• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asking you to engage with the conversation, and answer the questions that people have asked, is pretty much the opposite of telling you to shut up.
You’ll note that isn’t what I responded to.

That people didn't repeat questions you had already failed to answer several times doesn't mean that they aren't still waiting for an answer.
You’ll note I looked and did not find what he was referring to.
 
Yep full fringe reset. We're going to have to go through the whole "Durrr I don't understand" script again.
 
Yep full fringe reset. We're going to have to go through the whole "Durrr I don't understand" script again.

“Shut up, TRA!”



ETA: In case it isn’t clear, this in response to theprestige’s post. Whatever frustration he feels, I’ve gotten it twice in a few hours, which is a fairly representative rate for the times I’ve participated.
 
Last edited:
Re: Upchurch:

We're talking about a competition, in this case pool. You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women, so they should compete against women. But as Joe alluded to, you aren't saying that men should compete against women, that there should be zero segregation at all. So I have inferred that you think men have an advantage over women (the only reason to segregate the competition), but transwomen do not. And that logically requires that men have an advantage over transwomen.

So what is that advantage?

This is a question that I'm still waiting for an answer to. You did say "that's a strawman", which I take it to mean "when Zig says 'You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women[...]" you think that's a mischaracterization of your view. I read your view the same way Zig does, but I certainly think it's a valid response to say "I'm not saying transwomen have no advantage over women, I'm saying..." and explain how your view different from Zig's characterization of it. Alternatively, you might think his characterization of it is correct, but that the implications that follow from it are different from what he claims. Or maybe something else.

Asking for some sort of response to this isn't telling you "shut up TRA". It's asking you to engage in this conversation.

I do think it's difficult to engage in discussions when there are ten people responding to and criticizing each of your posts, and so can understand some fatigue with this discussion on your side. But in so much as you're posting in this thread, you're sort of signing up for that. For my part I'll try not to reply to your posts unless I feel I have something unique to offer.
 
This is a question that I'm still waiting for an answer to. You did say "that's a strawman", which I take it to mean "when Zig says 'You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women[...]" you think that's a mischaracterization of your view. I read your view the same way Zig does, but I certainly think it's a valid response to say "I'm not saying transwomen have no advantage over women, I'm saying..." and explain how your view different from Zig's characterization of it. Alternatively, you might think his characterization of it is correct, but that the implications that follow from it are different from what he claims. Or maybe something else.
And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.

There is no one single answer to that question without context.

Now, for example and inevitably, someone will argue that because I think it is a possibility that trans-women have/don’t have an advantage over cis-women in some situations, that means that I’m arguing that trans-women have/don’t have an advantage, period, full stop. That is a straw man and not what I have been saying at all.

Asking for some sort of response to this isn't telling you "shut up TRA". It's asking you to engage in this conversation.
I’m sorry, but what Joe is doing is not asking anyone one to engage in conversation. It is absolutely an attempt to minimize counter points of view by slapping a dismissive label on it and then repeating it over and over. It’s the exact thing theprestige was pointing out, although I would argue it happens more often in the other direction than he thinks.

ETA: to be honest, I don’t even identify with the TRA label and I try to avoid using the transphobe label (although I can’t guarantee that I’ve never used it, depending on the context.)
I do think it's difficult to engage in discussions when there are ten people responding to and criticizing each of your posts, and so can understand some fatigue with this discussion on your side. But in so much as you're posting in this thread, you're sort of signing up for that. For my part I'll try not to reply to your posts unless I feel I have something unique to offer.
I appreciate that. I cannot respond to every post, and there are a few posters I feel just aren’t worth engaging with. There is only so much time in the day and I don’t have the time I once had for this forum, because life. I get that and only chide other people who disappear on rare occasions.

Yes, I do step away when responses get insufferable or drown out the conversations that I’m actually interested in. I would rather be clear headed when I post.
 
Last edited:
I have never once used the term TRA.

Stop lying. At very least stop lying about me if lying is something you just have to do.
 
I have never once used the term TRA.

Stop lying. At very least stop lying about me if lying is something you just have to do.

sigh

I’m not lying and I never said you literally used the term TLA. That phrase is a.. shorthand, I suppose, referring back to theprestige’s conversation from earlier. I even said as much the last time I quoted one of your posts.
 
