I can't even speak to most of these examples because this segment speeds past them so fast.BearForce2 said:sycasey said:
Where is it? Where is the trans domination of women's sports?
Did they not inject these females with testicles with enough hormones?
I read the story. And they said that the advantage remains for at least two years and then TBD. It also doesn't discuss the fact that men who have progressed through puberty (generally speaking) have larger musculature and bones and that hormone therapy does fully reverse that. If the first 18+ years of your life are as a male without hormone treatment, then starting hormone therapy doesn't change the fact that you developed through puberty with more muscle/larger bodies/different bone structure than women (on average).sycasey said:Oh look, someone else who hasn't actually followed the conversation at all.BearGoggles said:So you're saying that trans people have an unfair advantage (something you don't seem to dispute and the link Hanky provided seems to confirm), but that's ok because it hasn't "destroyed" women's sports?sycasey said:Hanky, I know you're trying to ignore my questions and move on to your next sarcastic comment about women with testicles or whatever, so I will take this as a tacit acknowledgment that despite at least 10 years of trans athletes being allowed to compete by the NCAA, there has been no "destruction" of women's college sports in that time. This would then mean that the current attempts to keep trans athletes out solve no actual problem and are just conservative virtue signaling.sycasey said:We just saw one trans woman qualify for the Olympics in one event. If they are so dominant, shouldn't we be seeing more?hanky1 said:Are you effin joking?sycasey said:Hanky, still waiting on that evidence that trans athletes are dominating women's sports.sycasey said:hanky1 said:Utterly false. This has been a very little studied field and there is no conclusive data to support this.sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I bet there's not a single woke progressive on this board who can make a rational argument in favor of trans athletes competing in women's sports. Go ahead...i dare you
Current Olympic and NCAA rules mandate that a male-to-female trans athlete has undergone hormone therapy to suppress testosterone for a certain amount of time (1 year in the NCAA's case). Those hormones would seem to remove whatever advantages such athletes would get from having once been male. Given that, I see no issue in allowing them to compete if they have met the requirements.
However, a simple matter of statistical analysis of how trans athletes seem to be disproportionately dominant in women's sports indicate that it's virtually impossible that the highlighted statement is true.
So do you have a study showing that trans athletes are disproportionately dominant in women's sports? I'm not aware of any such thing being true on a wide scale.
The NCAA's policy on transgender athletes has been in place since 2010. Surely trans athletes must have been able to dominate women's sports in 10 years' time if they have such an advantage. Where is the evidence?
I get it, you're afraid of trans people. New things can be scary. But you'll work through it in time. It's no reason to restrict anyone else's freedom.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764
The whole point of having separate sports for men/women is because we have widely and universally recognized that in those sports (e.g., basketball, soccer, tennis), men have a material genetic advantage. We have womens teams so that women can compete at elite level against their genetic peers. If that wasn't they case, they why even have mens/womens teams?
Given this longstanding policy and understanding, when competing at an elite level - NCAA, Olympics, professional - why is it ok for some athletes (trans people) to have a genetic advantage?
No, I'm saying that WITH HORMONE THERAPY you can reduce and even eliminate the advantage trans women might have gotten by once having been men.
Maybe you and Hanky should actually read that NBC story you keep linking to:
1. The person who ran that study is NOT saying that trans athletes should be banned from women's sports, only that maybe the required time spent on hormone therapy should be longer.
2. It's only one study and other experts point out its limitations (no controlling for other training the subjects may have done in the meantime).
Finally, if you want to talk about genetic advantage . . . aren't all sports determined by genetic advantage? It will not be possible for me to become 6'9" and 250 pounds of muscle, so is it unfair that I don't have the fame and fortune of LeBron James? That's not the issue. Some women are taller, faster, stronger than others, same as with men. The issue is if trans women competing in women's sports is inherently unfair to cis women, if it removes or severely reduces their ability to compete against people who were male at birth. I haven't seen the evidence for that yet. Given that trans women have been in college sports for some time already, I think we should have seen that evidence by now.
Where is it? Where is the trans domination of women's sports?
No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
bearister said:
This thread needs a musical interlude:
Men are not women. That's scientific.sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
Nice dodge of the other questions.sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
BearForce2 said:sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
It's interesting how you demand absolute proof from research on a subject where it's common knowledge that men in general and on average physically superior to women, yet when it comes to other topics like systemic racism, virus origins, and the last election, you take the positions that absolutely there is systemic racism, that the virus did not originate from the Wuhan lab, and the election was the cleanest ever.
helltopay1 said:
hanky.....The answer is no...but, if you have Cream ..
