A desire to be included among members of the opposite sex, no matter how sincere, is not a valid justification for letting someone cross a sex-segregation boundary.
Agreed with the direction of your argument, thepresetige, but not with how far you've taken it. Like I'd said before (not to you, but addressed to someone else, so maybe you haven't seen that post of mine, it's a huge and fast-moving thread after all!): clearly the question of transwomen participating in sports with women is based on three arguements: of fairness, of inclusion, and of what would sell. Agreed, the inclusion argument cannot in and of itself end up deciding the question (of the validity of transwomen competing with women); but I disagree that the inclusion argument is completely worthless. That is, you personally may deem it such, sure, and that's fine, as a personal choice (just as someone that scorns capitalism might, speaking for themselves, similarly dismiss the what-might-sell argument); but that cannot wish away the argument itself.
The whole point of sex segregation in sports, the whole reason women's sports actually works, is because it's about separation, not inclusion.
A man's sincere desire to be included among the women, in sports (and other places sex segregation makes sense) suggests to me not an entitlement but a mental health issue.
But that's the whole trans question, isn't it. The trans believes that they belong to a separate gender than they were born with. And today's society, and today's science, gives to them the means to actualize that, to an extent. (Only to an extent. They cannot actually bear children, for instance. So far. But who knows, one day, maybe one not-very-distant day, maybe within our lifetime, we might find men who want to, transitioning not just to the outer trappings of womanhood, but even to its very core, which is the bearing of children.)
Regardless of whether that scenario might come to pass, the fact is that even today, men who believe they're "women at heart" can transition, to a large extent, into womanhood. Does that actually make them a woman? You're simply asserting that that is not the case. But that is not your decision alone, I'd imagine it is a decision for society to collectively arrive at.
So that your argument is circular. The idea is exclusion, sure, but the idea is to exclude men from women. And don't let's forget, that principle of segregation is a very much a social construct. If society deems that transwomen do pass as women, then while the principle of exclusion will remain, but that principle will not affect the inclusion of transwomen in women's categories, because they will be deemed to be women.
(For the record, me, I'm actually undecided on this. I've said this already, upthread, and I'll say this again, and I'll jazz up the font up on this a bit for emphasis when I say this, so that it gets through to you clearly:
Me personally, I'm undecided on this question. Should there be a vote today on whether transwomen should pass by law in any and every way as women, then, basis where my understanding is as of today, and my position on the question at this point, I'd abstain from the vote. And yes, I will request you not to try to misrepresent my clearly enunciated personal position on this, as you'd done not long back upthread.)
---
In fact I've been assuming it's about inclusion all along anyway. We can take trans folks at their word on this, and my conclusion doesn't change: Fiat self-ID is not a valid basis for transcending sex segregation.
Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion, absolutely.
But whether or not this is actually valid, is not your decision to make. it's society's, as a whole. You can contribute towards the firming of the collective social view, sure, by voting against inclusion of transwomen in women's cateogories if you like, absolutely, maybe by even campaigning about this issue. But you're no position to pass verdict, one way or the other, about the actual validity of inclusion of transwomen in women's categories.
Me, I share your opinion around halfway: like I said, I think the inclusion argument isn't the only one, and nor is it overriding. That much I'm happy to go along with. And also, and like I said, should there be a vote today, then you won't find my vote going against yours; I'll simply abstain, as at this point.
As for the self-ID part, that's a technical detail. I'll pass, as far as commenting one way or the other on that technical detail. I haven't enough knowledge, understanding, data, to say anything meaningful, either in agreement or in disagreement, on specifically the self-ID part.
