|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 08 2023 19:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:44 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you? Well, no, because there is an important difference there, which is the self-referral. You won't find a dog on this planet that says of itself that it is a dog. You will find a LOT of humans on this planet who will say of themselves if they are men or women. And that self-organization is important! But maybe changing the words will make it clearer to you. Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? Sure, I believe anyone can declare themselves a follower of whatever theological bullshit they want. You see what you did? You acknowledged that (1) the definitive way of knowing if someone is Protestant or a Muslim (or some other religion) is by asking them, and (2) declared that that means they are "a follower of whatever theological bullshit". However, that means that people who self-identity as protestants share some characteristics, even though it is entirely due to self-identifying. And people who self-identity as muslims share some *other* characteristics. And we are able to describe what those characteristics are, in general. For instance, we know that Muslims generally don't eat pork. But just knowing that they're a Muslim is not enough to know they don't eat pork, because *some* Muslims do eat pork! I see. By comparing this to the followers of religious doctrine, which to any rational outside observer constitutes nothing more than meaningless bullshit, I think you may have stumbled across the perfect example that helps me understand your argument.
This idea that we - as creatures using their highly subjective and mostly incomplete perception of reality to interpret objective reality - can somehow accurately determine objective reality in its purest form, is no less bullshit than the religious doctrines that you're opposed to.
We're not capable of having a complete understanding of objective reality. We can only interpret it with our subjective mind. And there are as many interpretations of reality as there are individuals on the planet.
To further make matters worse, we're even less capable of having a complete understanding of subjective reality - that is the experience of other people around us.
Our perception is far removed from objective reality, and it's even further removed from other people's experiences.
Edit: in fact we can't even fully understand our own subjective experience.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On July 08 2023 19:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 18:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 17:56 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:54 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 17:33 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:27 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 16:59 ChristianS wrote:On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 14:54 BlackJack wrote:
I have no problem saying I’m NOT on team “trans women are women” even if that makes me a transphobic bigoted asshole or whatever. If transitioning were a 100% biologically indistinguishable process then I would be on team “trans women are women.” 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? I’m pretty sure a person could be missing nearly every one of those criteria and you’d still consider them a woman. This is the problem with these definition questions, people tend to jump to things that are typical rather than things that are actually required elements. That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. No, they don't. Definitions define a thing. That means that they can be used to clearly differentiate if something is that thing, or not. A good definition does not give room for interpretation or wriggling. For example, in maths, a definition looks kinda like this: "A series is called a Cauchy series if and only if it fulfills the following criteria: It a) blablah b) blah" and so forth. "A series is typically called a Cauchy series if it does blah, but sometimes not, and sometimes other stuff is also called Cauchy" is not a good definition. (Unless you clearly deliniate what those other situations are in your definition, once again making it clear and decisive. Similarly, "A dog has 4 legs" is not a good definition of a dog. It isn't even part of a good definition for a dog for exactly the reason you mentioned. Dogs with 3 legs exist. A good definition means that you can clearly decide if something is or is not a dog. 4-leggedness doesn't help, because neither are all 4-legged animals dogs, nor do all dogs have 4 legs. Well when I google the definition of dog the first thing it offers me is this a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Underline for emphasis. I'm quite certain that all of those attributes is not something that's present in every single dog Because you are not the only one who is bad at definitions. Or, conversely, because the definitions in a dictionary aren't actual definitions, but descriptions. I studied maths at university. I know what a definition is. That isn't. That is a description. I do think that most people and most dictionaries use "typical descriptions" when talking about "definitions". It's more practical in many cases. For example, it's less helpful and perhaps even circular to define "dog" as "canis lupus familiaris", when a person just wants to know what puppies tend to do and look like. Not everything is as well-defined as our beloved mathematical terms! I think this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I just hate it when people or other fields steal the very useful terms from maths or physics, use them incorrectly, and then claim that that is what those terms actually mean. All the while there are perfectly fine words to describe what they actually mean. Why does a dictionary use "definition" when they actually mean "description"? Why do people use terms such as energy, force, power, current, pressure, weight, mass as if there is some massive overlap in meaning between those? Each of those has a very clear and distinct meaning. Just because you can't be bothered to learn what a word means doesn't mean you get to redefine what that word means to your half-assed vague descriptor of a half-understood concept. Just learn what the words you use mean, and use them correctly.
Then what would be a definition of a woman suitable for the mathematically inclined?