BearNIt said:Sounds just like the Republican party and their beef with Liz Cheney and people who stormed the Capitol. Remember, it didn't go their way and they resorted to violence against the Capitol Police.hanky1 said:BearNIt said:There's an LGBTQ mafia? The real mafia must be pissed because they're moving in on their territory. You think the Boss of Bosses will order some hits and members of the LGBTQ mafia will get whacked? Hairy mafia hitmen will dress to impress and hit an LGBTQ gathering place and what start whacking people?hanky1 said:
California has banned state sponsored travel to other states that have passed laws preventing trans athletes from competing in women's sports. Funny I bet all the liberals on this site will be silent on this one. Why? Because you know it's wrong but are deathly afraid of saying anything that opposes the LGBTQ mafia.
Feminism is dead. Female rights are dead. They were killed by liberals who want people with testicles to compete in women's sports.California will ban state-funded travel to five new states over their "discriminatory" LGBTQ laws, state Attorney General Rob Bonta announced, citing the importance of "aligning our dollars with our values." https://t.co/peOeBXJjeX
— CNN (@CNN) June 29, 2021
By the way, feminism is not dead and neither are women's rights but women all over America appreciate your fake concern and outrage. It's nice to know there are some here like you that are WOKE.
Yea the mafia.
Their means are intimidation of any speech that questions whatever they want. Now they're resorting to physical violence.Who doesn’t want to wear the ribbon?
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 30, 2021
“Vendor Attacked During NYC Pride Event Claims He Was Beaten After Refusing To Replace American Flag With Pride Flag”
https://t.co/geIeq0Vef4
sycasey said:We just saw one trans woman qualify for the Olympics in one event. If they are so dominant, shouldn't we be seeing more?hanky1 said:Are you effin joking?sycasey said:Hanky, still waiting on that evidence that trans athletes are dominating women's sports.sycasey said:hanky1 said:Utterly false. This has been a very little studied field and there is no conclusive data to support this.sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I bet there's not a single woke progressive on this board who can make a rational argument in favor of trans athletes competing in women's sports. Go ahead...i dare you
Current Olympic and NCAA rules mandate that a male-to-female trans athlete has undergone hormone therapy to suppress testosterone for a certain amount of time (1 year in the NCAA's case). Those hormones would seem to remove whatever advantages such athletes would get from having once been male. Given that, I see no issue in allowing them to compete if they have met the requirements.
However, a simple matter of statistical analysis of how trans athletes seem to be disproportionately dominant in women's sports indicate that it's virtually impossible that the highlighted statement is true.
So do you have a study showing that trans athletes are disproportionately dominant in women's sports? I'm not aware of any such thing being true on a wide scale.
The NCAA's policy on transgender athletes has been in place since 2010. Surely trans athletes must have been able to dominate women's sports in 10 years' time if they have such an advantage. Where is the evidence?
Okay, let's dive into this.BearGoggles said:Nice dodge of the other questions.sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
And for the record, there's a difference between genetic difference arising from birth lottery (Lebron vs. us) and a person who has a certain type of genetics and then is artificially/chemically altering those through hormone therapy.
If there was a clear example of a person being targeted for discrimination (i.e., one person treated unfairly), would you dismiss that the bad act was not destroying the entirety of the minority or other targeted group?
I'll ask again:
1. What is the harm in expecting trans women to compete against cis men? You don't seem troubled if cis women have to compete against trans women given the physical and genetic disparities. Why is it unfair to expect trans women (who have presumably voluntarily undergone hormone treatment) to compete against cis men?
2. Should we just eliminate mens and womens sports - just have one coed team? Would forcing cis and trans women to compete with men be unfair? If so, why and how is that different than forcing a cis women to compete with a trans women? If its not unfair, then why can't we just have a coed team?
Quote:
Two of the world's three fastest women's 400m sprinters this year were ruled ineligible to run the event at the Olympics due to a rule capping testosterone levels in women's events from the 400m through the mile, according to their National Olympic Committee.
Namibians Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, both 18, "have a natural high testosterone level" after undergoing medical tests for athletes with differences of sexual development, according to the Namibia Olympic Committee.
"According to the rules of World Athletics, this means that they are not eligible to participate in events from 400m to 1600m," according to the committee. "It is important to understand that both our athletes were not aware of this condition neither did any family member, their coach or the NNOC-CGA [Namibia Olympic Committee] were aware of it. Both Christine and Beatrice will be able to compete in the 100m and 200m events."
