Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[Emily's Cat]

Well, to be fair, this thread is a very hostile environment, and people tend to be ganged-up on, from what I’ve seen.

It's certainly no less hostile than any of the political threads, nor any of the religion threads, nor the conspiracy theory threads.

To be fair, you might consider going back through some of the prior chapters and objectively considering which participants are actually being hostile and aggressive, and which are simply arguing their points using logic, reason, and science. I hear this claim, that this is a "toxic" or "hostile" thread parroted a lot, but I don't see it born out. When there has been serious nastiness, it's very rarely being instigated from those of us on the gender critical side. Rather, it's been the very dedicated activists who have been hostile, often blatantly so.

Perhaps you would consider taking some time to skim through the prior versions of this discussion, with an open mind, and make your own decision on whether or not it's actually hostile, whether it's any more hostile than many other topics, and which group of people are the ones being hostile?

I’m against trans men in women’s competitive sport, but I sympathise with trans people for their difficult lives.

Transmen are females, and unless they're dosing with testosterone, I see no reason to ban them from participation in female sports at all. Transwomen on the other hand, are males - and they should be excluded from female sports regardless of whether they've suppressed their testosterone or undergone surgery.

The rest of the argument ultimately seems to be a human linguistic/thought experiment on both sides.

• I don't think it's a thought experiment when female inmates are being forced to share cells with male-bodied people, and in some cases being raped by those males.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when females are exposed to the genitals of a male against their will in spas, showers, or changing areas.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when recognition for the "first female xxx" is being granted to males.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when females in inpatient medical wards get raped by male patients and are then gaslit about it and told that it never happened because there are no "men" on the ward despite there being video evidence of it having occurred.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when females gathering to discuss the impact of fiat self-id policies on their rights and safety are consistently harassed, threatened, and attacked by transgender identified males.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when females lose their jobs for stating that humans cannot change sex, and that transwomen are still males.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when children are being given drugs that can cause sterility before they've even matured, or when youth with mental health issues are shuffled into surgeries that remove healthy body parts instead of being given the mental health care they need.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when parents lose custody of their children because they don't allow their children to take drugs that permanently alter their bodies and place them at serious health risk, or because they don't support a social transition for their child.
• I don't think it's a thought experiment when some states in the US declare that they will not consider it kidnapping if an adult brings a child into their state without the knowledge or permission of their parents for the purpose of receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery intended to alter their healthy bodies.

None of these are thought experiments, because these are actually happening. In the real world. As a result of fiat self-id.

You seem to be under the misimpression that this thread is full of "transphobic" people who actively dislike transgender people, similar to some of the anti-gay religious nutjobs. But that's not the case. I think we all agree that people should be allowed to dress and present however they want, that clothing and adornment should not be restricted on the basis of sex - if males want to wear skirts and makeup, they should be free to; if females want to wear buzzcuts and overalls, they should be free to. And every one of us thinks that transgender people should never be denied a job or a home on the basis of how they present themselves.

I think you have a lot of wrong assumptions about this thread, as well as its participants.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender is a result of self awareness. Animals aren't self aware, as far as we know...

On what do you base your assumption that non-human animals aren't self aware?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, that comes up on SBM too. Sex hormones will produce secondary sexual characteristics that resemble the other sex, and they also have neurological effects. However, there is no evidence that the neurological effects are the same as those of natural puberty, which occurs in complex stages with those parts triggered by sex steroid hormones related temporally to other aspects of brain development. The roles of sex hormones in brain restructuring at puberty is well established (although not that well understood), but the posters will imply you are making it up.

Worse, their go-to 'expert' on gender medicine (who runs a gender clinic, unsurprisingly) posted an implication that studies have shown puberty blockers do not affect brain development, supported by a link to a paper which literally says that they might do but we don't know because there are no long-term studies. And despite being pointed out numerous times it was not corrected.

I still get persistent claims that puberty blockers are totally safe and completely reversible. I don't even really understand how that particular bit of misinformation ever made it off the ground, because we've got a whole bunch of evidence that demonstrated the risks and negative impacts of a natural puberty being interrupted or not kicking off. We already know - and have known for a long time - that puberty is a two-part, time-bound process, and that if both parts don't do their thing when they're supposed to, there are problems.

It's such complete woo that it baffles me. If they actually wanted to provide safe and meaningful care to children experiencing distress about their sexed bodies and puberty, they'd be looking for some other means and acknowledging that the current approach is harmful. Instead, they're just parroting a talking point that is completely false, and calling people names when you point out that it's false.

