Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Re: the underlined. What about transgender identified female swimmers?

Are there any at a high enough level to compete in the world cup? What chance would they have against transwomen (i.e., biological males).

Once you have answered those two questions., you will have your answer as to why no transmen entered that division either.

 

[Rolfe]

Are there any at a high enough level to compete in the world cup? What chance would they have against transwomen (i.e., biological males).

Once you have answered those two questions., you will have your answer as to why no transmen entered that division either.

At the time Will Thomas was swimming in the women's category there was a trans-identifying woman competing in the same area. I can't remember her name. She also competed in the women's category. She chose not to take testosterone so that she could go on doing that, because obviously that's a banned substance. She did quite well, as I remember. She would have been nowhere in the men's category.

Nobody had the slightest problem with her swimming against other women, obviously. I don't know which changing room she used but I suspect the women's too.

 

[smartcooky]

I mean, I understand why the anti-trans side has to dig in against analogies regarding race and all.

We are not "anti-trans" we are "pro women's rights". There is a HUGE difference - one that keeps escaping you

Yet the analogy is rock solid.

Its a false analogy fallacy, but I fully understand why you are desperate to cling to it

Our anti-discrimination laws serve the interests of protected classes, of which race, sex, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc are under the umbrella of. It doesn't matter if you were 'born that way' or not.

More fallacies

Even if smartcooky's horrific argument was true (that being trans is a choice)

Its not just an argument... its a fact

I suppose the argument also assumes like someone choosing to be gay), you are still protected.

Being gay is not a choice. Being trans is a choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sex segregation is fine, in any practical sense. It just doesn't work well under the laws as we have now.

Then we should just change the laws, not do away with sex segregation.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean, I understand why the anti-trans side has to dig in against analogies regarding race and all. It's not pretty to look in that particular mirror. Yet the analogy is rock solid. Our anti-discrimination laws serve the interests of protected classes, of which race, sex, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc are under the umbrella of. It doesn't matter if you were 'born that way' or not. Even if smartcooky's horrific argument was true (that being trans is a choice, I suppose the argument also assumes like someone choosing to be gay), you are still protected.

I don't think you understand the law. Forget gender for a moment, and just look at sex. Sex is a protected class for a lot of stuff. But sex segregation in bathrooms, locker rooms , and sports is acceptable. That's really not under debate. Why? Because, believe it or not, protected class status DOES NOT prohibit any and all discrimination. It places a greater burden on the justification of any such discrimination, but it's not an absolute ban on it. The comparison to racial discrimination fails because racial discrimination cannot meet the burden. Sex is not equivalent to race, and in these specific conditions, sex discrimination can meet that burden. Which is why it hasn't been outlawed.

Ok, so what about gender discrimination? Irrelevant to our debate. Transwomen who are prohibited from entering women's bathrooms, changing rooms, or sports events are not prohibited on the basis of their gender, but of their sex. And these specific forms of sex discrimination are legal. Gender is simply not being used to discriminate. It is, in fact, being ignored. You cannot discriminate on the basis of a factor you ignore. That's a logical impossibility.

 

[d4m10n]

Yet the analogy is rock solid.

The analogy is made of cardboard balanced on a rickety wooden palette perched upon a sandbar.

When we passed civil rights laws in the U.S. there were no loopholes written in to preserve some forms of racial segregation as "separate but equal" and legally permitted.

When we passed Title IX^WP there was no doubt in anyone's mind that women's and men's locker rooms, sports leagues, and record books would remain fully segregated by sex even as resources were reallocated to create more balance between the sexes.

In the former case, the intent was to integrate that which was separate; in the latter case the intent was to promote equality of opportunity without legally requiring any integration.

 

[Rolfe]

A long article about the men who espouse the trans cause and their essential misogyny.

https://thecritic.co.uk/trans-activism-is-progressive-mans-manosphere/

Takes me back to the Dorothy L Sayers article, The human not-quite-human. I genuinely thought we'd got past this, but if anything, it's worse now.