It's the same rule that affected all three Rio Olympic 800m medalists Caster Semenya of South Africa, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi and Margaret Wambui of Kenya and Niger's Aminatou Seyni, who was the world's third-fastest 400m runner in 2019 before moving to the 200m for that year's world championships.
Yes, these are prime examples of why the athletic differences between men and women are general but not absolute. Some cis women have naturally higher testosterone, just as some cis men have lower levels. Does this mean they are involuntarily "trans?" No, of course not, but it does serve to illustrate why absolutist thinking about gender categories doesn't work.Unit2Sucks said:
Just wondering how people feel about the Namibian sprinters who were disqualified from the olympics due to their testosterone levels.Quote:
Two of the world's three fastest women's 400m sprinters this year were ruled ineligible to run the event at the Olympics due to a rule capping testosterone levels in women's events from the 400m through the mile, according to their National Olympic Committee.
Namibians Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, both 18, "have a natural high testosterone level" after undergoing medical tests for athletes with differences of sexual development, according to the Namibia Olympic Committee.
"According to the rules of World Athletics, this means that they are not eligible to participate in events from 400m to 1600m," according to the committee. "It is important to understand that both our athletes were not aware of this condition neither did any family member, their coach or the NNOC-CGA [Namibia Olympic Committee] were aware of it. Both Christine and Beatrice will be able to compete in the 100m and 200m events."
It's the same rule that affected all three Rio Olympic 800m medalists Caster Semenya of South Africa, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi and Margaret Wambui of Kenya and Niger's Aminatou Seyni, who was the world's third-fastest 400m runner in 2019 before moving to the 200m for that year's world championships.
They're testing for testosterone levels to check for dopingsycasey said:Yes, these are prime examples of why the athletic differences between men and women are general but not absolute. Some cis women have naturally higher testosterone, just as some cis men have lower levels. Does this mean they are involuntarily "trans?" No, of course not, but it does serve to illustrate why absolutist thinking about gender categories doesn't work.Unit2Sucks said:
Just wondering how people feel about the Namibian sprinters who were disqualified from the olympics due to their testosterone levels.Quote:
Two of the world's three fastest women's 400m sprinters this year were ruled ineligible to run the event at the Olympics due to a rule capping testosterone levels in women's events from the 400m through the mile, according to their National Olympic Committee.
Namibians Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, both 18, "have a natural high testosterone level" after undergoing medical tests for athletes with differences of sexual development, according to the Namibia Olympic Committee.
"According to the rules of World Athletics, this means that they are not eligible to participate in events from 400m to 1600m," according to the committee. "It is important to understand that both our athletes were not aware of this condition neither did any family member, their coach or the NNOC-CGA [Namibia Olympic Committee] were aware of it. Both Christine and Beatrice will be able to compete in the 100m and 200m events."
It's the same rule that affected all three Rio Olympic 800m medalists Caster Semenya of South Africa, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi and Margaret Wambui of Kenya and Niger's Aminatou Seyni, who was the world's third-fastest 400m runner in 2019 before moving to the 200m for that year's world championships.
The goal should not be about defining these categories perfectly, because that's not possible. The goal is providing a reasonably level field for athletic competition. Outliers will always exist, and in sports you'll have to live with that.
I don't agree with the IOC's decisions here. I think if you're born a woman, you get to compete in the women's division. Testing for testosterone levels, etc., is a necessary evil for trans women because you have to do something to prevent a Juwanna Mann style scam. For cis women I don't see the need.
Doesn't seem to be working too well.MinotStateBeav said:They're testing for testosterone levels to check for dopingsycasey said:Yes, these are prime examples of why the athletic differences between men and women are general but not absolute. Some cis women have naturally higher testosterone, just as some cis men have lower levels. Does this mean they are involuntarily "trans?" No, of course not, but it does serve to illustrate why absolutist thinking about gender categories doesn't work.Unit2Sucks said:
Just wondering how people feel about the Namibian sprinters who were disqualified from the olympics due to their testosterone levels.Quote:
Two of the world's three fastest women's 400m sprinters this year were ruled ineligible to run the event at the Olympics due to a rule capping testosterone levels in women's events from the 400m through the mile, according to their National Olympic Committee.
Namibians Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi, both 18, "have a natural high testosterone level" after undergoing medical tests for athletes with differences of sexual development, according to the Namibia Olympic Committee.