For the record I think a) zerobyte is basically right, in that there can be a difference between what we think and what we express. Imo it is important that I treat trans people with respect - but whether or not I think double X chromosones or ovaries is a requirement to technically be a woman doesn't actually matter. For me, in every day life, 'sincerely considers herself a woman' is more than good enough.
Then, there's the question of 'but if it's just a choice and having one gender can sometimes be advantageous, what do we do about people who just bullshit' is essentially solved through making the hurdle to pass too cumbersome for those advantages to be worthwhile. As it is, that's definitely the case.
Then I guess there's the question of the non-binary. This one is a bit harder because it kinda challenges to what degree society has to be or should be gendered. Making a legal third gender is one way I guess, and in that case maybe you both won't qualify for female quotas in leadership positions and skip out on an all male conscription rule? I do have a hypothesis that there's a correlation between people wanting society to be less gendered and to what degree they accept trans people/non-binary. But it's also such a small number of people that I don't think it's actually a real issue, it's more of a hypothetical thought exercise.
|
On July 08 2023 20:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:35 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 18:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 17:56 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:54 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 17:33 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:27 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 16:59 ChristianS wrote:On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view.
2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you?
3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? I’m pretty sure a person could be missing nearly every one of those criteria and you’d still consider them a woman. This is the problem with these definition questions, people tend to jump to things that are typical rather than things that are actually required elements. That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. No, they don't. Definitions define a thing. That means that they can be used to clearly differentiate if something is that thing, or not. A good definition does not give room for interpretation or wriggling. For example, in maths, a definition looks kinda like this: "A series is called a Cauchy series if and only if it fulfills the following criteria: It a) blablah b) blah" and so forth. "A series is typically called a Cauchy series if it does blah, but sometimes not, and sometimes other stuff is also called Cauchy" is not a good definition. (Unless you clearly deliniate what those other situations are in your definition, once again making it clear and decisive. Similarly, "A dog has 4 legs" is not a good definition of a dog. It isn't even part of a good definition for a dog for exactly the reason you mentioned. Dogs with 3 legs exist. A good definition means that you can clearly decide if something is or is not a dog. 4-leggedness doesn't help, because neither are all 4-legged animals dogs, nor do all dogs have 4 legs. Well when I google the definition of dog the first thing it offers me is this a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Underline for emphasis. I'm quite certain that all of those attributes is not something that's present in every single dog Because you are not the only one who is bad at definitions. Or, conversely, because the definitions in a dictionary aren't actual definitions, but descriptions. I studied maths at university. I know what a definition is. That isn't. That is a description. I do think that most people and most dictionaries use "typical descriptions" when talking about "definitions". It's more practical in many cases. For example, it's less helpful and perhaps even circular to define "dog" as "canis lupus familiaris", when a person just wants to know what puppies tend to do and look like. Not everything is as well-defined as our beloved mathematical terms! I think this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I just hate it when people or other fields steal the very useful terms from maths or physics, use them incorrectly, and then claim that that is what those terms actually mean. All the while there are perfectly fine words to describe what they actually mean. Why does a dictionary use "definition" when they actually mean "description"? Why do people use terms such as energy, force, power, current, pressure, weight, mass as if there is some massive overlap in meaning between those? Each of those has a very clear and distinct meaning. Just because you can't be bothered to learn what a word means doesn't mean you get to redefine what that word means to your half-assed vague descriptor of a half-understood concept. Just learn what the words you use mean, and use them correctly. Then what would be a definition of a woman suitable for the mathematically inclined? For the record I think a) zerobyte is basically right, in that there can be a difference between what we think and what we express. Imo it is important that I treat trans people with respect - but whether or not I think double X chromosones or ovaries is a requirement to technically be a woman doesn't actually matter. For me, in every day life, 'sincerely considers herself a woman' is more than good enough. Then, there's the question of 'but if it's just a choice and having one gender can sometimes be advantageous, what do we do about people who just bullshit' is essentially solved through making the hurdle to pass too cumbersome for those advantages to be worthwhile. As it is, that's definitely the case. Then I guess there's the question of the non-binary. This one is a bit harder because it kinda challenges to what degree society has to be or should be gendered. Making a legal third gender is one way I guess, and in that case maybe you both won't qualify for female quotas in leadership positions and skip out on an all male conscription rule? I do have a hypothesis that there's a correlation between people wanting society to be less gendered and to what degree they accept trans people/non-binary. But it's also such a small number of people that I don't think it's actually a real issue, it's more of a hypothetical thought exercise.
