Transgender MEGATHREAD

[Berkut]

"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."

He did.

[Eddie Teach]

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?

Trans-women excluded. Problem solved.

[DGuller]

I think this is one of those issues where everything is more obvious that people pretend.  Women's sports is usually a category from which some people are excluded.  It's not a mirror of men's sports, where usually no one is excluded (men just happen to have such an advantage that they're the only ones competing in men's sports). 

Why do we have a category that excludes some participants?  We have them in order to allow people who don't have male physical advantages to be competitive in their own category.

[Berkut]

I think this is one of those issues where everything is more obvious that people pretend.  Women's sports is usually a category from which some people are excluded.  It's not a mirror of men's sports, where usually no one is excluded (men just happen to have such an advantage that they're the only ones competing in men's sports). 

Why do we have a category that excludes some participants?  We have them in order to allow people who don't have male physical advantages to be competitive in their own category.

Exactly. Notice nobody is demanding that men transitioning to women be excluded from mens sports, or care if women transitioning to men want to play mens sports - although that is likely just as "unfair" as NOT letting a man transitioning to a women play womens sports.

Hell, I don't pretend to know what the right answer is - I suspect the best we are going to do is take it as a case by case basis, and let local organizations make the call.

And yes, that does mean that some of those local organizations will make bad calls, some of them are likely even to be motivated by bad faith assholes.

[The Brain]

I don't see how sports is significantly different from every other part of society. If transwomen are women then the "separate but equal" attitude leaves a bad taste in the mouth. There has always been arguments put forward against equality, but THIS time they are correct? I don't see it.

If transwomen are women, then as soon as you internally accept that they are, the "problem" of having transwomen in women's sports disappears. In the words of En Vogue: free your mind, and the rest will follow.

[Admiral Yi]

If transwomen are women, then as soon as you internally accept that they are, the "problem" of having transwomen in women's sports disappears.

If I internally accept they are women, the problem still exists as long as little girls and their parents think it's unfair.

[The Brain]

If transwomen are women, then as soon as you internally accept that they are, the "problem" of having transwomen in women's sports disappears.

If I internally accept they are women, the problem still exists as long as little girls and their parents think it's unfair.

The point being?

[Admiral Yi]

The point being?

The point being the problem does not disappear.  Which is different than your point, which is that it disappears.  My point is in opposition to your point.

[The Brain]

The point being?

The point being the problem does not disappear.  Which is different than your point, which is that it disappears.  My point is in opposition to your point.

My guess is that you know what I wrote, and only pretend not to.

[Eddie Teach]

Brain, if it helps, you could think of "women's sports" as "cis-women's sports" and both trans woman and cis-women as subsets of women. Then your bit of sophistry falls apart.

[Tamas]

I guess a summary is that we have two competing concepts:

1. Gender is a social construct defining an undefined set of attributes which are vital for a person's identity, but most definitely do not include their birth sex and resulting physiological attributes like hormone balance and shape of genitals. Therefore, division of society into genders is desired, but considering birth sex during gender division is undesired and morally wrong.

2. The difference between the two default birth sexes define physical differences which should be accounted for in certain areas of life to minimise the impact of these differences on equality within society. Most notably in sports. The classification of people into genders can be utilised for this purpose.


Now quite obviously both of these concepts cannot survive in parallel. Either women's sports will go away, closing down a route of self-fulfillment to near-50% of the population that's currently open (in the developed world, anyhow), or society will tilt back toward the concept of your birth sex bearing a relation to your gender.

[The Brain]

Brain, if it helps, you could think of "women's sports" as "cis-women's sports" and both trans woman and cis-women as subsets of women. Then your bit of sophistry falls apart.

If transwomen are women then "women's sports" isn't cis-women's sports unless you discriminate against transwomen.

FWIW my impression is that many people do indeed think of women's sports as sports that are only for cis-women. Just like many people don't want transwomen in all kinds of settings.

[Tamas]

Brain, if it helps, you could think of "women's sports" as "cis-women's sports" and both trans woman and cis-women as subsets of women. Then your bit of sophistry falls apart.

If transwomen are women then "women's sports" isn't cis-women's sports unless you discriminate against transwomen.

FWIW my impression is that many people do indeed think of women's sports as sports that are only for cis-women. Just like many people don't want transwomen in all kinds of settings.

Nobody has addressed Berkut's point though: the people who don't want transwomen in all kinds of settings (and these definitely exist) do not want trans men in those settings either. Yet nobody seem to be complaining about allowing trans men to compete in men's sports. This seem to indicate that opposition to trans women in women's sports goes at leas partially beyond general transphobia.

[The Brain]

Brain, if it helps, you could think of "women's sports" as "cis-women's sports" and both trans woman and cis-women as subsets of women. Then your bit of sophistry falls apart.

If transwomen are women then "women's sports" isn't cis-women's sports unless you discriminate against transwomen.

FWIW my impression is that many people do indeed think of women's sports as sports that are only for cis-women. Just like many people don't want transwomen in all kinds of settings.