"According to the rules of World Athletics, this means that they are not eligible to participate in events from 400m to 1600m," according to the committee. "It is important to understand that both our athletes were not aware of this condition neither did any family member, their coach or the NNOC-CGA [Namibia Olympic Committee] were aware of it. Both Christine and Beatrice will be able to compete in the 100m and 200m events."
It's the same rule that affected all three Rio Olympic 800m medalists Caster Semenya of South Africa, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi and Margaret Wambui of Kenya and Niger's Aminatou Seyni, who was the world's third-fastest 400m runner in 2019 before moving to the 200m for that year's world championships.
The goal should not be about defining these categories perfectly, because that's not possible. The goal is providing a reasonably level field for athletic competition. Outliers will always exist, and in sports you'll have to live with that.
I don't agree with the IOC's decisions here. I think if you're born a woman, you get to compete in the women's division. Testing for testosterone levels, etc., is a necessary evil for trans women because you have to do something to prevent a Juwanna Mann style scam. For cis women I don't see the need.
Moving The Goalposts said:Another thing that's easy is to show when someone moves the goalposts like you did in this thread.sycasey said:BearForce2 said:sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
It's interesting how you demand absolute proof from research on a subject where it's common knowledge that men in general and on average physically superior to women, yet when it comes to other topics like systemic racism, virus origins, and the last election, you take the positions that absolutely there is systemic racism, that the virus did not originate from the Wuhan lab, and the election was the cleanest ever.
Hey, it's easy to call people hypocrites when you describe positions they do not hold.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/102361/replies/1888721hanky1 rebuts you with:Quote:
Current Olympic and NCAA rules mandate that a male-to-female trans athlete has undergone hormone therapy to suppress testosterone for a certain amount of time (1 year in the NCAA's case). Those hormones would seem to remove whatever advantages such athletes would get from having once been male. Given that, I see no issue in allowing them to compete if they have met the requirements.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/102361/replies/1888733
But no, it's time for sycasey to move the goalposts at this point because he can't refute the article hanky1 posted.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/102361/replies/1888742Once again, sycasey's card says "Moops."Quote:
So do you have a study showing that trans athletes are disproportionately dominant in women's sports? I'm not aware of any such thing being true on a wide scale
Our evidence is that they’re not girls. pic.twitter.com/9lwLUIiexR
— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) July 1, 2021
One of the least potent endorsements I can imagine.helltopay1 said:
Concord . I can assure you hanky has class. I have met him and shared a meal with him. on the other hand, I can assure you that you never went to class.
Violence in LA erupts after viral video of complaint about trans woman disrobing in spa https://t.co/crXP4kGMPD pic.twitter.com/Bt9WR0oHuG
— New York Post (@nypost) July 4, 2021
Though I follow a lot of people on the left, I haven’t heard anyone defend having a male weightlifter compete against women. I’ve noticed for a while that’s the sort of issue where a lot of good liberals just sort of clam up as everyone understands how insane it is.
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) July 4, 2021
Thank you for the substantive and thoughtful response.sycasey said:Okay, let's dive into this.BearGoggles said:Nice dodge of the other questions.sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
And for the record, there's a difference between genetic difference arising from birth lottery (Lebron vs. us) and a person who has a certain type of genetics and then is artificially/chemically altering those through hormone therapy.
If there was a clear example of a person being targeted for discrimination (i.e., one person treated unfairly), would you dismiss that the bad act was not destroying the entirety of the minority or other targeted group?
I'll ask again:
1. What is the harm in expecting trans women to compete against cis men? You don't seem troubled if cis women have to compete against trans women given the physical and genetic disparities. Why is it unfair to expect trans women (who have presumably voluntarily undergone hormone treatment) to compete against cis men?
2. Should we just eliminate mens and womens sports - just have one coed team? Would forcing cis and trans women to compete with men be unfair? If so, why and how is that different than forcing a cis women to compete with a trans women? If its not unfair, then why can't we just have a coed team?
Seems like you're trying to get me to say that there are biological differences between men and women that affect sports performance. Yes, I agree with that. The differences are general, not absolute, but for the most part, men as a group have certain inherent genetic advantages when it comes to physical sports: greater height, ability to build more muscle, run faster, etc. That's why it's always been reasonable to have separate men's and women's divisions in sports. I'm not going to dispute that.
I also think that when it comes to gender identity, our society's basic values of privacy, fairness, and freedom demand that we allow people to live as whatever gender they desire, to the fullest extent possible. If someone who was born as a woman wants to live as a man and be called "he" for the rest of his life, then that's what I'll do. It's only right.