Cool, whatever.

Going to get around to answering literally any question poised to you at any point?

Please note that "Durrr I don't understand" and "It's complicated" are not answers.
 
And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.

(1) Nature of activity: I started to compile a list where it's indisputable that men have an advantage, but I quickly realized it's silly because it includes almost all sports. There' are several sports where that's debatable. I don't see why men are advantaged at archery for instance. For the miniscule list of sports where men aren't advantaged, sure, open them up to everyone.

But will you concede that for most sports by far, men have an advantage?

(2) When transitioned: Maybe boys who transition before puberty aren't advantaged. I dunno. But this is a rare exception, yes?

(3) How transitioned: Thus impresses me as highly dubious, but maybe there are factors I'm unaware of.

(4) What the person was like pre-transition: This is flat-out absurd. Individual exceptions shouldn't factor in. Since you were shorter, slower, and weaker than the average boy pre-transition, you can be on the girls team. Crikey.
 
Last edited:
And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.

There is no one single answer to that question without context.

I'm having a hard time parsing this as a response to Zig's question. His comments which precede the question were specifically in the context of pool, so your first point doesn't make sense in this context. When we're talking about pool, sure, the nature of the sport matters, but we already know what sport we're talking about. "How many calories in a 100 gram apple?" "It depends on what kind of fruit it is." isn't a meaningful response.

But here's his quote again:
We're talking about a competition, in this case pool. You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women, so they should compete against women. But as Joe alluded to, you aren't saying that men should compete against women, that there should be zero segregation at all. So I have inferred that you think men have an advantage over women (the only reason to segregate the competition), but transwomen do not. And that logically requires that men have an advantage over transwomen.

So what is that advantage?

You list a number of things "it depends" on. Is "it" the advantage that Zig has asked for? I think it's worth pointing out that this question is being asked in the context of segregation into men's and women's divisions. A similar question could be asked about that segregation "what is the advantage that males have over women?"
You could reply to that question similarly to how you replied to Zig's. "It depends on the nature of the sport, it depends on their diet as a child, it depends on what country they grew up on, it depends on what sports they played as a child, it depends on the DNA of their parents, hell it probably depends on their personality as a child".
But you accept this segregation, so you don't consider any of those things to be a reason not to have it.

One reason to ignore all of those "it depends" claims is that they're irrelevant because they're looking at the issue on the wrong level. The question is about the general classes of men and women, not the specific case of any particular individual.

But the same objection applies to your response to Zig's question in the trans case. The question isn't whether a particular trans woman has an advantage over females, but whether or not transwomen in general have such an advantage. Or, at least, if that's not the question then you need to explain why it is the question in the men's/women's division case.
 
(1) Nature of activity: I started to compile a list where it's indisputable that men have an advantage, but I quickly realized it's silly because it includes almost all sports. There' are several sports where that's debatable. I don't see why men are advantaged at archery for instance. For the miniscule list of sports where men aren't advantaged, sure, open them up to everyone.

But will you concede that for most sports by far, men have an advantage?
In athletic sports, probably? Other types, it depends. Like you point out, shooting, hunting, fishing, etc. are also considered sports. Not so much there. And, as was my point way back when, I don't consider pool an athletic sport.

(2) When transitioned: Maybe boys who transition before puberty aren't advantaged. I dunno. But this is a rare exception, yes?
Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?

(3) How transitioned: Thus impresses me as highly dubious, but maybe there are factors I'm unaware of.
The highly accurate and factual /s new movie "Ladyballers" tells the story of cis-men who put on a show of socially transitioning in order to play in women's sports (basketball, I think, from the trailer). Basically, it's staging the trans moral panic scenario of men pretending to be women for gain, right? Can we agree that someone who has only socially transitioned is different from someone who has taken hormones or even undergone surgery?

(Interesting side note, Ben Shapiro wanted to actually have players really do this and shoot it as a documentary, but they weren't allowed to because they're premise is not true. So, they had to do it as a fictional comedy.)

