Transgender MEGATHREAD

[Josquius]

What is this position no one hold that you refer to?

I think one big difference is the importance on high school and college sports that you guys don't have.  If someone held a gun to my head and said pick only one, I'd say ban them from amateur sports and let them play pro.

The thing about the bad faith edge is a convincing argument from a tribalist POV: we can't let the bad guys win.  It's less convincing to someone trying to decide based on the merits.

That a guy can just declare themself a woman on a whim and instantly get access to women's sports (and women's spaces et al)

Why would you ban them from high school but not pro? At pro level you get people pushing their bodies to the absolute limits. This can amplify any natural advantages, factor in the prize money and you can bet if it was a simple case of "I am a woman now so let me enter the women's event" some would do it.
At hs level... Less so. Also worth considering if a tend woman is 16  it's likely they avoided male puberty, so it just stinks of petty politics to try and artificially exclude them from stuff cis girls get to do.

And yeah. It's depressing people just trying to get by in their life is being made a political issue. I don't buy that they actually care about women's rights. Its interesting that this stuff tends to come from those with no prior interest in women's well being or sports. That they're grasping for such an extreme position too... It's purely cynical.

It's a really bad faith topic all round, the skinny end of a wedge anti LGBT folk want to drive in against the whole group. Particularly worthy of scorn when they try and claim to be on the side of women's rights.

What about the bad faith of assuming that anyone who cares about this that doesn't agree with you are "anti LGBT" folk?

Is it not possible to have an opinion about this that does not align with your own, but is in fact held in good faith?

If so, is it not in fact bad faith to ascribe to anyone holding such an opinion...bad faith?

"You just call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi!" - an expression that you see far more often than anyone actually being called a nazi.

I'm speaking about anti LGBT people. I never said anything close to that includes everyone who isn't me.

Where are these anti-LGBT people in this thread? Who are you arguing with?

When you are engaged in a discussion with actual people who are actually responding to your posts, it seems reasonable to presume that your responses to their posts are intended to be for them, so that when you say something like "It's a really bad faith topic all round" and "...skinny end of a wedge anti LGBT folk" it seems reasonable to assume that the "folk" in question are in fact those making the argument that this isn't as simple as you claim it to be.

Indeed, I am not sure there is any way to interpret that in any other fashion - you certainly don't make any effort to discriminate in your blast at " bad faith...all around" and "anti LGBT folk" from those who you are discussing the topic with.

But I guess at the end of the day we are agreeing - it is in fact perfectly possible to have a perfectly good faith discussion about this topic where nobody inbvolved, even those who do think trans people should be restricted (in some fashion) from gender specific sports, is motivated by being "anti LGBT".

Of course, that makes the observation that it is a "Bad faith topic all round" kind of non-sensical. But whatever.

I'm not arguing with anyone. Not every discussion needs to be a black and white argument.
You seem to be the one trying to claim its a simple argument. My entire point was its really not despite there being a definite effort out in the world to frame it that way.
Youre going in loops with the rest of the post and I've no idea what you're trying to say or how to respond.

[Berkut]

What is this position no one hold that you refer to?

I think one big difference is the importance on high school and college sports that you guys don't have.  If someone held a gun to my head and said pick only one, I'd say ban them from amateur sports and let them play pro.

The thing about the bad faith edge is a convincing argument from a tribalist POV: we can't let the bad guys win.  It's less convincing to someone trying to decide based on the merits.

That a guy can just declare themself a woman on a whim and instantly get access to women's sports (and women's spaces et al)

They cannot do that now because the rules do not allow it.

There appears to be at least some kind of effort to get those rules changed to allow people who identify as women but have male physiology to compete in womens sports at some levels.

Is that true, or is that not true?

If true, it is perfectly reasonable to consider that carefully and do so in a manner that has nothing to do with being "anti-LGBT".

If it is not true, then there is no argument.

Why would you ban them from high school but not pro? At pro level you get people pushing their bodies to the absolute limits. This can amplify any natural advantages, factor in the prize money and you can bet if it was a simple case of "I am a woman now so let me enter the women's event" some would do it.
At hs level... Less so. Also worth considering if a tend woman is 16  it's likely they avoided male puberty, so it just stinks of petty politics to try and artificially exclude them from stuff cis girls get to do.

"Artificially" exclude them? Who is arguing in bad faith again?

There is nothing "artificial" about recognizing that there is in fact a difference between male and female physiology, and how that applies to athletic capability at all levels.