I have a really hard time defining "woman" in any mathematically consistent way. I doubt it is actually possible. That is often the fact with terms which have historically grown instead of being scientifically determined. And that is mostly fine, too.
Some words can't be rigorously defined and work basically of a common societal understanding of what they mean. For those words, instead of claiming to have a definition, just use descriptions. And i am totally okay with that concept, as long as those terms aren't stolen from a place where they actually have a rigorous meaning and then randomly watered down.
I prefer words with clear definitions, but i don't think it is possible to actually find those for words with centuries of history of slightly shifting meanings and societal implications.
Gender especially is very clearly not only a biological thing. Gender roles in society have existed forever in basically any society, but they also change over time and space. Basically in every society there is a clear expectation of how a man should behave and be, and how a woman should behave and be. Those are usually not grounded in biology, but just societal consensus.
I think my position on trans issues is very similar to yours. Just leave people alone. Trans people are not a huge societal problem that needs solving. Just letting them be, letting them choose, and respecting their choices won't lead to any massive problems, and make their lives a lot better. In the edge cases where problems arise, those problems should also be solvable.
And i don't think this massive influx of people who view themselves as men, but claim to be women to get some advantages that people fear will ever manifest. Especially if you make the claiming process not a "spur of the moment" thing, but something that takes some bureaucratic effort. Of course, that leads to other problems for nonbinary or genderfluid people, but once again, those should be solvable.
In general, i think we can care about the minute details once we actually get everyone on board with "just generally respect people and let them live their lives."
|
On July 08 2023 19:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:42 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true. Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here?
In my example you invented a XXX chromosome woman with a total hysterectomy and a double mastectomy just to try to show how my definition wouldn't fit. For yours I don't need to invent anyone and I can just disprove it by using myself and saying "I am a woman." By your definition you have to believe me to be a woman and yet everyone in this thread would know that's not the case. When my definition needs an extreme genetic anomaly to disprove and yours can be undone by anyone with a voice I'd say I'm closer to the truth.
|
On July 08 2023 20:18 Simberto wrote:
And i don't think this massive influx of people who view themselves as men, but claim to be women to get some advantages that people fear will ever manifest. Btw in this regard...
Advantages are most visible in sports, of course, as this is the area where physycal differences are aplified the most.
And I think that if there are any trans-women who did it for the advantage, they're in minority.
Most trans-athletes probably have the GD indeed, so it's all sincere and should be respected.
But this doesn't mean they don't get the advantages of having a male body or at least growing up with a male body, even if this wasn't their intention. And I can understand frustration of female athletes who get demolished by someone with that type of advantage which they probably will never be able to overcome because of biology.
So I wonder what should/could be done in this area.
Someone suggested having two leagues, biological women only and everyone else - which is already the case in many professional leagues. Women are allowed to play in NHL, NBA, most (any?) football teams in Europe, etc. They just don't because the physical difference is really big.
But having a league that says "biological women only" probably won't fly today...
And yes, there are not so many trans-athletes so far, but this trend has only started so I'm sure will see more and more in future.
|
On July 08 2023 20:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:42 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true. Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here? In my example you invented a XXX chromosome woman with a total hysterectomy and a double mastectomy just to try to show how my definition wouldn't fit. For yours I don't need to invent anyone and I can just disprove it by using myself and saying "I am a woman." By your definition you have to believe me to be a woman and yet everyone in this thread would know that's not the case. When my definition needs an extreme genetic anomaly to disprove and yours can be undone by anyone with a voice I'd say I'm closer to the truth.
Except that at the end of the day, the only external difference between an XX chromosome person with a uterus and 2 breasts and an XXX chromosome person with s histerectomy and a double mastectomy (and plastic surgery), is what they might say if you ask them. So unless you're asking women to submit their medical records, you're just going to have to take their word for it in almost all cases.
As for lying, you're right. I might be bamboozled into accepting someone as being a woman who actually is a man and lying. My response to that is (1) so what, and (2) so can you.
|
On July 08 2023 20:34 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 20:18 Simberto wrote:
And i don't think this massive influx of people who view themselves as men, but claim to be women to get some advantages that people fear will ever manifest. Btw in this regard... Advantages are most visible in sports, of course, as this is the area where physycal differences are aplified the most. And I think that if there are any trans-women who did it for the advantage, they're in minority. Most trans-athletes probably have the GD indeed, so it's all sincere and should be respected. But this doesn't mean they don't get the advantages of having a male body or at least growing up with a male body, even if this wasn't their intention. And I can understand frustration of female athletes who get demolished by someone with that type of advantage which they probably will never be able to overcome because of biology. So I wonder what should/could be done in this area. Someone suggested having two leagues, biological women only and everyone else - which is already the case in many professional leagues. Women are allowed to play in NHL, NBA, most (any?) football teams in Europe, etc. They just don't because the physical difference is really big. But having a league that says "biological women only" probably won't fly today...
