Dumpster Fire Discussions

[Gorbles]

there's still debate over whether it actually can reduce capability to be identical to biological female competitors. i'm not convinced based on what i've seen.

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies (National Library of Medicine, published October 2016).

I can't make anyone read it, or force anyone to believe it, but it's worth a look over. See if it changes anyones' minds.

 

[João III]

Yes, that’s why Lia Thomas got so much slower after she started HRT.

And broke records thanks to a strong work ethic?

 

[Berzerker]

If Gregor Clegane were a cis woman with the same build and proportions, would it be fair for her to compete against women?

she wouldn't have the same build and proportions, but yes... women in her weight class

 

[sophie]

she wouldn't have the same build and proportions, but yes... women in her weight class

So you have two identical women - same height, same weight, same strength, same physical capacities in every single way, with the only difference being that one was deemed male by a doctor at birth. Do you see how the fairness argument breaks down in that case? Two women so identical that any competitive advantage held by the one necessarily would be also held by the other, both competing in a field of their peers (fellow women), and yet one of them you see as totally unfair and shouldn't be allowed to happen and the other you see no problem with. Why is that?

 

[João III]

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies (National Library of Medicine, published October 2016).

I can't make anyone read it, or force anyone to believe it, but it's worth a look over. See if it changes anyones' minds.

I thought these passages were interesting:

Gooren and Bunck concluded that transgender male individuals are likely to be able to compete without an athletic advantage 1-year post-cross-sex hormone treatment. To a certain extent this also applies to transgender female individuals; however, there still remains a level of uncertainty owing to a large muscle mass 1-year post-cross-sex hormones.

Differentiating not only between those taking cross-sex hormones and not taking cross-sex hormones, but also transgender female individuals taking testosterone blockers, may be necessary when discussing an athletic advantage.

 

[Berzerker]

So you have two identical women - same height, same weight, same strength, same physical capacities in every single way, with the only difference being that one was deemed male by a doctor at birth. Do you see how the fairness argument breaks down in that case? Two women so identical that any competitive advantage held by the one necessarily would be also held by the other, both competing in a field of their peers (fellow women), and yet one of them you see as totally unfair and shouldn't be allowed to happen and the other you see no problem with. Why is that?

If we accept male athletes are stronger than female athletes, then trans women athletes are stronger than
female athletes. They're not identical and there are no female Cleganes. If the two people in your example want to compete it aint my business, but I'll be more impressed if the cis female wins. I assume trans people have a mix of attributes (dont we all?) but the male influences are advantageous.

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20210715/do-trans-women-athletes-have-advantages

"There's absolutely no question in my mind that trans women will maintain strength advantages over cis women, even after hormone therapy. That's based on my clinical experience, rather than published data, but I would say there's zero doubt in my mind."

or in mine

male athletes > trans athletes > female athletes

 

[Gorbles]

I thought these passages were interesting:

I quite like this one (from the abstract, so you don't need to delve too deep):

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

And as we can assume the passages you found don't contravene the established conclusion, presumably there's additional context to them that you didn't find interesting or quotable? Here's a bit from further on:

In summary, there is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport or not. The limited physiological research conducted to date has informed the development of transgender sport policies that are implemented by sporting organisations all over the world. It is these sport policies that appear to be instrumental in transgender people’s experiences with competitive sport, most of which are negative.

To me, it's fascinating that from such free speech advocates (going on general posts from a variety of topics) would choose to defend rules and policies that seem to be overly-restrictive, if not outright harmful. This dissonance is what suggests a pre-existing bias, because it isn't consistent with your, or Berzerker's, or whoever elses' positions whereby rules need to be conclusively demonstrated as being beneficial before restricting a person's liberties or freedoms (generally speaking).

then trans women athletes are stronger than female athletes.

This is a claim that has little, if any, consistent supporting evidence. But you make it anyway, because of course you do

 

[João III]

To me, it's fascinating that from such free speech advocates (going on general posts from a variety of topics) would choose to defend rules and policies that seem to be overly-restrictive, if not outright harmful. This dissonance is what suggests a pre-existing bias, because it isn't consistent with your, or Berzerker's, or whoever elses' positions whereby rules need to be conclusively demonstrated as being beneficial before restricting a person's liberties or freedoms (generally speaking).

