOT athletically equivalent. It's not a complete parallel to the transshort people who can reach the second shelf easily, but have no inherent stacking advantage. When it comes to sex, males DO have a material physicals advantage over females.

And we've seen the result of this disparity multiple times. We've repeatedly seen middle-aged males who are not in top shape, and who were mediocre or non-competitive against other males... come in as top-placing winners when they compete against females. We've seen it in weightlifting. We've seen it in swimming. We've seen it several times in cycling. Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas, Rachel McKinnon, Austin Killips, Emily Bridges, nd several others I can't remember right now. All of them were mediocre or completely uncompetitive against males. And all of them took winning spots from females who were at their physical peak.

Both of you seem very sure that the inclusion argument is a disingenuous facade, and no more than an easy route for transwomen to play on easy mode and grab money and fame that would otherwise not have come their way as easily, and maybe not come their way at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were so, human nature generally being what it is; but I don’t think it is quite …right? fair? heh, properly skeptical? to directly rush to that conclusion absent any kind of evidence.

And what I put down there is what appears to me a pretty neat way of arriving at that evidence, fairly persuasively. And smartcooky, you seem to agree with me, about the validity of this metric, basis what you say in your comment. (Agreement, as far as only that much, only as far as the metric itself being valid. We do differ, a bit, on where that metric leads us; but I’ll come to that presently.)

By the way, this whole thing, this “metric” thing, it’s not as if it is something I’ve seen used anywhere, complete with evidence about its veracity and everything, and nor is it some deeply entrenched idea I hold to. It’s just something that came to mind, entirely off the cuff, while speaking about something else (broadly related, obviously, but something different) with you, Emily’s Cat. What I’m saying is, just an off-the-cuff idea, is all this is, and I’m happy to acknowledge it, in ringing tones, if that idea turns out to have holes in it. Absolutely no issues as far as that.

Except, as far as I can see, it doesn’t. Doesn’t have the holes in it that you seem to see, I mean to say, Emily’s Cat. Like I’d said, there’s levels and levels of participation; and there’s no reason why we should limit ourselves only to some minimum level of participation.

How would you normally go about trying to assess the validity of the inclusion argument? Go polling these trans-folks? Are they likely to honestly own up to being disingenuous, if indeed they are being disingenuous, given that it is obvious that such a poll can be used to directly impact their participation in women’s categories, and therefore confound the whole purpose of their disingenuousness? Well, regardless of whether this survey/poll thing might work --- and I personally think it probably wouldn’t --- here’s another methodology we can easily follow: We could just go out and check in what categories transmen and transwomen are actually participating, IRL. I don’t mean just check out news reports and such. After all, polling and surveying and suchlike is something we’d have to get off of our asses and actually do, right? So that’s what I was getting at, we could actually see, right down to the most humble levels of participation, in what categories these people are participating. It doesn’t really matter whether they’re able to win or not, and whether they’re able to make it to more elevated levels or not. The thing is to go see in what cateogory they’re participating in.

That’s where I was coming from. If we find that it’s only transwomen that are hopping over to run and cycle and swim and box with ciswomen; while transmen, insteading of playing with the men, end up staying in the ciswomen categories; well then, clearly the inclusion argument is then shown up as a lie. On the other hand, if we find that it does actually swing both ways, with sizeable numbers of transmen competing in men’s categories, then I think it would be fair to conclude that the inclusion argument is indeed sincerely meant and honestly presented.

(And, it’s probably entirely obvious, but still, to make sure there’s no misunderstanding: I’m not demanding of you personally that you go out and go collect that data on this, no more than I’d expect you to go actually polling and surveying transfolks, just because you happen to be debating on this topic here. Obviously. Just, rather than a priori assuming that these guys/ladies are lying their ass off, we --- generic “we” --- might have one way to base our opinion on actual evidence.)

---

Oh, and smartcooky, this last kind of follows from what I’ve already said, but I guess Emily’s Cat is correct in so far as she points out that merely looking at participation numbers at the higher levels, the levels that generally make for news, may not work, given that while transwomen are at a clear advantage in ciswomen categories, but transmen end up being at a distinct disadvantage in cismen categories (and so are unlikely to make it to top levels). For this “metric” to work --- heh, grand formal-sounding word, that, for what is just an off-the-cuff thought! --- I was saying, for this metric to actually be meaningful, we’d have to dig deeper than that.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't deny it, i am mostly here to mock the hare-brained ideas that arise in this thread

This is recognised for the concession that it is--that you have lost the argument and are a sore loser. As was pointed out of course.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Here is an interesting interaction from about an hour or two ago:

View attachment 48177

Personally, I'm not buying JKR's take here; it is not terribly difficult to define gender identity in terms which are verifiable or falsifiable. A cisgender person is anyone who feels no need to correct people when they are addressed or otherwise treated in accordance with their sex at birth.

Isn't this the same lady that we were supposed to doubt was a TERF?