 

[theprestige]

Well, to be fair, this thread is a very hostile environment, and people tend to be ganged-up on, from what I’ve seen.

As opposed to the hostile environment and ganging-up that occurs any time someone tries to reasonably dissent from the TRA orthodoxy? As opposed to the career-limiting, reputation-destroying hostility that emerges any time someone tries to do research that might undermine the TRA orthodoxy?

 

[Darat]

I still get persistent claims that puberty blockers are totally safe and completely reversible. I don't even really understand how that particular bit of misinformation ever made it off the ground, because we've got a whole bunch of evidence that demonstrated the risks and negative impacts of a natural puberty being interrupted or not kicking off. We already know - and have known for a long time - that puberty is a two-part, time-bound process, and that if both parts don't do their thing when they're supposed to, there are problems.

It's such complete woo that it baffles me. If they actually wanted to provide safe and meaningful care to children experiencing distress about their sexed bodies and puberty, they'd be looking for some other means and acknowledging that the current approach is harmful. Instead, they're just parroting a talking point that is completely false, and calling people names when you point out that it's false.

(Because one has to - my stance on puberty blockers remains the same since I last stated it - shouldn't be used based on the current evidence we have.)

You once copied in a long list of the claimed harms - but when I asked you to support the claims you couldn't point to the evidence, do you have the evidence now?

 

[d4m10n]

Every single all-male podium in a women's sport is an injustice to the women who competed there. Each such injustice contributes to normalizing the unjust practices, which has pernicious effects on society as a whole.

I haven't denied any of this but the people preaching inclusion also believe they are pursuing (social) justice.

So no, your minimization argument doesn't impress me.

Saying that the policies prevailing prior to this decade would not completely destroy women's sport is not minimization; at most is it pumping the brakes on arguments rooted in hyperbolic catastrophism.

You're just arguing that we need to allow small evils for no good reason, and embrace a paradigm where these evils can only grow.

I don't recall ever arguing that males on female podiums is something worth embracing.

 

[Elaedith]

New prescriptions of puberty blockers for minors to be paused in Scotland.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't denied any of this but the people preaching inclusion also believe they are pursuing (social) justice.

Yes, I know. I'm receiving the same messages from the same people. You don't need to rebroadcast them for me.

Saying that the policies prevailing prior to this decade would not completely destroy women's sport is not minimization; at most is it pumping the brakes on arguments rooted in hyperbolic catastrophism.

The best time to reduce your speed is before you get to the blind curve or dead end.

I don't recall ever arguing that males on female podiums is something worth embracing.

You're arguing that those who embrace it aren't doing enough harm to justify vehement opposition to that embrace. My rebuttal is that they're not doing any good, and that alone justifies vehement opposition to whatever harm they're doing, no matter how minimal you make it appear.

 

[d4m10n]

You're arguing that those who embrace it aren't doing enough harm to justify vehement opposition to that embrace.

No, I'm arguing that hyperbolic catastrophism (e.g. #1386 & #1390) is silly and quite likely counterproductive. If every sporting woman in the world adopted the attitude of Megan Rapinoe regarding transwomen in sport, women's sport would continue to exist and it would still be mostly comprised of females. This is because women outnumber transwomen everywhere in the world by something like 100:1.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm arguing that hyperbolic catastrophism (e.g. #1386 & #1390) is silly and quite likely counterproductive. If every sporting woman in the world adopted the attitude of Megan Rapinoe regarding transwomen in sport, women's sport would continue to exist and it would still be mostly comprised of females. This is because women outnumber transwomen everywhere in the world by something like 100:1.

I don't think it's hyperbolic. I also think you're making some errant assumptions in your approach.

First off, you're assuming that the ratio of females to transwomen at 100:1 worldwide holds in all localities. I don't have a specific number, but on it's face that wouldn't be a good assumption. There are large swaths of the world where transgender people are actively persecuted, and where it's actually illegal. In those areas, the ratio is going to be much, much higher. In areas like the US, CA, and most of Europe, where transgender people are actually quite accepted in society, the ratio is going to be lower. So for argument's sake, if the average is 100:1 across the world, and it's 1000:1 in unaccepting localities, then it might be more like 50:1 in the US.

According to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...s-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/, there's a pretty significant difference by age band, with about 5% of people 18 to 29 identifying as transgender. Since most athletes fall in that age range, I think that's the metric we should use for this discussion. If we assume that it's the same by sex, then that would be 20:1. That's a lot different from your assumed 100:1.

