|
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 03 2026 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra. Age isn't the same as race o.O
Age is a protected characteristic you have no control over. Like biological sex and race.
|
On July 03 2026 00:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra. Age isn't the same as race o.O Age is a protected characteristic you have no control over. Like biological sex and race.
Cool, and "age" and "race" both have an "a" and an "e" too! That doesn't mean that age and race are the same, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should allow adult olympians to compete in high school games just because black athletes ought to be able to compete against white athletes.
|
There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
|
On July 02 2026 23:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:58 Geiko wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ? If sexism wasn't a thing, women would run the 100 meter just as fast as men.
But if we pretend that trans women are virtually identical to genetically gifted cis women hard enough …
But if we spend hours talking about the fuzzy edges separating sex or separating hormones …
But if we generalize to the world of safety concerns in sports …
But if we talk about how the people interested in this are definitely motivated to erase the existence of trans people …
The best way to understand this debate is to read Falling’s post on a women’s volleyball example and study the replies to it. It will make you a veteran in no time.
|
On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in.
Nope, not even close.
Basically people are trying to be nice to you because you generally have really good posts and are knowledgeable. But you clearly are clueless when it comes to sports, and that is OK. What isn’t is that you are so stuck in a really terrible argument that will make people question your confidence and intelligence in other issues.
|
On July 03 2026 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:25 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra. Age isn't the same as race o.O Age is a protected characteristic you have no control over. Like biological sex and race. Cool, and "age" and "race" both have an "a" and an "e" too! That doesn't mean that age and race are the same, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should allow adult olympians to compete in high school games just because black athletes ought to be able to compete against white athletes.
In the Star Trek world of an indefinite number of years in the future, ageist takes like this will be as outmoded as they sound to me right now as 8 and 18 and 80 years old will all compete against each other.
|
On July 03 2026 00:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:25 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra. Age isn't the same as race o.O Age is a protected characteristic you have no control over. Like biological sex and race. Cool, and "age" and "race" both have an "a" and an "e" too! That doesn't mean that age and race are the same, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should allow adult olympians to compete in high school games just because black athletes ought to be able to compete against white athletes. In the Star Trek world of an indefinite number of years in the future, ageist takes like this will be as outmoded as they sound to me right now as 8 and 18 and 80 years old will all compete against each other.
I think the most important question to consider is: Why do you think that Biden is a bigger criminal than Trump?
|
On July 03 2026 00:33 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Nope, not even close. Basically people are trying to be nice to you because you generally have really good posts and are knowledgeable. But you clearly are clueless when it comes to sports, and that is OK. What isn’t is that you are so stuck in a really terrible argument that will make people question your confidence and intelligence in other issues.
The current position of the trans exclusionary side is "yes, there are clear social barriers to women competing in non-physical sports like Chess to the point where women are almost nonexistent in the highest echelons, but that's completely irrelevant to physical sports, where social barriers still exist but are insignificant compared to biological factors," and the supporting evidence for this is "it's hypothetically possible for trans women to completely dominate women's sports, even though we have decades of trans women competing in women's sports without that happening."
But sure, terrible arguments or something lol.
|
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models.
|
On July 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:33 Billyboy wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Nope, not even close. Basically people are trying to be nice to you because you generally have really good posts and are knowledgeable. But you clearly are clueless when it comes to sports, and that is OK. What isn’t is that you are so stuck in a really terrible argument that will make people question your confidence and intelligence in other issues. The current position of the trans exclusionary side is "yes, there are clear social barriers to women competing in non-physical sports like Chess to the point where women are almost nonexistent in the highest echelons, but that's completely irrelevant to physical sports, where social barriers still exist but are insignificant compared to biological factors," and the supporting evidence for this is "it's hypothetically possible for trans women to completely dominate women's sports, even though we have decades of trans women competing in women's sports without that happening." But sure, terrible arguments or something lol.
That is a terrible break down of the argument that the non oBlades are making and you lumping them together to try to win internet points is crushing you. And will for long past this conversation.
But you do you.
|
On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models.
