The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[viper37]

That they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.

This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me.  Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes.  Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.

Then do away with any distinction of women's sports.  No more women's hockey team with seperate rules, no more women's sprint, no more women skiing or boxing or MMA competition.  Women will have to learn to adapt.

By the same token, any work related physical test will have the exact same criteria for males and females.  No double standards.  No more special rules for women police officers, firefighters, astronauts, military, etc.  They all learn to adapt and to compete to equal the men or they are disqualified.

[Sheilbh]

CPAC dude clarified that he wanted "trans ideology" eradicated from public life - not that he was calling for trans people to be killed.  He didn't back down from "eradicated" though.

He said "transgenderism" so I'm not convinced on that clarification.

But I think this is part of the social media flattening the world. That's happening in the US. The context in the UK are proposals to simplify the process for trans people to get a gender recognition certificate and change their legal sex.

Everything from America washes up here too but I think there is an important different context - and I think it is striking that in the case of both governments who've tried to pass legislation on this (Sturgeon's and May's) it was perhaps mainly seen as a quick, easy, socially liberal win (for slightly different ends) that then became very controversial/difficult.

[viper37]

Not really.  Those who favour trans rights are the ones supporting science and rational solutions.

Its the TERFs screaming bloody murder if trans people are given an inch.

Both sides of the debate tend to ignore science and harass scientists.

Thats literally the complete opposite of what happens. Its the anti-trans activists protesting and hassling people.

Again, the harassment comes from both sides.  There isn't a side of "good" anymore.

This is an actual trans person who is into swimming. Not a male swimmer who signed up for the female events.

He was a male swimmer.  He was average in his sport.  He became trans, he started to compete again and got beat every women in his sport.

I do not know if his transition was legitimate or not.  But it is irrelevant.

Biologically speaking, he his male.  And he is competing in women's sport.  It gives him an unfair advantage, as if he was using illegal performance enhancing drugs.  It means the competition is worthless.

So let sports governing bodies do the job they've always been doing and define who is a woman based on biology. Don't just push a blanket no trans people allowed ban.

If we do define a woman based on biology, it will be a blanke no trans people allowed ban, you know...

[DGuller]

Everything from America washes up here too but I think there is an important different context - and I think it is striking that in the case of both governments who've tried to pass legislation on this (Sturgeon's and May's) it was perhaps mainly seen as a quick, easy, socially liberal win (for slightly different ends) that then became very controversial/difficult.

I was listening to a podcast the other day, and the guest who was Jewish paraphrased his grandfather:  "I don't want anti-Semites to shut up.  I want to know what I'm dealing with so that I'm prepared."  I think the West has been very successful in establishing social norms that drive hate speech underground (and some would argue a whole lot of non-hate speech along with it), but that leaves you blind to the political realities sometimes.

[Sheilbh]

I was listening to a podcast the other day, and the guest who was Jewish paraphrased his grandfather:  "I don't want anti-Semites to shut up.  I want to know what I'm dealing with so that I'm prepared."  I think the West has been very successful in establishing social norms that drive hate speech underground (and some would argue a whole lot of non-hate speech along with it), but that leaves you blind to the political realities sometimes.

I don't mind those norms - but I think they are norms because there is a broad popular consensus behind them and you can't just manufacture that. Or pretend it exists when it demonstrably doesn't.

I also think possibly linked to that we're in a period that is fond of radicalism. I think there is a lot that either re-writes gradualists as far more radical than they're remembered, or does down their accomplishments/approach as too political and compromised - both of those may be true. Similarly I think radical figures who, in hindsight sometimes look prophetic are getting a lot of attention, even if they may have been quite marginal at the time - indeed to some extent that perhaps adds to their credibility as a marginalised voice. I suspect that might reflect, at least on gay rights, a period of incredible triumph - but a triumph that I don't think was necessarily inevitable or predictable.

But I think it possibly misjudges the politics, the need to persuade and bring people with you. As I say, May still supports this but I think she thought gender recognition reform would be like gay marriage - a nice, non-controversial socially liberal move from a Tory government that further helps detoxify the "nasty party". I think Sturgeon thought it would set up a nice contrast with a nasty Tory English government. In both cases it caused them a lot of trouble (and I think may be linked to Sturgeon stepping down); it's dividing news rooms like the NYT and the Guardian; in the UK it's causing big rows within Labour, the Greens and the SNP. If that's the reaction within the liberal left the idea that there is an enforceable norm strikes me as very optimistic and probably counterproductive.