(4) What the person was like pre-transition: This is flat-out absurd. Individual exceptions shouldn't factor in. Since you're short, slow, and weak, you can be on the girls team. Crikey.
That's kinda my point. if a transwoman is short, slow, and weak, do they still have an unfair advantage that means they shouldn't be allowed to participate?
 
I'm having a hard time parsing this as a response to Zig's question. [snip]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking, but I have also already answered this question. I am fine with getting rid of the segregated leagues in pool AND I'm also fine with allowing trans-women participate in the women's league. Either way is good.

As I have also pointed out (but got shouted down because I used the taboo "feminism" word), there is a historic gender role difference in playing pool. I think I also mentioned that it's similar in chess, but that's a different topic. The segregated leagues have an advantage at letting women feel comfortable playing in a sport that is historically dominated by men, without the harassment and other social pressures. (I'll refrain from using the also taboo "safe space".)
 
To return to a point I made at some point in the distant past of this deathspiral made up of other nested deathspirals that walks like a discussion.

We "rank" (for lack of a better term) people WITHOUT CATEGORIZING THEM all the time.

If you're a hockey player going pro they don't measure your testosterone levels and put you in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL. They watch you play hockey and see how good you are at it and just put you in the highest level you can reasonably compete at.

There's no categorical or demographic or "identity" difference between an ECHL and an AHL and an NHL player, and indeed players move between the leagues regularly but we have zero problem sorting hockey into different levels of play.

We are fully capable of going "Here's different level of plays that match up via skill" that doesn't need any "identity demographics" to work.

So yeah why not just do THAT? No womens leagues, no mens leagues, no trans leagues, no cis leagues just... here's the sport/competition/activity/whatever. The Top 1% go in the AAA League, the remaining 5% of that go in the AA League, the remaining 10% of that go into the A league all based on how well they play, no "this has to match my internal identity soul" needed.
 
Last edited:
So yeah why not just do THAT?

Indeed. Why not?

Of course, as I've already said, some activities actually want to draw in groups that have traditionally been excluded from participating, free of those gender role pressures. That's a different objective than just determine who is the best of the best, isn't it?
 
Indeed. Why not?

*Clear my throat* Well you see it's COMPLICATED.

I dunno know. You tell me. You're the one arguing for the side that has a problem with it.

You're the "I can speak for the Trans" Lorex not me.
 
... Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?
That's highly impractical.

Can we agree that someone who has only socially transitioned is different from someone who has taken hormones or even undergone surgery?
Yes but... I thought this branch of the thread only pertained to men who have physically transitioned. I don't accept the concept of social transition, in much the same way that I don't accept Rachel Whatshername as a black person.

That's kinda my point. if a transwoman is short, slow, and weak, do they still have an unfair advantage that means they shouldn't be allowed to participate?
This would only work if there was the sort of ranking system that Joe proposes. Otherwise it's highly impractical, and tough luck life isn't always fair.
 
All the solutions seem to reduce back to "Just shut up and let the trans person do whatever they want in any situation and demand zero consistency from either trans person to trans person or even within the trans person themself."
 
That's highly impractical.
Why? How many cases do you think we're talking about?

Yes but... I thought this branch of the thread only pertained to men who have physically transitioned.
I'm glad you agree. A lot of the memes out there are literally the Ladyballers panic scenario.

This would only work if there was the sort of ranking system that Joe proposes. Otherwise it's highly impractical, and tough luck life isn't always fair.
I agree with everything except the "highly impractical" part.
 
All the solutions seem to reduce back to "Just shut up and let the trans person do whatever they want in any situation and demand zero consistency from either trans person to trans person or even within the trans person themself."

Only if you aren't paying attention, maybe. What about allowing a trans person to participate on a case-by-case basis, for example, just "let the trans person to do whatever they want in any situation"?
 
"Case by case basis" is just "it's complicated" yet again.

We know it's complicated. We heard you the first 20 thousand times. Uncomplicate it.
 
Would you prefer I do that before or after I bring peace to the middle east and solve world hunger?

Dude you choose to put on the "I'm the Lorax for the Trans People" hat, nobody made you do it.

It's not our fault that you decided to take on the roll of spokesperson for a group but can't answer or explain the simplest basic concepts of what you're defending because it's clear you don't actually know, you just got told "To be a good progressive, defend trans people."