 

[Graham2001]

Courtesy of The Guardian...

Britain’s first transgender judge is taking the UK to the European court of human rights over the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.

The UK supreme court ruled earlier this month that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex, with subsequent guidance from the equality watchdog amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

Victoria McCloud, a retired judge, is applying to the European court of human rights to bring action against the UK for infringement of her article 6 rights.

UK’s first trans judge appeals to European court of human rights over supreme court ruling

 

[Thermal]

But sex segregation in bathrooms, locker rooms , and sports is acceptable. That's really not under debate.

If this, or any of the rest of your postings were true, this thread and this debate wouldn't exist.

Then we should just change the laws, not do away with sex segregation.

Pretty much what's being argued, yes.

 

[theprestige]

I mean, I understand why the anti-trans side has to dig in against analogies regarding race and all. It's not pretty to look in that particular mirror. Yet the analogy is rock solid. Our anti-discrimination laws serve the interests of protected classes, of which race, sex, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc are under the umbrella of. It doesn't matter if you were 'born that way' or not. Even if smartcooky's horrific argument was true (that being trans is a choice, I suppose the argument also assumes like someone choosing to be gay), you are still protected.

I like the appeal to misogyny better, because it's not an analogy at all, just a consequence of promoting fiat self-ID to override sex segregation. I understand etc. Not pretty to look in that mirror etc.

What does transphobia even consist of? It's obviously not sexism. A transphobe is more akin to a schizophobe, or a Munchausen's-phobe by proxy. Or, alternatively, a furry-phobe, or an otherkin-phobe.

It's not hateful to require men to stay out of the women's restrooms (and everything else), regardless of what they say they want.

 

[Ziggurat]

If this, or any of the rest of your postings were true, this thread and this debate wouldn't exist.

That's an erroneous conclusion. Various state and local authorities have opted for self-ID bathroom access because they want it, not because the constitution or federal law compels it.

 

[p0lka]

Are there any at a high enough level to compete in the world cup? What chance would they have against transwomen (i.e., biological males).

Once you have answered those two questions., you will have your answer as to why no transmen entered that division either.

Possibly, Don't know. There are your two answers. I'm more interested in why you say this
This pretty much proves that transgender identified male swimmers want to compete against women where they know they have a physiological advantage and can stick it to those uppity females.
and yet you treat trans men differently. Any transman in the biological man swimming stuff would also find it easier to switch to transgender division as there would be less men there and therefore easier, following your logic. Why didn't they switch?

 

[Ziggurat]

and yet you treat trans men differently. Any transman in the biological man swimming stuff would also find it easier to switch to transgender division as there would be less men there and therefore easier, following your logic. Why didn't they switch?

A transgender division is still going to be dominated by males, female athletes are still going to lose.

But it's also interesting to note that there don't seem to be very many transmen athletes to begin with. There may be multiple reasons for that. If they are allowed to compete in the men's competition, they'll still lose, because testosterone doping a female doesn't turn her into a male. If they are on testosterone, they cannot be allowed to compete against females, because that's doping and would violate the rules. If they aren't on testosterone but identify as trans, nobody cares, they're still just another woman competing against women. So the incentive structure for trans identifying male athletes (either to become trans or to become athletes) just isn't really there for trans identifying females.

 

[theprestige]

Possibly, Don't know. There are your two answers. I'm more interested in why you say this
This pretty much proves that transgender identified male swimmers want to compete against women where they know they have a physiological advantage and can stick it to those uppity females.
and yet you treat trans men differently. Any transman in the biological man swimming stuff would also find it easier to switch to transgender division as there would be less men there and therefore easier, following your logic. Why didn't they switch?

My hypothesis is that competitive athletes are motivated by a desire to test their minds and bodies against like-minded opponents of similar potential. I'd guess that a trans-identified female chooses to compete in the women's division because they'd rather rank among their peers, than stand on an empty podium for lack of competition.