In relation specifically to anti-semitism Hadley Freeman who was a columnist and feature writer at the Guardian for 22 years moved to the Sunday Times largely over this (following Suzanne Moore from the Guardian to the Telegraph) and published a scathing valedictory letter which made a link on anti-semitism and the experience of talking about that as a Jew on the left in Britain during the Corbyn years:

The Guardian used to embrace complicated issues, nuance, controversy, debates between writers, alternative views. When I started at the Guardian in 2000, the most fraught subject was Israel, with Jonathan Freedland and Seumas Milne representing the two sides of that polarised debate. No one, as far as I know, ever said to them that they couldn't write about it because they felt so strongly about the subject, or they had personal connections to it, or they spoke about it before, as has been said to me and other women writers about the gender argument. [...]
The paper has become internally dysfunctional, with writers and editors alike all terrified of saying The Wrong Take. I saw this coming in the Corbyn era when I was repeatedly warned off writing about Labour from my perspective as a Jew. Then I was told not to write about gender from my perspective as a woman. When I asked what part of my identity was acceptable to turn into copy, it was suggested that I write about my children.

Edit: And to be clear - she's also someone who has no issue with the current position on how to get a GRC, laws against discriminating against trans people, and the Equality Act more generally.

[Josquius]

That they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.

This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me.  Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes.  Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.

I mean that is certainly one way to look at things.

But that would seem to be contrary to the very idea of having separate women's sports.  Take, for example, the 100m dash.  The men's world record is 9.58 seconds.  The women's record is 10.49 seconds, almost a full second slower.  And you can find in almost every sport that at the elite end men are bigger, faster and stronger.

So if your approach is just "biology just gives some people an unfair advantage" it seems to me that in wide swaths of sports you're telling women they won't be able to compete.  Because 10.49 seconds in the 100m dash, the fastest a woman has ever gone, isn't fast enough to even qualify under the men's standards.

And what is it that gives men an advantage in the 100 metre dash?
Is there any evidence this remains a factor after transition? - theres evidence that in some areas performance between trans and cis women is pretty similar a few years after the start of hormone therapy.
And what of intersex people? How do you decide if they're allowed in women's events?
This is where the big problem lies with trying to ban trans people from sport. It's a thoroughly unscientific bit of politically motivated idiocy.
It does nothing to address the actual issues in favour of just going nuclear from the off.

[Josquius]

He was a male swimmer.  He was average in his sport.  He became trans, he started to compete again and got beat every women in his sport.

Winning a university swimming competition isn't beating every woman in her sport.
(seriously? His??

I do not know if his transition was legitimate or not.  But it is irrelevant.

Biologically speaking, he his male.  And he is competing in women's sport.  It gives him an unfair advantage, as if he was using illegal performance enhancing drugs.  It means the competition is worthless.

1: you were disagreeing with the idea men won't transition just to win at sport. That's not what happened here.
2: any proof of this unfair advantage she has?
3: sport is worthless unless you win? That's a pretty shit attitude for an adult.

If we do define a woman based on biology, it will be a blanke no trans people allowed ban, you know...

Not at all. That's pure political silliness with zero basis in science.

[Tamas]

I have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.

It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.

[grumbler]

Then do away with any distinction of women's sports.  No more women's hockey team with seperate rules, no more women's sprint, no more women skiing or boxing or MMA competition.  Women will have to learn to adapt.

By the same token, any work related physical test will have the exact same criteria for males and females.  No double standards.  No more special rules for women police officers, firefighters, astronauts, military, etc.  They all learn to adapt and to compete to equal the men or they are disqualified.

If you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.

The "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc.  They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.

[viper37]

If you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.

You literally said: " Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes.  Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes. "

So biology is not important, athletes must figure out a way to overcome it.
Hence, we shall do away with the distinction of women's sports.  Those who can't compete will be washed away.  That's their job as athletes to learn to overcome biology, that's what you said.

While we're at it, we could have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old too.  It's just biology, they will learn to adapt.