Just keeping saying "It's complicated" and "Duuurrr I don't understand your question" over and over.
 
Dude you choose to put on the "I'm the Lorax for the Trans People" hat, nobody made you do it. [snip]
What was that you said about lying and having never said that?

In order to not further trigger Joe, I will point this out to theprestige, without using the shorthand, as yet another instance of that dismissive labeling thing. One could also call it a strawman, but I understand if some don't.
 
What criteria would you suggest for evaluating each case?
Will this do or do you require an individualized response?

And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.

There is no one single answer to that question without context.

If you click the link there is further expansion on that might save a few duplicate posts.
 
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking, but I have also already answered this question. I am fine with getting rid of the segregated leagues in pool AND I'm also fine with allowing trans-women participate in the women's league. Either way is good.

As I have also pointed out (but got shouted down because I used the taboo "feminism" word), there is a historic gender role difference in playing pool. I think I also mentioned that it's similar in chess, but that's a different topic. The segregated leagues have an advantage at letting women feel comfortable playing in a sport that is historically dominated by men, without the harassment and other social pressures. (I'll refrain from using the also taboo "safe space".)

Thanks, I do consider this to be a real response to the question. When it comes to pool, you don't think males do have an advantage over females, and so don't think that transgendered males (trans women) should be prevented from competing with women, not because they are different from other males in not having an advantage, but because there is no male advantage in general.*

If that were the case, I'd be sympathetic to that view (I think I said so in response to your first post in this thread on the subject of pool), though I have reservations which are actually associated with your second paragraph above: whatever the reason that women are underrepresented in pool, and which thus justifies segregation based on sex, I suspect it applies in general. But I am somewhat less concerned about socio-cultural factors that affect representation that biological ones.

That said, I do think there's reason to think that the differences in representation are biological. The evidence that you presented, showing that of the top 100 highest rated players only one (in 59th place) is a woman suggests that something is going on. It certainly could be socio-cultural factors. But there are also good reasons to expect males to perform better in physical activities in general, and Ziggurat earlier gave what I consider convincing arguments for physiological differences that apply to pool specifically.

None of this leads me to certainty, but based on the evidence we have, the best theory seems to me to be that there are meaningful physiological differences leading to the differences in outcomes between the sexes in pool, and that these differences apply with respect to trans women as well as other males. Given that, sex based segregation (as opposed to gender based segregation) seems reasonable.

If evidence were presented that the differences in outcome are not due to physiological differences, I'd update my view, and think there was less justification for sex based segregation, but I wouldn't think there was no justification for it, as explained above.

*EDIT: I paraphrase your viewpoint in part to check if my interpretation is correct, obviously if that paragraph isn't what you think, then please correct my interpretation.
 
Last edited:
What criteria would you suggest for evaluating each case?

Will this do or do you require an individualized response?

If you click the link there is further expansion on that might save a few duplicate posts.

I'm not sure why you think linking me back to the same post that prompted my question about that post, would constitute an answer, but whatever: No, that's won't do, I'm afraid.
How exactly would you conduct that interview? What specific criteria would you need to examine, to determine whether an athlete was sufficiently female enough, or male enough, to be allowed to compete in that division of the sport?
Would you accept self-identity without further medical checks?
If not, what physiological features would you need to see, or not see, to make a judgement?
Would the wishes and input of the other competitors be considered?
 
I'm not sure why you think linking me back to the same post that prompted my question about that post, would constitute an answer, but whatever: No, that's won't do, I'm afraid.
Because it is the same question asked in a different way, but still void of any context needed to give a meaningful answer, assuming I even know enough about whatever situation you are asking about to give a meaningful answer.

As I said before: it depends. It depends on the type of activity, how and when someone transitioned, how you determine an unfair genetic advantage, and possibly what the person was like pre-transition.

Every other question you had falls under that answer without additional context, except this one and then only partially.
Would the wishes and input of the other competitors be considered?
From a player perspective, why would it be? To competitors usually get to choose who they compete within a league (meant as a generic term)?

From a league administration perspective, that depends on their purpose for having segregated leagues. If they offer separate leagues because they feel biological males are significantly superior to biological females, they may have justification for keeping trans participants out. If they are trying to entice underrepresented groups to participate, the justification to keep trans people out weakens significantly.
 