Again with the sports. We already have strict requirements for sports that even blocks some cis women from participating. Men "lying" to compete in female sports competitions is just not a thing you should worry about.
|
On July 08 2023 20:34 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 20:18 Simberto wrote:
And i don't think this massive influx of people who view themselves as men, but claim to be women to get some advantages that people fear will ever manifest. Btw in this regard... Advantages are most visible in sports, of course, as this is the area where physycal differences are aplified the most. And I think that if there are any trans-women who did it for the advantage, they're in minority. Most trans-athletes probably have the GD indeed, so it's all sincere and should be respected. But this doesn't mean they don't get the advantages of having a male body or at least growing up with a male body, even if this wasn't their intention. And I can understand frustration of female athletes who get demolished by someone with that type of advantage which they probably will never be able to overcome because of biology. So I wonder what should/could be done in this area. Someone suggested having two leagues, biological women only and everyone else - which is already the case in many professional leagues. Women are allowed to play in NHL, NBA, most (any?) football teams in Europe, etc. They just don't because the physical difference is really big. But having a league that says "biological women only" probably won't fly today... And yes, there are not so many trans-athletes so far, but this trend has only started so I'm sure will see more and more in future.
Sure, and this is one of these minor side issues that need to eventually be ironed out. But it is mostly used as a distractor to distract from the more important point: Treat trans people with respect in general society.
Once we have done that, we can figure out how to have fair rules for womens sport that don't make life horrible for trans people, but also don't make trans women completely dominate womens sports.
But this discussion is always so focused on these minute side issues so people miss the big picture.
|
On July 08 2023 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
Men "lying" to compete in female sports competitions is just not a thing you should worry about. If you read my post a bit more carefully you'll see me directly saying it's not about "Men lying to compete in female sports competitions"
It's about sincere people who still have advantages.
On July 08 2023 20:48 Simberto wrote:
Treat trans people with respect in general society.
Once we have done that, we can figure out how to have fair rules for womens sport that don't make life horrible for trans people. But are the female athletes happy to wait for this noble goal to be achieved first (which might take a decade or two or more) and only their problems being solved? Why one has to wait for another?
But I digress from the main topic here, it's just an area that I find interesting.
So if you think this conversation is unnecessary, just ignore this please.
|
On July 08 2023 20:48 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
Men "lying" to compete in female sports competitions is just not a thing you should worry about. If you read my post a bit more carefully you'll see me directly saying it's not about "Men lying to compete in female sports competitions" It's about sincere people who still have advantages. But I digressed indeed, it's just a topic that I find interesting. Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 20:48 Simberto wrote:
Treat trans people with respect in general society.
Once we have done that, we can figure out how to have fair rules for womens sport that don't make life horrible for trans people. But are the female athletes happy to wait for this noble goal to be achieved first (which might take a decade or more) and only their problems being solved? Why one has to wait for another? But again I digress from the main topic here.
Do female athletes actually care that much? Because so far, it seems to be exclusively conservative men argueing for female athletes as a smokescreen to not have to talk about trans rights in general society/ as a way to paint trans people as "men who claim to be women for some nefarious goals"
(Also, trans men never appear in these discussions in general, because it is much easier to vilify trans women for some reason.)
|
On July 08 2023 20:59 Simberto wrote:
Do female athletes actually care that much? First, I don't think it's a secret that it might be not wise for them to say anything unless they want to be called bigots and transophobic which might lead to being ridiculed in media, losing sponsors, etc.
Second, as far as I know there were at least a few who voiced their disagreement anyway, and they claimed many others are not happy too but don't want to say it aloud because they don't want to be called transphobic.
But anyway, is it hard to imagine at least some (if not many) female athletes not being happy if newcomers start "taking away" their prizes, qualifying spots, etc.?
On July 08 2023 20:59 Simberto wrote:
(Also, trans men never appear in these discussions in general, because it is much easier to vilify trans women for some reason.) Trans men don't have a chance to dominate men's sports 'cause being born in a woman body is a huge disadvantage in most of the sports (compared to a male body) - while there are already trans women who do dominate their field.
