Dumpster Fire Discussions

[Cloud_Strife]

@TheMeInTeam What is it your fear will happen if trans women are allowed to compete with cis women?

No you see there's something inherently wrong with trans women... their very presence degrades beautiful cis women...

 

[João III]

I would much rather the creation of pools localized to the sport itself (e.g. sorted according to a rolling average of past performances or using an Elo system, or some relevant gender-neutral physical attribute)

Can you elaborate on how this would look in the real world? Like, for example, with the NBA and WNBA?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd be more invested in the high school teams. They lose a lot of participation with a simple step like tryouts. Can't imagine what turning it into league of legends would actually do. Then again, big districts have been doing that sort of horsecrap to kids' sport for ages. So maybe sports just suck more, the more people pay attention to them?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Desperately begging some British people to buck their growing trend of being anti trans

 

[Traitorfish]

Who said we accepted it as justifiable? There's plenty of discussion on gendered roles in society and this extends to competitive and / or professional sports.

It seems to me that you're trying to posit something as a settled argument to somehow dismiss people objecting to any exclusion of trans women (or men). What does it matter if we're arguing about "terms"? The argument is that within the defined categories that already exist, further exclusions are unfair because the science really isn't settled on any such advantage (or disadvantage) that historically "justified" the original separation (of men and women).

I don't think this really matters though? Because this argument hasn't emerged out of a vacuum. In today's world we sort according to gender, and, as sports are defined by clear and objective rules, we have chosen to define gender by hormone levels. This makes sense as it's clear, simple to test, and can be calibrated to include both cis women who produce these hormones naturally, and trans and cis women who cannot produce the hormones naturally and are already taking supplements to reach the same target levels independent of those rules. This definition is perfectly fine in 99% of cases. But here we are in the 1% of cases, which occur when a trans woman has won something, and now, the definition has suddenly become a big problem overnight. The question at the heart of this whole conversation is, and always has been, why did it become a problem? What is it about trans people generally, and trans women, specifically, which has cast such a pall on our otherwise perfectly nice and neat pools. So, I say again - the onus is on you: why do we need to change from the current hormones-based pools framework to, say, a sexual anatomy-based pools framework, as you suggested? What is the problem which trans women present under our current framework, and how does your new framework solve that problem? What is the distinction that didn't exist in the absence of trans women, but does now in their presence?

I think that this is all spilling outside of the original context of my comments, which was this remark,

If womens sports are reserved for women and transwomen are women, then transwomen can compete in womens sports. The only justification for exclusion is denial of their identity as women.

The argument here is that "trans women are women" is sufficient rationale for the participation of trans women in women's sport. I'm sceptical that this is actually a sufficient basis for crafting policy, that we can simply disregard biology as a criteria for participation. But, evidently, so are both of you.

So we've worked ourselves into a position where you've both aligned with Sommerswerd, who is saying something you basically disagree with but framed it in the terms of a cultural affect you identify with, and against me, who is saying something you basically agree with it but is framing it in terms of a cultural affect you identify against.

Which is really the gist of this whole debate, huh?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm curious as to the real world outcomes people want/expect. How would the addition of trans people into sports show up at local, State, college, national or international competition levels? Theory is one thing, implementation is another.

 

[El_Machinae]

That will shift as earlier interventions become more acceptable or useful.

 

[Gorbles]

Which is really the gist of this whole debate, huh?

The gist of the whole debate is you making uncited claims about puberty blockers, being challenged on them, and then not responding? And similar such tangents, throughout?

If I may, if you're perhaps feeling misrepresented here, that's because that's precisely what you're doing to both schlaufuchs and I. To take my arguments (for myself) specifically, I said nothing about disregarding biology. But biology didn't exist in the first place on the subject. Gender norms dictated womens' exclusion from a male-dominated sporting event. I even linked a piece on the history of it (after you claimed that there was no real barrier to women competing in mens' sports).

If I were "basically agreeing with you", you wouldn't have claimed there was no real barrier to women competing in mens' sports. You wouldn't have made the claims about puberty blockers that you did. You wouldn't be working so hard to try and paint Sommers' rather simple statement of "trans women are women" as something that's incorrect that I am only agreeing with because of some cultural affect. What cultural affect is it, exactly, anyway? It's not clear from the generalisation you're having to fit it into.

I'm curious as to the real world outcomes people want/expect. How would the addition of trans people into sports show up at local, State, college, national or international competition levels? Theory is one thing, implementation is another.

https://www.transathlete.com/olympics

Tokyo 2020 marks the first time an openly transgender athlete will compete in the Olympics, despite there being a policy in place since 2003.