Many people say "Hey, if someone finds their sexual identity so critical that they are willing to undergo the physical, emotional, and social risks involved in identifying as something other than their born gender, there is no way they would do that just so they could get onto a girls team!"

OK. I don't see the point though - it doesn't matter what motivated them - they could have the most pure possible motives. It would still mean that they have a significant competitive advantage over their female peers when it comes to athletic competition.

Finally, the ability to compete in even high school is insanely unfairly distributed anyway. In most schools, even making an varsity sports team is competitive and by its very nature exclusionary. There are MANY, indeed MOST, students who by virtue of their simply bad genetic luck, or environmental factors, who cannot compete at the level necessary to make a high school sports team. Why is having the bad luck of being born a different gender then you identify as so different from the bad luck of being too short for basketball or too slow to run sprint?

If their sexual identity is so critical to them (and I absolutely believe that it is), giving up something most of your peers don't get to do anyway seems like a small, even trivial, price to pay compared to the other prices paid for that.

And yeah. It's depressing people just trying to get by in their life is being made a political issue. I don't buy that they actually care about women's rights. Its interesting that this stuff tends to come from those with no prior interest in women's well being or sports. That they're grasping for such an extreme position too... It's purely cynical.

I think there are two sides of cynicism here, and yours is fully as cynical as those who actually don't care about women's sports, and just as political.

[Admiral Yi]

That a guy can just declare themself a woman on a whim and instantly get access to women's sports (and women's spaces et al)

And what do you think the reality is?  Is there some long involved process to be eligible to play women's sports?  I don't know myself and since you seem to know I would be happy to be informed.

Why would you ban them from high school but not pro? At pro level you get people pushing their bodies to the absolute limits. This can amplify any natural advantages, factor in the prize money and you can bet if it was a simple case of "I am a woman now so let me enter the women's event" some would do it.
At hs level... Less so. Also worth considering if a tend woman is 16  it's likely they avoided male puberty, so it just stinks of petty politics to try and artificially exclude them from stuff cis girls get to do.

For the reason I stated in the post you quoted.  At least in the US, high school and college sports are important to the people who play them.

And yeah. It's depressing people just trying to get by in their life is being made a political issue. I don't buy that they actually care about women's rights. Its interesting that this stuff tends to come from those with no prior interest in women's well being or sports. That they're grasping for such an extreme position too... It's purely cynical.

I get the feeling the my comment which generated this response didn't register at all.

Now either there are three groups of people--(a) the virtuous, woke, and right people, (b) the evil cynical right wingers who have no interest in women's sports, and (c) people who oppose trans participation in women's sports for non-evil reasons--or there are just two.  The good guys and the bad guys.

I point out that to people who decide on the merits (I'm putting myself in that category) it's irrelevant what the evil right wingers are thinking.  And you respond by doubling down on how evil the right wingers are, but your language this time is not distinguishing these beliefs as only belonging to evil right wingers, now it sounds like you think anyone who opposes trans paticipation in sports is evil, cynical, etc.

[The Brain]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

[Berkut]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

Who has such an idea? Can you point them out to us?

[The Brain]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

Who has such an idea? Can you point them out to us?

People who think that even if transwomen are women, they shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

[Berkut]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

Who has such an idea? Can you point them out to us?

People who think that even if transwomen are women, they shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

Let's keep a sharp eye out for them!

[grumbler]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

Who has such an idea? Can you point them out to us?

People who think that even if transwomen are women, they shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

If equality is the goal, then concepts like "women's sports" have to go.  Just have everyone have equal access to any given competitive sport, and let the chips fall where they may.  All of the issues around trans participation disappear.

[Berkut]

The idea that equality should end the moment it inconveniences something as non-critical as competitive sports seems weird to me. Kind of an odd hill to die on.

Who has such an idea? Can you point them out to us?

People who think that even if transwomen are women, they shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

If equality is the goal, then concepts like "women's sports" have to go.  Just have everyone have equal access to any given competitive sport, and let the chips fall where they may.  All of the issues around trans participation disappear.

Indeed

[DontSayBanana]

If equality is the goal, then concepts like "women's sports" have to go.  Just have everyone have equal access to any given competitive sport, and let the chips fall where they may.  All of the issues around trans participation disappear.

Well put, and exactly where I've landed. My point a few posts back was that gendered sports implicitly makes assumptions about an athlete's body type which are increasingly unreliable. If this is really about player equality, we have to group in terms of kinetic potential. If this is really about player safety, we have to group in terms of body mass. No substitutions for the actual quantitative data. Anything else is stereotyping, and that kind of bias can easily snowball into anti-trans problems.