Assuming we can agree on these basic values (though I suspect a lot of folks on the right do not actually agree with my second paragraph), then in some cases the values may come into conflict. If you don't allow trans women to compete as women in sports, then you are essentially denying them their freedoms. But if you do allow it without limits, you also might obviate the entire purpose of having separate men's and women's sports (which would essentially be an infringement on cis women's freedom and a violation of basic fairness).
How to resolve this? I don't think either extreme will work. On the one hand, barring all trans people from competitive sports just seems wrong, from the standpoint of basic ethics and fairness. On the other hand, full allowance based on stated gender identity alone also seems ripe for exploitation. As such, I think there needs to be a middle path: allowing trans women to compete in the women's division if they meet certain standards. Some of the research is contradictory on the specifics, but it does seem like you can at least draw the broad conclusion that trans women going on hormone therapy does generally reduce the athletic advantage they get from having once been men. More study may be needed to determine exactly how much this happens or exactly how much hormone therapy is needed (and I welcome that study), but the underlying idea seems solid, that with required hormone treatments for trans women you can level the playing field and prevent women's sports from being destroyed by their entry. If athletic governing bodies need to tweak or adjust those standards as we learn more about it, that's fine. I do not think blanket bans are justified.
A biological male who self-identifies as a woman is a woman, period. That six-year-old girl is clearly transphobic.https://t.co/S4Y2xJU3Uo
— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) July 5, 2021
By your standard of "freedom," Jim Crow laws were mostly okay. There was no need for the government to impose its anti-racist values on local communities that wished to keep Blacks and Whites separate. Blacks were free to start their own restaurants and schools without having to use the White ones. I'm sure there was empirical evidence at the time that Black students did not have the same intelligence as White ones, so separate schools were entirely justified, right? I do not find this line of argument terribly compelling.BearGoggles said:Thank you for the substantive and thoughtful response.sycasey said:Okay, let's dive into this.BearGoggles said:Nice dodge of the other questions.sycasey said:No, that's not the core question. SOME cis women also have an "unfair" advantage over other cis women. Same with cis men. LeBron James has an unfair advantage over me. That's how sports work. You can't make rules to exclude people based on outlier examples. That's why I'm unmoved by individual examples of a trans woman succeeding in sports. I want to see if trans women are destroying women's sports in a broader sense, not if one trans weightlifter is winning a lot. Or maybe in one event we see that trans women are clearly crowding out cis women; we might need to adjust the qualification standards there, or if it's extreme enough, actually bar trans women from competing.BearGoggles said:
You keep raising the red herring of "where is the trans domination of women's sports." That is irrelevant. The question is whether SOME trans women have an unfair advantage over cis women.
Those extremes are not in evidence yet. Bring me evidence (broad evidence, not anecdata) and I might change my opinion on it.
And for the record, there's a difference between genetic difference arising from birth lottery (Lebron vs. us) and a person who has a certain type of genetics and then is artificially/chemically altering those through hormone therapy.
If there was a clear example of a person being targeted for discrimination (i.e., one person treated unfairly), would you dismiss that the bad act was not destroying the entirety of the minority or other targeted group?
I'll ask again:
1. What is the harm in expecting trans women to compete against cis men? You don't seem troubled if cis women have to compete against trans women given the physical and genetic disparities. Why is it unfair to expect trans women (who have presumably voluntarily undergone hormone treatment) to compete against cis men?
2. Should we just eliminate mens and womens sports - just have one coed team? Would forcing cis and trans women to compete with men be unfair? If so, why and how is that different than forcing a cis women to compete with a trans women? If its not unfair, then why can't we just have a coed team?
Seems like you're trying to get me to say that there are biological differences between men and women that affect sports performance. Yes, I agree with that. The differences are general, not absolute, but for the most part, men as a group have certain inherent genetic advantages when it comes to physical sports: greater height, ability to build more muscle, run faster, etc. That's why it's always been reasonable to have separate men's and women's divisions in sports. I'm not going to dispute that.
I also think that when it comes to gender identity, our society's basic values of privacy, fairness, and freedom demand that we allow people to live as whatever gender they desire, to the fullest extent possible. If someone who was born as a woman wants to live as a man and be called "he" for the rest of his life, then that's what I'll do. It's only right.
Assuming we can agree on these basic values (though I suspect a lot of folks on the right do not actually agree with my second paragraph), then in some cases the values may come into conflict. If you don't allow trans women to compete as women in sports, then you are essentially denying them their freedoms. But if you do allow it without limits, you also might obviate the entire purpose of having separate men's and women's sports (which would essentially be an infringement on cis women's freedom and a violation of basic fairness).