Second, you're assuming that representation in sport is the same as in the general population. Realistically though, athletes represent only a small portion of females overall. But there's a definite difference in physical capabilities between males and females, which I think you're not taking into consideration. For the sake of argument, let's say that 1 in 100 females is a moderate to good competitive athlete compared to other females. If we assume that this holds true for transgender identified males, that would mean that 1 in 100 transwomen are moderate to good competitive athletes compared to other males. But we already know that poor to mediocre males regularly outperform the best female athletes in a number of sports. So if we're talking about transwomen, then it's not going to be 1 in 100 that are competitive, we're talking about more like 1 in 5 that would be competitive against competitive females.

So lets put that together. If we've got 10,000 females, then at a rate of 20:1, we'd have about 500 transwomen. Out of that 10,000 females, 1% is athletically competitive, which gives us 100 competitive female athletes. Out of the 500 transwomen, 20% would be athletically competitive against females, which gives us 100 competitive transwomen.

Even though the rates in the population are 20:1, there's parity in terms of athletic capability.

And all of this is before we get to the third flawed implicit assumption: That all expressions of gender identity are completely genuine, and that no non-transgender males would *ever* exploit fiat self-id in order to gain prestige as an athlete.

If we're already at parity in terms of athletic capability (which I think is being very generous to females overall), and then we add some additional males who are mediocre performers that exploit the system... what does that mean for female athletics?

What we've seen over the past 5 years is that when transgender identified males compete against females, they win at a disproportionate rate. We've also seen the number of transgender competitors in female athletics continue to increase over time. So not only do we have a disproportionate rate of wins for transgender identified males, we have a higher likelihood of them taking top spots in competitions, at increasing rates.

The only thing that is curtailing this from continuing to escalate is athletic bodies putting sex-based policies in place that prohibit males from competing against females.

If those prohibitions were NOT in place, I see no reason to think that the rate of males participating in and winning female athletic events would plateau or even slow down. Rather, I think it would accelerate. It's that acceleration, and the pushing out of female athletes, that I think you are really underestimating.

 

[Samson]

(Because one has to - my stance on puberty blockers remains the same since I last stated it - shouldn't be used based on the current evidence we have.)

You once copied in a long list of the claimed harms - but when I asked you to support the claims you couldn't point to the evidence, do you have the evidence now?

Sallie Baxendale seems to report a drop in iq ranging from a minimum 7 points to max 15 points. Hard to read on a phone, I thought the paper was well known by now.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...essing_Puberty_on_Neuropsychological_Function

Eta if this report is accurate, it would suggest criminalizing the drug companies and doctors who administer these drugs. Is there a counter argument?

 

[theprestige]

(Because one has to - my stance on puberty blockers remains the same since I last stated it - shouldn't be used based on the current evidence we have.)

You once copied in a long list of the claimed harms - but when I asked you to support the claims you couldn't point to the evidence, do you have the evidence now?

For me it's not a question of data on the harms, it's the absolute lack of data on the goods, and the persecution of anyone who tries to do research into the question.

 

[novaphile]

Gender is a result of self awareness. Animals aren't self aware, as far as we know...

You're not keeping up, self-awareness has been demonstrated in many animals.

Pigeons being the first IIRC.

 

[theprestige]

Peter Watts, Blindsight. The more I learn about consciousness, the more I'm inclined to think it was a mistake.

 

[d4m10n]

According to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...s-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/, there's a pretty significant difference by age band, with about 5% of people 18 to 29 identifying as transgender. Since most athletes fall in that age range, I think that's the metric we should use for this discussion.

We'd need to take into account that adolescent females are more likely than adolescent males to adopt transgender identity and that many of both sexes will adopt non-binary identity, which isn't generally associated with crossing over in sports. Let me dig into the crosstabs and get back to you on this one.

What we've seen over the past 5 years is that when transgender identified males compete against females, they win at a disproportionate rate.

What we've also seen is that they rarely medal in national or international competitions, because the baseline rate of crossover competitors is so low. It is possible that many individual athletes refuse to cross over for fairness reasons, but they are generally cowed into silence on the topic.

We'll never be able to discover whether the catastrophic scenario of TOTAL COLLAPSE OF FEMALE SPORT is realistic, because institutional pushback is already well underway at various levels and because we aren't Angstrom Levy.