[Berkut]

Increasingly unreliable?

Really? How is the unreliability of "assumptions about athletes body types" increasingly unreliable? Or an assumption to begin with?

I am very confident that the physiology around human anatomy has not changed significantly in some time, and is not changing now.

[Berkut]

If equality is the goal, then concepts like "women's sports" have to go.  Just have everyone have equal access to any given competitive sport, and let the chips fall where they may.  All of the issues around trans participation disappear.

Well put, and exactly where I've landed. My point a few posts back was that gendered sports implicitly makes assumptions about an athlete's body type which are increasingly unreliable. If this is really about player equality, we have to group in terms of kinetic potential. If this is really about player safety, we have to group in terms of body mass. No substitutions for the actual quantitative data. Anything else is stereotyping, and that kind of bias can easily snowball into anti-trans problems.

This, right here, is why the right makes so much hay out of the left's bonkersness.

"Anything else" is stereotyping.

So fucking what? We stereotype all the time. We just assume that humans beings have two legs, which clearly is not always true! We assume people have two eyes, and yet many do not!

We should only work on relevant data! Stop stereotyping! No assuming that humans have two hands, and hence can actually drive a car that requires a hand on the steering wheel and another on the gear shift! We make all cars operable by someone without any hands, because to do otherwise is a "stereotype", and MUST lead to "anti-people without two hands" problems!

You know, we can manage to just assume that most people have two legs, even while we accommodate the reality that some do not. The reality is that most human beings are cis, and we can accomodate the fact that most is not all without throwing out perfectly useful groupings that have served us just fine like "women's sports".

Christ, who the hell would want to go watch a basketball game where everyone in the game is carefully measured to all be exactly the same.

This is some kind of Gattica level shit right here.

[grumbler]

Increasingly unreliable?

Really? How is the unreliability of "assumptions about athletes body types" increasingly unreliable? Or an assumption to begin with?

I am very confident that the physiology around human anatomy has not changed significantly in some time, and is not changing now.

I am pretty sure that a person taking hormone therapies (as part of a gender transition, for example) has a different anatomy than anything that was commonly seen before, say, 1940.  I am very confident that anyone's "very confident" statements about transgender issues are unwise.

[Berkut]

Increasingly unreliable?

Really? How is the unreliability of "assumptions about athletes body types" increasingly unreliable? Or an assumption to begin with?

I am very confident that the physiology around human anatomy has not changed significantly in some time, and is not changing now.

I am pretty sure that a person taking hormone therapies (as part of a gender transition, for example) has a different anatomy than anything that was commonly seen before, say, 1940.  I am very confident that anyone's "very confident" statements about transgender issues are unwise.

I'll keep that in mind if someone makes "very confident statements about transgender issues".

[grumbler]

This, right here, is why the right makes so much hay out of the left's bonkersness.

"Anything else" is stereotyping.

So fucking what? We stereotype all the time. We just assume that humans beings have two legs, which clearly is not always true! We assume people have two eyes, and yet many do not!

We should only work on relevant data! Stop stereotyping! No assuming that humans have two hands, and hence can actually drive a car that requires a hand on the steering wheel and another on the gear shift! We make all cars operable by someone without any hands, because to do otherwise is a "stereotype", and MUST lead to "anti-people without two hands" problems!

You know, we can manage to just assume that most people have two legs, even while we accommodate the reality that some do not. The reality is that most human beings are cis, and we can accomodate the fact that most is not all without throwing out perfectly useful groupings that have served us just fine like "women's sports".

Christ, who the hell would want to go watch a basketball game where everyone in the game is carefully measured to all be exactly the same.

This is some kind of Gattica level shit right here.

   Wow.  A strawman wrapped in an enigma inside a riddle.  Who besides you has suggested that they favor "a basketball game where everyone in the game is carefully measured to all be exactly the same?"

The point of the entire transgender issue is that groupings like "women's sports" are no longer so useful, because usefully defining "women" in a sporting context s no longer serving us "just fine," as you argue.  Rene Richards observed that, had she transitioned when she first wanted to at age 26, she'd have won the next ten Wimbledon's Women's Championships, easily (competing against men at that time, she won 5 of the next ten US Opens) and taken pretty much every other championship she wanted.  Would that have been evidence of your "perfectly fine" grouping?