I don't see any dissonance at all and I think you've drawn a bit of a false equivalency. Speech isn't a competition in the way sport is a zero-sum game. I don't care about recreational activity, but competitive sport needs, to at least attempt, to maintain a competitive balance. The authors of that paper seem to conflate recreational and competitive. Someone can advocate for free speech, but that doesn't mean they're also advocating for perjury to be legal

 

[Lexicus]

I thought these passages were interesting:

Frankly it's annoying you keep obliquely raising points that were already shot down by @schlaufuchs

 

[El_Machinae]

My suggestion when given a link to a paper in a fast-moving field is to clip it into Google scholar and then click who cited it, to see what's been built off of it since

 

[Gorbles]

I don't see any dissonance at all and I think you've drawn a bit of a false equivalency. Speech isn't a competition in the way sport is a zero-sum game. I don't care about recreational activity, but competitive sport needs, to at least attempt, to maintain a competitive balance. The authors of that paper seem to conflate recreational and competitive. Someone can advocate for free speech, but that doesn't mean they're also advocating for perjury to be legal

I don't understand the claim of false equivalency. We're not attempting to discuss something that is legal and something that isn't (i.e. your example of freedom of speech, and advocating for perjury). Maintaining a competitive balance in any game is a subject of general discussion and debate, and not "breaking law in a courtroom". It's not remotely comparable.

If you are so concerned with competitive balance in sports to the extent that you favour restrictions on peoples' liberties without overwhelming evidence that said balance is actually a problem, that's the dissonance I'm trying to highlight. Because in other situations - like free speech - you would be so overtly against any limitations on it as a part of general discourse (for example: Twitter). However, I don't want to create a hydra-esque discussion of every thing you've taken a stance on in this regard, because it was a general comment I made that classifies a bunch of peoples' general behaviour. It's factual insofar that here you are advocating for restrictions on personal liberties, and nothing more than that.

However, to go back to competitive balance in sports (separate of your favouring of any restrictions, or how justified they may or may not be), like lexi said, schlaufuchs covered the topic exhaustively and in great detail already.

 

[sophie]

It's extremely straightforward and you don't even really need to know definitively whether or not "experiencing male puberty" confers a physiological advantage that cannot be eliminated or mitigated by HRT. That question is a total red herring.

A simple line of reasoning:

a) Some women are taller than others. This makes them more likely to excel at certain sports than other women. This does not compromise competitive integrity.
b) Some women see better than others. This makes them more likely to excel at certain sports than other women. This does not compromise competitive integrity.
c) Some women are born into more affluent families, neighborhoods, and countries. This makes them more likely to excel at certain sports than other women. This does not compromise competitive integrity.
d) Some women experience male puberty. This makes them more likely to excel at certain sports than other women. This does compromise competitive integrity.

Why the disjunction between a-c and d?

Put another way you cannot hold all four of these positions simultaneously:
1) In sports we have two competitive pools, one for men and one for women. All men must go in the men pool and all women must go in the women pool
2) The presence of gradations in physical and mental capacities of competitors within a pool is fair.
3) Trans women are women
4) Trans women have innate physical capacities which are unfair and thus must preclude them from competing in the women pool.

 

[João III]

I don't understand the claim of false equivalency. We're not attempting to discuss something that is legal and something that isn't (i.e. your example of freedom of speech, and advocating for perjury). Maintaining a competitive balance in any game is a subject of general discussion and debate, and not "breaking law in a courtroom". It's not remotely comparable.

I'll try to break it down a little and maybe that'll make it clearer. You're lumping together all forms of speech and all forms of sport. Speech on Twitter isn't the same as speech in a courtroom similar to how recreational sport (a pickup basketball game) isn't the same as competitive sport (an Olympic basketball game). I take no issue with who competes in recreational sport; in fact, I wish more people were more active but recreational participation is not the same as competitive participation

It's factual insofar that here you are advocating for restrictions on personal liberties, and nothing more than that.