Also there are significantly more trans women than trans men in general, as far as I know, so this also might play a role.
To clarify - I'm personally absolutely fine with trans women participating in women sports because I don't follow them, this cannot possibly hurt me or competions I care about at all. If female athletes themselves are ok with it, then I agree there's no problem whatsoever.
I heard that some/many are not ok with that, but it's just something I heard, I might have been mislead.
|
United States41952 Posts
Just use “my biological sex is male” and “my gender identity is female”. One is a statement of provable fact, the other of subjective identity but the speaker is an authority on their own subjective experience.
Arguing about hypotheticals like dodging male conscription by asserting female gender status is confusing the two relevant attributes, sex and gender identity. Nobody thinks that a trans gender identity alters biological sex.
|
On July 08 2023 21:54 KwarK wrote:
Arguing about hypotheticals like dodging male conscription by asserting female gender status is confusing the two relevant attributes, sex and gender identity. Nobody thinks that a trans gender identity alters biological sex. Btw I don't even know what official documents say about this. Probably you're correct that conscription cares about sex only, then this example was incorrect.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On July 08 2023 20:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 20:48 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 08 2023 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
Men "lying" to compete in female sports competitions is just not a thing you should worry about. If you read my post a bit more carefully you'll see me directly saying it's not about "Men lying to compete in female sports competitions" It's about sincere people who still have advantages. But I digressed indeed, it's just a topic that I find interesting. On July 08 2023 20:48 Simberto wrote:
Treat trans people with respect in general society.
Once we have done that, we can figure out how to have fair rules for womens sport that don't make life horrible for trans people. But are the female athletes happy to wait for this noble goal to be achieved first (which might take a decade or more) and only their problems being solved? Why one has to wait for another? But again I digress from the main topic here. Do female athletes actually care that much? Because so far, it seems to be exclusively conservative men argueing for female athletes as a smokescreen to not have to talk about trans rights in general society/ as a way to paint trans people as "men who claim to be women for some nefarious goals" (Also, trans men never appear in these discussions in general, because it is much easier to vilify trans women for some reason.)
Opinions seem to vary quite a lot, and differ a bit between grass roots and elite sport from what I can tell.
Despite it being a conservative Trojan horse, it is a also somewhat pertinent one to sort out because the usually impact-free solution of just treating trans people as the gender they identify as does have potential negative ramifications.
As it’s a relatively nascent issue the science is also pretty fractured or not conclusive on things like advantage thresholds from testosterone levels, or other residual performance benefits from a male adolescence. Listened to a rather in-depth podcast about it a while ago
Ultimately as well, isn’t a lot of sport ultimately about unfair genetic advantages at its core anyway? Provided they trained hard, who’s beating Usain Bolt or a Michael Phelps?
Or a Caster Semenya intersex issue which she had from birth and was unaware of up until being tested by athletics body?
There’s a lot of ultimately intractable issues there, I’m not sure they can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties so it’ll possibly end up picking what is valued more.
|
On July 08 2023 22:00 WombaT wrote:
Ultimately as well, isn’t a lot of sport ultimately about unfair genetic advantages at its core anyway? Provided they trained hard, who’s beating Usain Bolt or a Michael Phelps? Yes but we DO separate men's and women's sport because everyone understands that in most of the sports women not only would not be winning anything - the best of them will be outside of top-100 probably. Because such is reality of male body advantage in these sports.
So if we erase all borders and make all leagues unified - people who don't care about female sports will probably say "sure, why not" and nothing will change for them, while people who do care about female sports will probably never see female athletes at the top level ever again.
So this separation is in place for a very good reason, to protect female sports (i.e. make sure they exist at all) and make sure women can compete in fair conditions, not amongst people who have huge biological advantage in this sport.
Separation by sex and weight categories might not be ideal but they're surely necessary to ensure some kind of fairness of competition.
|
United States41952 Posts
On July 08 2023 22:06 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 22:00 WombaT wrote:
Ultimately as well, isn’t a lot of sport ultimately about unfair genetic advantages at its core anyway? Provided they trained hard, who’s beating Usain Bolt or a Michael Phelps? Yes but we DO separate men's and women's sport because everyone understands that in most of the sports women not only would not be winning anything - the best of them will be outside of top-100 probably. Because such is reality of male body advantage in these sports. So if we erase all borders and make all leagues unified - people who don't care about female sports will probably say "sure, why not" and nothing will change for them, while people who do care about female sports will probably never see female athletes at the top level ever again. So this separation is in place for a very good reason, to protect female sports and make sure women can compete in fair conditions, not amongst people who have huge biological advantage in this sport.