 

[ahhell]

For what its worth, Transwomen are women except.
a. Medical care.
b. prison
c. sports
d. children.

e. self idea isn't good enough for bathrooms or locker rooms.

 

[Trausti]

NM

 

[Samson]

Peter Watts, Blindsight. The more I learn about consciousness, the more I'm inclined to think it was a mistake.

Consciousness is one of the singularities.
Language followed, Hollywood followed language.
They presented a long list of Hollywood trans kids, then a short list of children of Bangladeshi farmers trans kids.

Doughnuts.

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't denied any of this but the people preaching inclusion also believe they are pursuing (social) justice.

Fairness and justice (social or not) for some, must never, ever cause unfairness or injustice for others.

Saying that the policies prevailing prior to this decade would not completely destroy women's sport is not minimization; at most is it pumping the brakes on arguments rooted in hyperbolic catastrophism.

Its not hyperbole at all, it simple observation or what is already happening in some sports.

You asked a question earlier about the example I gave of Mountain Biking (particularly Downhill) and Anton "Kate" Weatherly.

"How much had female enrollment fallen in the pre-ban era?"

I can't put a figure on it, but from speaking to people in the sport, it was significant enough to worry organizers.

The popularity of Mountain Biking in this country has climbed steadily since its infancy, from just a few clubs and a few hundred or so participants in the 1980s and 1990s, to 72 clubs and over 18,000 club members and a national series with eight rounds this year. That steady climb has been mostly with mens/boys divisions, until about the early 2010s when the number of girls becoming involved started to increase significantly (an increase which is actually reflected in other sports such as Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and Basketball, sports that, like cycling, have been traditionally male dominated).

At the end of 2017, Weatherly started claiming to be a women and switched to competing in the women's divisions. He went from being a mediocre, middle of the field finisher in men's, to winning the Women's National Downhill title in 2018 and 2019. By 2020, while the number of boys registering was still increasing, the number of girls started to fall. Even worse, girls were either quitting the sport or moving to other types of cycling (presumably where they might be less likely, in this country at least, to find themselves competing against biological males).

Then in July last year, the UCI banned "transgender athletes who transitioned after male puberty" from competing in women's divisions. Weatherly virtually quit racing (I'd say because he knows he is useless against other men)

Clubs are reporting the number of girls registering is going up again so far this year.

Meanwhile in other cycling, champion cyclist Hannah Arensman has quit after losing to a biological man. In quitting, she made a statement...

"It has become increasingly discouraging to train as hard as I do only to have to lose to a man with the unfair advantage of an androgenized body that intrinsically gives him an obvious advantage over me, no matter how hard I train.”

"I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling"​

 

[Samson]

Fairness and justice (social or not) for some, must never, ever cause unfairness or injustice for others.



Its not hyperbole at all, it simple observation or what is already happening in some sports.

You asked a question earlier about the example I gave of Mountain Biking (particularly Downhill) and Anton "Kate" Weatherly.



I can't put a figure on it, but from speaking to people in the sport, it was significant enough to worry organizers.

The popularity of Mountain Biking in this country has climbed steadily since its infancy, from just a few clubs and a few hundred or so participants in the 1980s and 1990s, to 72 clubs and over 18,000 club members and a national series with eight rounds this year. That steady climb has been mostly with mens/boys divisions, until about the early 2010s when the number of girls becoming involved started to increase significantly (an increase which is actually reflected in other sports such as Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and Basketball, sports that, like cycling, have been traditionally male dominated).

At the end of 2017, Weatherly started claiming to be a women and switched to competing in the women's divisions. He went from being a mediocre, middle of the field finisher in men's, to winning the Women's National Downhill title in 2018 and 2019. By 2020, while the number of boys registering was still increasing, the number of girls started to fall. Even worse, girls were either quitting the sport or moving to other types of cycling (presumably where they might be less likely, in this country at least, to find themselves competing against biological males).

Then in July last year, the UCI banned "transgender athletes who transitioned after male puberty" from competing in women's divisions. Weatherly virtually quit racing (I'd say because he knows he is useless against other men)

Clubs are reporting the number of girls registering is going up again so far this year.

Meanwhile in other cycling, champion cyclist Hannah Arensman has quit after losing to a biological man. In quitting, she made a statement...

"It has become increasingly discouraging to train as hard as I do only to have to lose to a man with the unfair advantage of an androgenized body that intrinsically gives him an obvious advantage over me, no matter how hard I train.”

"I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling"​

Good work making the effort to describe specific infractions.
This is helpful.