How to resolve this? I don't think either extreme will work. On the one hand, barring all trans people from competitive sports just seems wrong, from the standpoint of basic ethics and fairness. On the other hand, full allowance based on stated gender identity alone also seems ripe for exploitation. As such, I think there needs to be a middle path: allowing trans women to compete in the women's division if they meet certain standards. Some of the research is contradictory on the specifics, but it does seem like you can at least draw the broad conclusion that trans women going on hormone therapy does generally reduce the athletic advantage they get from having once been men. More study may be needed to determine exactly how much this happens or exactly how much hormone therapy is needed (and I welcome that study), but the underlying idea seems solid, that with required hormone treatments for trans women you can level the playing field and prevent women's sports from being destroyed by their entry. If athletic governing bodies need to tweak or adjust those standards as we learn more about it, that's fine. I do not think blanket bans are justified.
I think you have a different definition of freedom than would be found in the dictionary. Freedom (or liberty) does dictate that trans people - actually ALL people - should be able to live their lives in accordance with their personal path of happiness (assuming there is no violation of law, etc.). Free to be you and me.
However, freedom does not mean forcing another person to accept your worldview or to change objective standards to accommodate hurt feelings. Telling trans people that they cannot compete against cis women is not denying them a freedom. It is a recognition of a scientific reality - even with hormone therapy they are genetically different than the cis women they are competing with in a way that is material to the competition at elite levels (at least in some sports like track or weight lifting). Your post acknowledges that when you say that hormone therapy "reduces" the advantage - not eliminates it. So in effect, your telling the cis women competitors they need to accept that unfairness because . . . why?
You didn't actually answer why it would be unfair to have trans women compete against cis men who are their genetic counterparts. How is that unfair exactly?
I do and would always accord a trans person the respect of using their preferred pronoun and treating them with respect. That is the kind, decent and right thing to do. However, there is an obvious lack of comity and understanding going the other way. There is often no regard for the unfairness (at least in certain situations) of cis women having to compete against trans women - that is a verboten discussion in the media and certainly among trans activists.
These are tough issues. To your credit, your post clearly identifies the nuance and lack of a clear answer.
There is much more than freedom going on here. Elements in the LGBTQ community have for years engaged in "in your face" type of behaviors for shock value. When I lived in SFO, some of the gratuitous things I saw on the public streets were grossly inappropriate - for both LGBTW and cis people. Where they free to behave that way? Of course (at least in SFO and LA where public decency and lots of other laws aren't enforced). Am I allowed to say its inappropriate and gross when LGBTQ do those things - yep, just like I would if/when cisgender people do the same things.
The situation with the trans person swinging their junk in the ladies locker room is a perfect example. The trans person wants to be afforded the dignity of using their preferred locker room. Ok - maybe a bit akward for some cis women - but fine. But does that trans person have any obligation (moral, not legal) to recognize that at least some the people using that locker room aren't expecting to see (or have their children see) male parts? Or do only the trans person's feelings matter?
That, of course is the issue. You (in the discussion above re trans athletes) and others are preferencing the trans person's feelings/interests over cis person's (the athletes or the moms in the locker room) with no logical reason to justify it - just your personal and highly subjective notions of "fairness." Your explanation (that it is not destroying womens sports) is irrelevant to the question of fairness to the individual athlete.
My point is that both parties have interests and we get nowhere when any discussion of that is cutoff by the media and trans activists who call you transphobic for pointing that out. It is especially bad on twitter where the trans police get people suspended all the time. You aren't directly doing that, but by characterizing this as a "freedom issue" you're not too far off.
In terms of your suggestion that the athletic governing bodies need to tweak or adjust standards, I question how that would work in at least some sports. Genetically born males are going to have at least some permanent physical advantages in sports like track, powerlifting, soccer, swimming, etc. How do you quantify that in a fair manner?
Men identifying as trans to switch California prisons are attacking incarcerated women. Gavin Newsom is the only one who can stop this. https://t.co/Z80bZED72p
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) July 5, 2021
concordtom said:
Do you have any class?
Understanding the issue raises fair questions. But putting it that way in your opening? Do you have any class?
BearForce2 said:Men identifying as trans to switch California prisons are attacking incarcerated women. Gavin Newsom is the only one who can stop this. https://t.co/Z80bZED72p
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) July 5, 2021