The "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc.  They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.

Endurance tests aren't the same for men and women for many of these professions.  Could be different for astronauts and jet fighter pilots, but firefighters and police have separate categories for their physical aptitude tests.

From what I am reading it is not all US police dept that have the same physical tests for men and women, and Canada have different tests:
https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/Careers/resources/Documents/PIN_Test_and_Results_Oct7_13.pdf

The ACLU calls using the same tests discrimination:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/women-and-physical-ability-tests

[viper37]

I have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.

It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.

Well, that's true.  But that's no reason to let the far left intimidate scientists either just "because".

I wouldn't trust the average Republican-like politician to legislate on any issue concerning transgender rights and there's a lot of transgender panic akin to gay panic, but that doesn't mean that there aren't bloody activists making life miserable for a lot of people. 

There has to be a reasonable middle ground to be reached here, one that will protect freedom of speech as well as transgender rights and scientific research.

[grumbler]

If you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.

You literally said: " Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes.  Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes. "

So biology is not important, athletes must figure out a way to overcome it.
Hence, we shall do away with the distinction of women's sports.  Those who can't compete will be washed away.  That's their job as athletes to learn to overcome biology, that's what you said.

While we're at it, we could have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old too.  It's just biology, they will learn to adapt.

Nowhere did I say that "biology is not important."  I said the exact opposite.  Athletes have to go against others who have biologically-based "unfair advantages" all of the time.  They learn to reconcile themselves to that.

Why you want to "do away with the distinction of women's sports" escapes me, as does your rational for wanting to "have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old."  What would be the point?

The "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc.  They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.

Endurance tests aren't the same for men and women for many of these professions.  Could be different for astronauts and jet fighter pilots, but firefighters and police have separate categories for their physical aptitude tests.

From what I am reading it is not all US police dept that have the same physical tests for men and women, and Canada have different tests:
https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/Careers/resources/Documents/PIN_Test_and_Results_Oct7_13.pdf

The ACLU calls using the same tests discrimination:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/women-and-physical-ability-tests

The Ontario physical testing regime uses the same tests for both men and women.  The ACLU paper just restates what I wrote above:  that physical tests must be justifiable in terms of job performance requirements.  It does not at all say that "using the same tests [is] discrimination."  The purpose of the tests is to discriminate between those who can do the job and those who cannot.

[Jacob]

I have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.

It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.

I concur with my esteemed colleague on this.

[viper37]

Nowhere did I say that "biology is not important."  I said the exact opposite.  Athletes have to go against others who have biologically-based "unfair advantages" all of the time.  They learn to reconcile themselves to that.

No, you do not say the exact opposite.  When you say they learn to reconcile themselves with that, you trivialize the biological differences between men and women and the reasons why there are separate sports categories because most women athletes can't compete equally with male athletes.

If it was so easy to overcome biological differences, there would be no weight categories in combat sports, athletes would simply learn to adapt to the biological differences.

I'm looking at the women's mogul's skiing vs men's, and it's nowhere the same speed, therefore, not the same technical aspects for all jumps.  If they were to compete all in the same categories, there'd be no women getting a gold medal in this sport.

Hockey is another sport where women simply can't compete past junior ranks, the biological differences are way too much for them to follow.  And there's no rule to prevent any women from playing in the NHL, it's been done before for a goalie, on a preseason game.  She just couldn't compete.

By removing the distinction, you just remove the meaningfulness of women's sports.  As much as I respect trans rights, it is a valid reason to discriminate against trans-women competing in women's sports, for the same reason we won't allow a man to compete in such sports, even if it's supposedly the athletes' job to compensate for biological factors.

The Ontario physical testing regime uses the same tests for both men and women.  The ACLU paper just restates what I wrote above:  that physical tests must be justifiable in terms of job performance requirements.  It does not at all say that "using the same tests [is] discrimination."  The purpose of the tests is to discriminate between those who can do the job and those who cannot.

5.10, page 9.

[Habbaku]

I think Radley Balko's latest article on what Knowles "actually meant" is a great read, and especially good at dissecting what's so wrong with Knowles and the rest of the filth on his side:

https://open.substack.com/pub/radleybalko/p/shrugging-in-the-shadow-of-a-monster?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web