Not really, people don't have a "right" to take part in Olympic competition. It is a privilege

However, to go back to competitive balance in sports (separate of your favouring of any restrictions, or how justified they may or may not be), like lexi said, schlaufuchs covered the topic exhaustively and in great detail already.

Maybe it's been covered exhaustively but that doesn't mean it's been settled exhaustively

It's extremely straightforward and you don't even really need to know definitively whether or not "experiencing male puberty" confers a physiological advantage that supercedes HRT. That question is a total red herring.

No it's not.

Why the disjunction between a-c and d?

The women in d can also slot into a-c, but the women in a-c cannot also slot into d

 

[sophie]

The women in d can also slot into a-c, but the women in a-c cannot also slot into d

Why not? It seems to me that if a woman can occupy d) and a) simultaneously, then it stands to reason she can also occupy a) and d) simultaneously, no?

 

[Lexicus]

The women in d can also slot into a-c, but the women in a-c cannot also slot into d

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[EgonSpengler]

This doesn't make any sense.

I'm confused by that too, but I couldn't even figure out how to phrase a good question to try to clear it up.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm confused by that too, but I couldn't even figure out how to phrase a good question to try to clear it up.

I think it's just a way of saying trans women aren't women without coming right out and saying it.

 

[Gorbles]

I'll try to break it down a little and maybe that'll make it clearer. You're lumping together all forms of speech and all forms of sport. Speech on Twitter isn't the same as speech in a courtroom similar to how recreational sport (a pickup basketball game) isn't the same as competitive sport (an Olympic basketball game). I take no issue with who competes in recreational sport; in fact, I wish more people were more active but recreational participation is not the same as competitive participation

I'm not lumping together anything. I'm talking about principles. The principles of speech are the same in both a courtroom and on Twitter, but the legalities are different. The legality of a wide range of sporting activities differs on the activity, where it's performed, and so on.

You are, in fact, conflating competitive sports with professional sports. I'm a former competitive swimmer and currently-competitive water polo player (technically lapsed at the moment, but that's a Covid-related technicality. I still pay my membership dues and am working on personal training). However, I am not a professional in that it's not my profession and I earn no money from it.

But like I said, schlaufuchs has the floor with regards to the sports side of things, regardless of whether or not you consider it settled. On that tangent, which I'm not getting involved with further, I'd recommend you make better counterarguments than "no", because they're not very convincing.

Not really, people don't have a "right" to take part in Olympic competition. It is a privilege

It is, but not in the way you think it is. It is privilege that often allows people to be elevated to such a competition. We don't scour the world for the absolute best in every class. It's gated by capitalism. But that's a whole other dumpster fire

 

[João III]

I'd recommend you make better counterarguments than "no", because they're not very convincing.

Perhaps instead I'll just label arguments as red herrings so I can ignore them

It is, but not in the way you think it is. It is privilege that often allows people to be elevated to such a competition. We don't scour the world for the absolute best in every class. It's gated by capitalism. But that's a whole other dumpster fire

Indeed, but perhaps it's somewhere we'd have more agreement

Why not? It seems to me that if a woman can occupy a) and d) simultaneously, then it stands to reason she can also occupy d) and a) simultaneously, no?

The women solely in a-c cannot influence the given circumstance in the same way the women in d can influence the results of puberty (although I suppose a case could be made regarding c). The rules acknowledge this difference, which is why hormones are required to compete. Unless trans women shouldn't need to take hormones to compete with other women? Based on your arguments, I don't really see why men and women should compete separately at all

 

[Sommerswerd]

3) Trans women are women

Bingo.

To me this is the whole ball game... and the rest is just a bunch of subterfuge and BS... dancing around the real issue. People who do not regard trans women as women, at worst, regarding them as men dishonestly pretending to be women for competitive advantage... are nevertheless reluctant to state outright that this is their position, for fear of being labeled as bigoted.

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.

I think that for a segment of the population, they have reached a point where they are comfortable, or at a minimum, begrudgingly tolerant, of the notion of men who want to live their lives as women socially... so long as they remain men, legally/officially. They are not willing to extend the designation to official/legal recognition of their trans gender.