So in the current world where misogyny (and ableism) are wildly rampant, people care about women's leagues (and leagues for people with disabilities), but in the ideal world where sexism no longer exists (and also ableism, if it's truly a Star Trek-esque future), people will no longer care about women (and athletes with disabilities) just because we demarcate them with terms like "League B" instead of "Women's League"? The math isn't checking out here.
Once again, I remind you that the racialist fear of minorities being "over represented" (by their viewpoint, not mine) in sports leagues post-desegregation actually came true, but no sane person is malding over the fact that white people are being gatekept from that precious sponsorship money.
On July 03 2026 00:42 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On July 03 2026 00:33 Billyboy wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Nope, not even close. Basically people are trying to be nice to you because you generally have really good posts and are knowledgeable. But you clearly are clueless when it comes to sports, and that is OK. What isn’t is that you are so stuck in a really terrible argument that will make people question your confidence and intelligence in other issues. The current position of the trans exclusionary side is "yes, there are clear social barriers to women competing in non-physical sports like Chess to the point where women are almost nonexistent in the highest echelons, but that's completely irrelevant to physical sports, where social barriers still exist but are insignificant compared to biological factors," and the supporting evidence for this is "it's hypothetically possible for trans women to completely dominate women's sports, even though we have decades of trans women competing in women's sports without that happening." But sure, terrible arguments or something lol. That is a terrible break down of the argument that the non oBlades are making and you lumping them together to try to win internet points is crushing you. And will for long past this conversation. But you do you.
No, oBlade's argument is he's a normal person and normal people simply don't want trans people to be visible in society. The fairness of it is completely irrelevant.
If I cared about Internet points I'd be posting clickbait on algorithm-based social media, not deconstructing poor arguments on Tl.net.
|
On July 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:33 Billyboy wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Nope, not even close. Basically people are trying to be nice to you because you generally have really good posts and are knowledgeable. But you clearly are clueless when it comes to sports, and that is OK. What isn’t is that you are so stuck in a really terrible argument that will make people question your confidence and intelligence in other issues. The current position of the trans exclusionary side is "yes, there are clear social barriers to women competing in non-physical sports like Chess to the point where women are almost nonexistent in the highest echelons, but that's completely irrelevant to physical sports, where social barriers still exist but are insignificant compared to biological factors," and the supporting evidence for this is "it's hypothetically possible for trans women to completely dominate women's sports, even though we have decades of trans women competing in women's sports without that happening." But sure, terrible arguments or something lol.
There is no evidence men will completely dominate trans women when they participate in male sports which they are not excluded from.
|
Trans women are women and should participate in women's sports.
|
On July 03 2026 00:50 LightSpectra wrote:
Trans women are women and should participate in women's sports.
This really should be all that needs to be said and anyone that can't accept that should be disregarded from discussing it imo.
Dragging it out for pages isn't being done for trans people, their rights, or for fairness in sport, it's not even for correctness, it's for poster's egos plain and simple
|
On July 03 2026 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:33 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:25 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra. Age isn't the same as race o.O Age is a protected characteristic you have no control over. Like biological sex and race. Cool, and "age" and "race" both have an "a" and an "e" too! That doesn't mean that age and race are the same, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should allow adult olympians to compete in high school games just because black athletes ought to be able to compete against white athletes. In the Star Trek world of an indefinite number of years in the future, ageist takes like this will be as outmoded as they sound to me right now as 8 and 18 and 80 years old will all compete against each other. I think the most important question to consider is: Why do you think that Biden is a bigger criminal than Trump?
No, you see, Trump is honest, he discloses his trades and sneaky criminal Joe hides them:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0Qto4Qr.png)
Also, all of us morons who care about people in power taking advantage of their privileged positions are just jealous of Don, the greatest Crypto mogul who out-earned even the biggest Crypto firms:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jEJfN81.png)
Who would have thunk it that the smartest Crypto trader in the world is a 80 year old dementia patient who is impressed by his son turning on a laptop in 5 minutes!
|
United States44247 Posts
On July 03 2026 00:39 Geiko wrote:
If I understand correctly In this future with no sexism, the 100m dash will be co-ed. How it will work is there will be tiers based on performance or muscle mass or some other metric. Basically the fastest runners will be in league A, then the rest will be in league B, C, D, etc.