There are XX biological women who aren’t allowed to compete in women’s sports because their naturally occurring hormones give them an edge over less genetically gifted women. The definition of women for women’s sports is a minefield.
It’s also why this is essentially a non issue. We already don’t let cis women with biological advantages compete at the highest levels in women’s sports, of course we’re not going to let trans women compete.
|
On July 08 2023 22:12 KwarK wrote:
We already don’t let cis women with biological advantages compete at the highest levels in women’s sports, of course we’re not going to let trans women compete. Wait, now I'm confused... They actually DO compete, right? Lia Thomas and many others, especially at junior level probably.
Re: "the highest level" - there was a trans woman in NZ team at the last Olympics, it doesn't get higher than this, I guess.
|
The reason why sports discriminate between male and female is not because people want to discriminate between the genders, but to ensure fairness and safety for the competitors. It's the same reason why there are weight classes in boxing. If hypothetically there was no natural strength and size discrepancy between people born male and female, then they could all compete alongside one another without any questions asked.
There are many cases in the martial arts where one individual is so dominant that all competitors fear them and they try to avoid them in the ring if at all possible.
There are cases in sports where someone uses a method that is so dangerous (to others or to themselves) that it has to be banned.
PEDs fall into a similar category. We could hypothetically allow it, but it's harmful to the user.
Or something is so far outside of the framework of the sport that it is illegal for integrity reasons. For example punching people in football. It could hypothetically be allowed and it could be called Fighting Football. But we already have American Football and Rugby for something similar, so perhaps there's no demand. But in concept this is how all sports work on paper.
Transgender athletes can be incorporated into sports based on the same ethical framework: fairness, safety and integrity. If it can be granted, then they can compete. If not, then they can't. It's straight forward and there's no muddiness.
To be honest I think it's far more important that we develop better tools to detect doping, because that seems to be a far more pressing issue than a handful of transgender athletes raising questions.
|
United States41952 Posts
On July 08 2023 22:18 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 22:12 KwarK wrote:
We already don’t let cis women with biological advantages compete at the highest levels in women’s sports, of course we’re not going to let trans women compete. Wait, now I'm confused... They actually DO compete, right? Lia Thomas and many others, especially at junior level probably.
Not the highest level of sports but it looks like she’s benefiting from the same rules that hurt biological women with irregular hormones.
The ruling they’re going with seems to be that don’t care whether you’re XX or XY, they care whether you have male hormones that would be unfair to everyone else.
So just as someone with XX and too much testosterone would be forced to compete with the men, so someone with XY whose testosterone has been brought down to levels matching the normal range for biological women is allowed to compete with the women.
Presumably different sports make different decisions on a case by case basis but I would be very surprised if we saw trans women competing in the Olympics, for example, because it’s probably difficult to fully undo all biological advantages.
Women’s sports doesn’t exist just to be sport for XX women, if it did then the most successful athletes would end up being athletes with hormone imbalances. It exists to give regular women with biology that conforms to normal XX ranges somewhere to compete.
Right now men’s sports appear a genetic free for all where whatever advantages you have are fine as long as they’re not artificial. But if Michael Phelps started breeding a race of genetic super swimmer mutants then they might eventually rule that the Phelps/Dolphin hybrids shouldn’t compete in the mean’s. Not because they’re not men but because it wouldn’t be fair for the people with regular proportions.
|
On July 08 2023 11:54 Mohdoo wrote:
Just out of curiosity for anyone who has anything against trans people in whatever context:
If it were medically possible for transitioning to be a 100% biologically accurate process, where there are no physical differences between a trans/cis woman to the point that no amount of medical testing would indicate someone was trans, would you still have any biases you have? This is mostly a question for folks with views similar to Taelshin, who have been open about their belief that trans women are not women.
I was thinking about our conversations in this thread recently and started to wonder if people's views would be different if trans women truly were biologically identical.
How could we ever know with absolute certainty? Just because no test would be able to tell any difference does not mean there would be no difference.
Anyone is free to think of themselves as anything they please as far as I am concerned but I do not consider myself morally obligated to pretend to believe in anyone else’s beliefs. Want me to wish for you to live a good life with joy, health etc? You got it. Do I think we should be mean or cruel to people we disagree with? No. Do I vehemently oppose any attempt to coerce anyone to impose any kind of ideology? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
