The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Admiral Yi]

At CPAC just recently there was an explicit call for Trans people to be eradicated from public life.  Laws in Florida are being advanced that would allow Trans teens to be taken away from their parents, plus things like Don't Say Gay are explicit attempts to suppress or eliminate these individuals.  It isn't just the kooks in the hills, it's the kooks that are making policy in the Republican Party.

One guy I'd never heard of before speaking at the dying rump Trumpist PAC meeting is closer to kooks in the hills than it is to policy makers in the Republican Party.

But regardless of the extent of that kind of thinking in the Republican Party that position doesn't have any relevance to the debate we're having here on Languish, so bringing it into the debate is either an attempt at guilt by association or a straw man.

[grumbler]

Viper, I'm not going to debate what I said with you.  If you want to understand my position, you need to read what I wrote and not what you think or wish I wrote. 

[Barrister]

Viper, I'm not going to debate what I said with you.  If you want to understand my position, you need to read what I wrote and not what you think or wish I wrote. 

How about what I wrote grumbles?

The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.

[grumbler]

How about what I wrote grumbles?

The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.

I'd advise you to seriously reconsider your claim that "it's all just a matter of biology after all."  Especially if that is what drives your belief that "there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports."  Biology is highly significant in sports, but not everything.  Differentiating between male and female sports is a matter of creating interesting competitions, not a response to some biological imperative.

[Josquius]

Still no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....

[viper37]

Still no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....

Being trans does not alter the fundamental biology.  Hormones and surgery do not change that.

[Josquius]

Still no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....

Being trans does not alter the fundamental biology.  Hormones and surgery do not change that.

And what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?

[Admiral Yi]

And what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?

I believe bone density never changes.  Muscle mass I don't know.

[grumbler]

Being trans does not alter the fundamental biology.  Hormones and surgery do not change that.

Wilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history.  Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?"  Should there be a separate NBA for tall players?  After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.

[Sheilbh]

Although feels worth saying that hormones and surgery have nothing to do with being trans.

People are trans before they take hormones or have surgery and whether they choose to or not. It's an option that they can have.

[Josquius]

And what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?

I believe bone density never changes.  Muscle mass I don't know.

And these are the critical facts that make a performance difference in every sport?
If so then why not just set rules based on these things rather than a blanket no trans allowed?

The core of my thinking is imagine 50 years down the line, genetic manipulation has reached high sophistication so a trans woman can become indistinguishable from a cis woman.
Should she be allowed in women's events?
If anyone says no to that then they're clearly just motivated by bigotry. The obvious answer in this theoretical is yes.

But then a question becomes OK, so where is the line?
Rather than a blanket ban on trans people - which does fuck all to solve the actual difficult cases in defining who is a woman in sport - sports governing bodies should be creating actual quantifiable rules about under which conditions someone is enough of a woman.

Maybe in some sports this will be impossibly high a bar that no trans woman could ever cross?
But if its a good faith rule actually based in biology and logic than just "trans bad."then it's far more palettable and should really lessen what is obvious with so many of the current rules :it's nothing at all to do with the sanctity of sports and just a way to score cheap points playing culture wars.

[viper37]

Wilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history.  Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?"  Should there be a separate NBA for tall players?  After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.

Lots of NBA players are tall.  I do not know of any 5'-4 NBA players.

[Barrister]

How about what I wrote grumbles?

The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.

I'd advise you to seriously reconsider your claim that "it's all just a matter of biology after all."  Especially if that is what drives your belief that "there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports."  Biology is highly significant in sports, but not everything. Differentiating between male and female sports is a matter of creating interesting competitions, not a response to some biological imperative.

This is true.  We separate male and female sports to create interesting and competitive competitions.  Depending on the sport, at high/elite levels, females simply can not compete against males.

(I should note that's only at the high end.  There are plenty of women who could kick my ass in all kinds of sports)

But then that brings us back to trans women.  Is it an "interesting competition" to see a natal male who may or may not be taking female hormones compete against natal females?

[Admiral Yi]

Squeeze, I think we as a group have reached a middle ground.  I have zero problem with trans women competing once their biological advantages have diminished to the point where their performance is indistinguishable from cis women.

So now we have two common antagonists: people who believe trans women should *never* be able to compete, and people who believe trans women should *always* be able to compete.

Another victory for the Sensible Confident Center. 

[Josquius]

Squeeze, I think we as a group have reached a middle ground.  I have zero problem with trans women competing once their biological advantages have diminished to the point where their performance is indistinguishable from cis women.

So now we have two common antagonists: people who believe trans women should *never* be able to compete, and people who believe trans women should *always* be able to compete.

Another victory for the Sensible Confident Center. 

That's not quite what I said. That was an extreme example of something that obviously should be OK.
There's still the question of tracking back where the line is.
Like for another extreme  if trans woman are indistinguishable but lack a womb would that matter? - irrelevant for sport but clearly marks them as different.

It should be left up to science to determine what the important factors are and clearly define the line of exactly what level of testosterone or muscle mass or whatever it is, is too much.