Men and women go trans for different reasons. The pathological desire to be treated as the opposite sex, against all reason and logic, seems to be a predominantly male trans characteristic. Men who choose to compete in women's divisions are either enjoying a significant and unfair advantage, and simply don't care. Or they're purposefully downgrading their athletic potential because being treated as female is more important to them than being an athlete. Either way, it's perverse, regardless of what trans-identified females are up to.

Unless you're unreasonably wedded to the idea that the sexes are congruent, none of this should be a surprise to you.

 

[Rolfe]

Transmen don't go in the men's division. They're not that stupid. They go in the women's division, where they belong. Nobody minds. (So long as they're not taking prohibited substances, which tends to be a bit of a no-no anywhere.)

 

[Rolfe]

Courtesy of The Guardian...

UK’s first trans judge appeals to European court of human rights over supreme court ruling

This is a laugh a minute. You would think a former judge would understand legal procedure, but apparently not.

The Supreme Court was deciding a point of law, that is whether a man with a GRC counted as a woman for the purposes of the EA, or not. It practically never takes interventions from individuals in the first place, only from groups. Those groups it chooses to intervene are selected because they have particular legal arguments supporting one side of the question or the other. People saying "Boo hoo, if you decide this way, I'll be sad," is not something they're even marginally concerned with.

He isn't even eligible to intervene in the first place, as he hasn't lived in Britain at any point during which the disputed law was in force.

Also, he can't just appeal straight to the ECHR, there are several levels of lower courts he'd have to take it through first. (IANAL, but I follow some damn fine lawyers on Twitter.)

The reasoning in the judgment is so clear, so careful and so watertight, that he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. People are saying they hope he'll go through with it, because it would cement the SC judgment even more securely. Some have even opined that there is a non-zero chance that he could get the GRA repealed while he's at it.

 

[smartcooky]

Possibly, Don't know. There are your two answers.

The actual answers are "No" and "None"

I'm more interested in why you say this
This pretty much proves that transgender identified male swimmers want to compete against women where they know they have a physiological advantage and can stick it to those uppity females.
and yet you treat trans men differently.

Of course I do, because they are different. You seem to think this is two equal sides of the same coin... its not. A transwoman is a biological male - a transman is a biological female. These are simply scientific facts.

Transwoman outnumber transmen in the general population by somewhere between 2:1 and 6:1, so you would think that would be reflected in the figures for sports... but it's not. There are far more transwomen trying to compete in women's sports than transmen trying to compete in men's sport. I have seen various figures bandied about for this, but they are all up in the high ratios... somewhere around 30:1 to 70:1. So, why is this the case? This study might help you to understand.

Transwoman Elite Athletes: Their Extra Percentage Relative to Female Physiology - PMC

There is increasing debate as to whether transwoman athletes should be included in the elite female competition. Most elite sports are divided into male and female divisions because of the greater athletic performance displayed by males. Without the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Without the sex division, females would have little chance of winning because males are faster, stronger, and have greater endurance capacity. Male physiology underpins their better athletic performance including increased muscle mass and strength, stronger bones, different skeletal structure, better adapted cardiorespiratory systems, and early developmental effects on brain networks that wires males to be inherently more competitive and aggressive. Testosterone secreted before birth, postnatally, and then after puberty is the major factor that drives these physiological sex differences, and as adults, testosterone levels are ten to fifteen times higher in males than females. The non-overlapping ranges of testosterone between the sexes has led sports regulators, such as the International Olympic Committee, to use 10 nmol/L testosterone as a sole physiological parameter to divide the male and female sporting divisions. Using testosterone levels as a basis for separating female and male elite athletes is arguably flawed. Male physiology cannot be reformatted by estrogen therapy in transwoman athletes because testosterone has driven permanent effects through early life exposure. This descriptive critical review discusses the inherent male physiological advantages that lead to superior athletic performance and then addresses how estrogen therapy fails to create a female-like physiology in the male. Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete.