Nobody has addressed Berkut's point though: the people who don't want transwomen in all kinds of settings (and these definitely exist) do not want trans men in those settings either. Yet nobody seem to be complaining about allowing trans men to compete in men's sports. This seem to indicate that opposition to trans women in women's sports goes at leas partially beyond general transphobia.

They don't want transwomen in women's sports because it would inconvenience them or others, in a way that transmen in men's sports would not (and AFAIK many or most "men's sports" have been open to persons of any sex for a long time, so transmen are a bit of a non-issue). I don't doubt that it would, in some cases probably a lot. It is not at all obvious to me, however, that avoiding inconvenience should trump equality. Is that the lesson we should teach our kids? Possibly, but for now I remain unconvinced.

[Josquius]

They don't want transwomen in women's sports because it would inconvenience them or others, in a way that transmen in men's sports would not (and AFAIK many or most "men's sports" have been open to persons of any sex for a long time, so transmen are a bit of a non-issue). I don't doubt that it would, in some cases probably a lot. It is not at all obvious to me, however, that avoiding inconvenience should trump equality. Is that the lesson we should teach our kids? Possibly, but for now I remain unconvinced.

Plus the whole chauvinistic 'think of the poor innocent girlies that non-conformists are absolutely desperate to rape' factor.
Men? Meh. That never happens to men. They can handle themselves.

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.

In top level stuff there are set criteria for who qualifies as a woman and is legible to take part in women's sports. See for instance Caster Semenya and a few others like her over the years. Cis-women who are excluded from women's sport because they fall foul of these criteria.
The exact criteria differ from sports to sport I believe, they're down to the sports governing body to define. In caster's case the current barrier (it has changed a lot over the years) is down to testosterone levels and if she wanted to compete she'd have to take testosterone blockers.
Trans women must meet these just like anyone else- which sometimes they do.
In amateur sports...can't say any of the trans women I know are particularly sporty (I imagine this is very common) so I can't really say how it works. Though I'd imagine its very much a "if you're a woman then you're a woman" setup. Certainly becoming a woman officially is no easy matter in the UK.

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.

Professional sports are important to the people who play them and millions of others too.
I get if you wanted to bar trans people from both but just HS seems odd.

Though generally on the 'important to people who play them' factor- this is where sympathy completely drops out. If you're only concerned with winning then you're doing it wrong.
I speak as someone who had big problems with this myself when I was a kid, "Its not the winning its the taking part" is a lesson that really needs hammering into people from an early age. Learning to lose with grace is a good thing. A very valuable lesson.

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'd say there are 4.
1: Those who want to push back LGBT rights and see sports as a great avenue to do this.
2: The majority. Normal people who are fine with how things are and don't see any reason to setup trans bans everywhere and probably don't really recognise this is such a huge issue for the bigots. They have lives to live. Stuff to do.
3: Pro-LGBT people who see what the transphobes are up to and are trying to rally defence against it on all fronts.
4: A small minority of nerdy folks who are genuinely interested in where to draw the line for gender qualification in professional sports.

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 participation in sports is evil, cynical, etc.

They are.
There's simply no excuse for this nuclear option.
"Let anyone wake up, declare themselves a woman, do absolutely zero to transition and take part in womens sports of every level" and "Ban all trans women from taking part in any sport ever" are the two sides of the retarded coin on this one.
This is a coin which is fairly heavily weighted to one side.

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?

Untrue.
As Jacob covered earlier however its a popular tactic by the anti-LGBT brigade, try and reframe reality so they're just the poor innocent victims of this really big serious issue, just trying to defend common decency from those nasty lefties who won't be happy until every boy is forced to wear a dress.
So you do see people presenting this vision of reality a fair bit. The actual truth of things is pro-trans rights people are solidly on the defence these days.

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.

Someone still needs to consider the technicalities of exactly who qualifies. As I said its something professional athletics has been struggling with for decades.
However it certainly is possible to take a firmly anti-LGBT stance on this with those folks making the noise being committed to a total ban.
But its not a big argument no.

"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.

There's a difference between 200kg six foot tall women and skinny ones with dwarvism too.

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.

Lots of cis-women have competitive advantages over other women too. Thats life. Yet still athletics has pretty arbitrary constantly shifting barriers in place to exclude some they deem to have too much of advantage.
And with these barriers set where they are...some trans people are still able to qualify.
If you have a better idea of where to draw the line then lets hear it, there clearly needs to be one somewhere if you're trying to define the bounds a "woman", however that line without a doubt doesn't lie at an arbitrary "Ban anyone who has the slightest hint of manliness"

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.

So you aren't good enough to qualify for your school team? OK. Thats that. It sucks but there's only a finite number of slots and some people just aren't good at sports.
So...best just jack in the exercise stuff altogether since you've never going to be becoming pro?
Thats exactly the kind of attitude that needs firmly stamping out. We need to be encouraging more kids, not just those who are particularly gifted, to get involved in sports and forming healthy lifelong habits.
Banning trans people from this is just ridiculous.

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.

Que?