Obviously these first leagues will be all men, and you might se a woman or two in the F league. Spectators will only care about leagues A and B of course.
So in this ideal world without sexism, men will hoard 100% of the prize money and the sponsorship money and women will have no visible role models.
Just like how right now adults and able bodied people hoard all the prize money. When are we going to see representation for sprinters with full blown AIDS? It’s outrageous. They need their own league.
If you want to achieve total fairness and representation in sports you’re going to need to create as many leagues as there are people.
|
On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in.
Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable.
Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that.
I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level.
If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest!
|
On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable. Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that. I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level. If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest!
The chromosome thing is stupid, because even forgetting trans women, it would bar intersex women from competing which would be pretty unfair as well. I already brought it up, but if we're going to ban women from competing for chromosomal issues, etc, because it's unfair, then we should've banned people like Michael Phelps for being genetic monsters as well. Nobody seriously takes that argument though, because for some reason the complaints are always about minority women. Thing is that sports are unfair and you're gonna have a harder time making it to the top level if you're like 170cm versus 190cm.
I don't personally feel that strongly about trans women in sports, but as i said before, it's basically a red herring and letting them play is not going to be this massive problematic event that some people are painting it as.
|
On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable.[
Okay, then quantify it. Tell me in exact, measurable, arithmetical terms how much of an advantage a nonspecific trans woman has over a nonspecific AFAB woman in sprinting, boxing, and swimming, respectively.
|
On July 03 2026 02:34 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 02:20 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. Who is arguing that the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable? Not anybody on the last few pages. The cutoff of what biological sex counts as "a woman" is quite arbitrary, but that's not the same as the advantage being unquantifiable. Kwark's solution in fact is to do away with the whole concept of biological sex in sports and simply quantify the advantage your genetics/training/nutrition/culture have given different athletes and sort them into different leagues based only on that advantage. Clearly you need to measure that advantage to be able to do that. I guess my point is closer to X/Y chromosome supremacy in this: seeing as an awfully large part of this advantage (but definitely not all) is determined by whether or not you have an X or a Y chromosome, and we already use that, it's extremely convenient to just keep using that. And if that means we get it wrong for < 5% of the population, that is tough luck. It's not as if they are suddenly barred from doing sports. They just can't compete at the highest level, because in their advantage category they are (arbitrarily) disqualified, and in the other category they aren't at the highest level. If there's something better than X/Y chromosome to differentiate these genetic advantages, I'm totally up changing my mind, but do note that I am not in the IOC, FIFA, CAF or anything else where my opinion matters in the slightest! The chromosome thing is stupid, because even forgetting trans women, it would bar intersex women from competing which would be pretty unfair as well. I already brought it up, but if we're going to ban women from competing for chromosomal issues, etc, because it's unfair, then we should've banned people like Michael Phelps for being genetic monsters as well. Nobody seriously takes that argument though, because for some reason the complaints are always about minority women. Thing is that sports are unfair and you're gonna have a harder time making it to the top level if you're like 170cm versus 190cm. I don't personally feel that strongly about trans women in sports, but as i said before, it's basically a red herring and letting them play is not going to be this massive problematic event that some people are painting it as.
It's still only about normal distribution.
The population number of intersex women or whatever example that gets brought up is so small that even if it gives a significant advantage its unlikely to have any impact on the highest level of a sport.
Same reason trans women haven't made an impact. The number of trans women are so small it's unlikely they will produce a top athlete.
The difference in people's minds is that hypothetically the population level is just as big and being trans is something that can change. That said its probably unlikely a top tier athlete would change their gender just to dominate women's sports but it could happen and unlike other factors there is enough of a population base (being males) to make it plausible.
On the whole this issue is just the latest example of how people doesn't realise that acceptance of norm changes is a generational issue that takes a lot of time. The "battle" is won in a war of attrition. But the HBTQT crowd would rather bash their heads against issues that the general public is not going to accept rather than to wait until trans individuals get internalised as normal by society before pushing further.
Keeping at it might hasten the process slightly but it will also generate a lot of backlash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