Take for example, swimming.
The men's 100m freestyle world record is 46.40 sec
The women's 100m freestyle world record is 51.71 sec
The fastest 139 male swimmers all have times faster than the woman's world record (139th is Pierre Largeron or France, 51.67 sec)

Similar applies in other events - butterfly, breaststroke, backstroke, and over other distances, 200m, 400m, 800m etc

Any transman in the biological man swimming stuff would also find it easier to switch to transgender division as there would be less men there and therefore easier, following your logic. Why didn't they switch?

No, because a transman in any transgender category is still going to be swimming against transwomen, who are biological males, unless ONLY transmen entered that category.

Why does anyone want to compete in a sport? Because they like to win, and some are prepared to cheat to win (Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Diego Maradonna, Tonya Harding, The Spanish Paralympic Basketball team, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, the Houston Astros). Some sportsmen have simply found another way to cheat and win ("Kate" Weatherly, "Lia" Thomas)

 

[smartcooky]

This is a laugh a minute. You would think a former judge would understand legal procedure, but apparently not.

The Supreme Court was deciding a point of law, that is whether a man with a GRC counted as a woman for the purposes of the EA, or not. It practically never takes interventions from individuals in the first place, only from groups. Those groups it chooses to intervene are selected because they have particular legal arguments supporting one side of the question or the other. People saying "Boo hoo, if you decide this way, I'll be sad," is not something they're even marginally concerned with.

He isn't even eligible to intervene in the first place, as he hasn't lived in Britain at any point during which the disputed law was in force.

Also, he can't just appeal straight to the ECHR, there are several levels of lower courts he'd have to take it through first. (IANAL, but I follow some damn fine lawyers on Twitter.)

The reasoning in the judgment is so clear, so careful and so watertight, that he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. People are saying they hope he'll go through with it, because it would cement the SC judgment even more securely. Some have even opined that there is a non-zero chance that he could get the GRA repealed while he's at it.

The UK is not in Europe any more, so does the ECHR still have jurisdiction? Can the UK just tell them to go pound sand?

 

[d4m10n]

Came across this quote today in a substack post from yesterday:

(Wow, that image share turned out to be waaay larger than expected; I'm still learning the substack interface.)

Anyhow, here it is again, as three distinct claims:

1. “No one should be denied housing, healthcare, or employment because of their presentation, or whom they love, or their own subjective sense of themselves.”
2. “[G]ender identity has no place in law.”
3. “Democrats who try to dig it even more deeply into law are only going to lose more voters.”

(Emphasis in original)

I assume basically everyone here thinks the first statement is uncontroversial and the last one empirical (determined by polls and/or ballots) but the middle one is fairly controversial and stated about as baldly as possible.

What would you say is the steelman version of the best argument against that proposition?

(Perhaps a specific bill or law that takes self-i.d. into account in a sensible and necessary way.)

 

[theprestige]

(Wow, that image share turned out to be waaay larger than expected; I'm still learning the substack interface.)

Anyhow, here it is again, as three distinct claims:

1. “No one should be denied housing, healthcare, or employment because of their presentation, or whom they love, or their own subjective sense of themselves.”
2. “[G]ender identity has no place in law.”
3. “Democrats who try to dig it even more deeply into law are only going to lose more voters.”

(Emphasis in original)

I assume basically everyone here thinks the first statement is uncontroversial and the last one empirical (determined by polls and/or ballots) but the middle one is fairly controversial and stated about as baldly as possible.

What would you say is the steelman version of the best argument against that proposition?

(Perhaps a specific bill or law that takes self-i.d. into account in a sensible and necessary way.)

I think any law that prohibits discrimination in housing or employment based on gender expression completes the assignment.

I also think such laws are kind of a "negative space" kind of thing. They're saying that gender identity cannot have any legal place in hiring and housing decisions. The laws only bring it up to say it has no place in such matters.

So while there is an obvious "wElL AcKsHuLlY" rebuttal here, I think that laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity comport with the spirit of the second statement.