This isn't new, right? 2003 was nearly twenty years ago. That was the start of legislation at the Olympic level - currently the most senior and internationally-recognised celebration of sports in general. The current backlash is nothing more than a (counter) cultural movement (which explains its favour with conservative and outright transphobic movements and organisations). Trans folk have presumably been competing in sports below the national level much like any other person, at the discretion of their school / state (or county) policies, etc.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

In britain, bigoted individuals like jk rowling, maya forstater, helen joyce, kathleen stick and bigoted groups like fairplayforwomen and transgendertrend are dominating the conversation irt puberty blockers, transitioning in general and trans people in sports

The whole media class is besotted by these transphobic idiots

 

[Traitorfish]

You wouldn't be working so hard to try and paint Sommers' rather simple statement of "trans women are women" as something that's incorrect

Could you highlight when and where I've challenged the statement that "trans women are women"?

 

[IglooDame]

I have difficulty accepting "unfairness" as a reason to keep trans women out of women's sports because the objections sound so similar to what I heard two decades ago - here, among other places - as a reason to keep gay couples from getting married. Separate teams/leagues really smacks of civil unions. And the unfairness of our daughters competing against folks who against their will have experienced male puberty while ignoring other 'unfair' competition created by money or genetics reminds me of how male/female marriages among couples that could not or did not intend to procreate, marriages of convenience, and other "deviations from the sacred institution of marriage" were ignored while 'I have nothing against gay people, but traditional marriage yadda yadda' kept getting repeated.

And while the arc of the moral universe is long, I wonder if there's enough bend here to get us where we need to be. Women 50% of the population. Black people 10-60% depending on location. Gay people 10%. Trans folk 1%, possibly higher, but certainly in the single digits. Gay folks really only had to fight against the sin tag. Trans folk are fighting against (a misinformed) "do it for the children" and a global right wing that has gotten very populist over the last decade.

 

[GinandTonic]

Lots of sports have an ungendered top flight. Women jockeys win the worlds most prestigious races, women drivers compete at very high levels. Gender of birth or identity is irrelevant.

At the other end of the scale we have boxing. If someone transitions at twenty the lasting effects of the hormones or their birth gender confer an unreasonable advantage. If Fury were to transition now it would be unfair to pit him against any female boxer on the planet. Fury is 14" taller than the last female heavyweight champ Hanna Gabriels with 43cm more reach, and nearer twice her weight than 4/3.

Any reasonable person agrees there is a spectrum. The question is how the sports in the middle work it out.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The answer isn't to exclude or ban us like we are lepers but that's exactly what is happening

 

[GinandTonic]

The answer isn't to exclude or ban us like we are lepers but that's exactly what is happening

Yes, but both sides arguing in absolutes when the answer is clearly a spectrum is not helpful.

Also, mods, this is totally threadworthy. Why does it languish in the dumpster fire?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yes, but both sides arguing in absolutes when the answer is clearly a spectrum is not helpful.

One side wants the absolute ban of trans people, the other just wants to ensure trans people aren't excluded

The answe doesn't lie in the middle, now pick your side or just acknowledge that this is merely a "debate" for you and not real life like it is for those who are trans

 

[Zardnaar]

Lots of sports have an ungendered top flight. Women jockeys win the worlds most prestigious races, women drivers compete at very high levels. Gender of birth or identity is irrelevant.

At the other end of the scale we have boxing. If someone transitions at twenty the lasting effects of the hormones or their birth gender confer an unreasonable advantage. If Fury were to transition now it would be unfair to pit him against any female boxer on the planet. Fury is 14" taller than the last female heavyweight champ Hanna Gabriels with 43cm more reach, and nearer twice her weight than 4/3.

Any reasonable person agrees there is a spectrum. The question is how the sports in the middle work it out.

Depends on the sport. If it involves horses, shooting, engines etc gender doesn't matter.

More physical stuff like boxing, rugby, weights etc yeah gonna be an issue.

 

[Zardnaar]

One side wants the absolute ban of trans people, the other just wants to ensure trans people aren't excluded

The answe doesn't lie in the middle, now pick your side or just acknowledge that this is merely a "debate" for you and not real life like it is for those who are trans

Not that simple because they're gonna draw a line somewhere. Might be a ban might not be and how much of XYZ is allowed.

No matter where they draw that line someone's gonna get screwed over. Might be the trans athelete that gets told no might be the cis women who gets demolished in boxing or whatever.

It's a no win situation due to that and rules and limits can be changed. Science might come in and say here's the cut off point that's fair. Won't be fair for the person on the wrong side if it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Just lmaoing at the idea that sporting organizations somehow haven't been trying to implement a middle ground solution.

Look, people opposed to trans people don't even accept those compromises, they just want us fudging gone

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You can keep trying to cedeground but their end goal is for us to be legislated out of existence, this isn't hyperbole either

 

[GinandTonic]

One side wants the absolute ban of trans people, the other just wants to ensure trans people aren't excluded

The answe doesn't lie in the middle, now pick your side or just acknowledge that this is merely a "debate" for you and not real life like it is for those who are trans

Cahonas. Don't dare tell me to pick my side, who the hell do you think you are? And, for what it's worth that is almost always counterproductive.

Is co-ed superheavyweight boxing ok? If not then there clearly is a spectrum. I'm not arguing against trans sports. I've spent a lot more time arguing for inclusive sports.

So, question -

Is co-ed boxing ok?