I'm not sure why you think linking me back to the same post that prompted my question about that post, would constitute an answer, but whatever: No, that's won't do, I'm afraid.
How exactly would you conduct that interview? What specific criteria would you need to examine, to determine whether an athlete was sufficiently female enough, or male enough, to be allowed to compete in that division of the sport?
Would you accept self-identity without further medical checks?
If not, what physiological features would you need to see, or not see, to make a judgement?
Would the wishes and input of the other competitors be considered?

"It's complicated."
 
Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?

That's highly impractical.

How are people to be evaluated case-by-case? Size? Speed? A note from the PE teacher? Does each school district create its own standards? Each sport within each district? What about boys who were unable to make the boys team but aren't Trans? Are they too eligible for the girls team?

And of course, each boy/Trans who is allowed on the girls team denies a position for a girl. What about those girls?
 
Last edited:
When it comes to pool, you don't think males do have an advantage over females, and so don't think that transgendered males (trans women) should be prevented from competing with women, not because they are different from other males in not having an advantage, but because there is no male advantage in general.*

[snip]

*EDIT: I paraphrase your viewpoint in part to check if my interpretation is correct, obviously if that paragraph isn't what you think, then please correct my interpretation.
:thumbsup: All good.


If that were the case, I'd be sympathetic to that view (I think I said so in response to your first post in this thread on the subject of pool), though I have reservations which are actually associated with your second paragraph above: whatever the reason that women are underrepresented in pool, and which thus justifies segregation based on sex, I suspect it applies in general.
I would replace "sex" with "gender", especially if we're talking about socio-cultural factors. Sex is biological, gender (and gender role) is societal.


But I am somewhat less concerned about socio-cultural factors that affect representation that biological ones.
Yep. I would guess most of the people still in this thread are somewhere on a scale from "less concerned" to "it doesn't exist". That probable accounts for most of the disconnect, but that's just a guess.


That said, I do think there's reason to think that the differences in representation are biological. The evidence that you presented, showing that of the top 100 highest rated players only one (in 59th place) is a woman suggests that something is going on. It certainly could be socio-cultural factors. But there are also good reasons to expect males to perform better in physical activities in general, and Ziggurat earlier gave what I consider convincing arguments for physiological differences that apply to pool specifically.
The difference is that I provided evidence to support my argument and Zig hasn't. Not that those biological differences don't exist, but that they make a significant difference in professional pool players.

I know people have dismissed the video I posted, but I will point out that it was published by the organization that calculates and tracks those ratings, so it is, at the very least, an appropriate and recognized authority in the subject.

As a disclaimer, it was 6 years ago and many things can happen in 6 years. I previously found some chatter that the rating system had changed in the past few years. So, I take it as true, at least as of 6 years ago.


None of this leads me to certainty, but based on the evidence we have, the best theory seems to me to be that there are meaningful physiological differences leading to the differences in outcomes between the sexes in pool, and that these differences apply with respect to trans women as well as other males. Given that, sex based segregation (as opposed to gender based segregation) seems reasonable.
I understand what you're saying, but what evidence? From what I've seen, there is precious little when it comes to pool that actually breaks down male/female representation and ability. Again, what Zig suggests is conjecture that those biological differences are significant to actual performance.


If evidence were presented that the differences in outcome are not due to physiological differences, I'd update my view, and think there was less justification for sex based segregation, but I wouldn't think there was no justification for it, as explained above.
Likewise, if evidence were presented that the differences in outcome are due to physiological differences, I'd update my view about segregation in pool. There just hasn't been any.
 
How are people to be evaluated case-by-case? Size? Speed? A note from the PE teacher? Does each school district create its own standards? Each sport within each district? What about boys who were unable to make the boys team but aren't Trans? Are they too eligible for the girls team?

And of course, each boy/Trans who is allowed on the girls team denies a position for a girl. What about those girls?

Oh. You cut off the rest of my question before answering. Why did you do that?
 
Oh. You cut off the rest of my question before answering. Why did you do that?
I wasn't addressing that aspect. And it was already mentioned in the first quote where I did not cut it off. And because my questions apply no matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom