Dumpster Fire Discussions

[Cloud_Strife]

'Transwomen are women' erases trans people. I suppose that is the goal if I were trans, just simple, basic acceptance as another face in the crowd. Most people agree... except when it comes to sports. If the pool is open it'll be the same people competing, so once we create categories for other people to compete we're looking at fairness. Do transmen get to compete against women now?



If the issue is fairness and competitive advantage then it aint bigotry and arguing transwomen are women denies the existence of trans people. Transwomen are not women, they are transwomen. Transmen are not men, they are transmen. Are we celebrating diversity or hiding from it?

You don't speak for a single trans person, I've seen these arguments before made by transphobes and now you, but i repeat myself.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I'm not quite sure how to apply it to this conversation, but I was thinking about weight classes in the combat sports and whether they'd be of any use in other individual sports, or even in team sports. We do separate children by age, and there are leagues for people over a certain age. In combat sports, we separate athletes by size, because size is such an advantage and we want the smaller athletes to be able to compete. We use weight, or mass, rather than height. I'm not sure there's a reason not to use height, especially in a sport where height might matter. Would it make any sense to group swimmers by height, for example?

I'm also thinking of the high school girls (I think there were two) who won state wrestling championships in the last few years, competing against boys. iirc, the girls were allowed to compete with the boys because there wasn't an organized girls' competition. In wrestling, your weight class is important, because size is a natural advantage that we choose to account for artificially in order to allow smaller people to compete*. So these two girls were allowed to compete with boys and they won. I don't know how many girls overall were competing against the boys, but it couldn't have been many, because if there had been a lot they would have just created a girls bracket. So it's hard to say that these two happen to be among a tiny minority of high school girls who'd be capable of competing against boys. Even moreso, these two made the news because they didn't just compete against the boys, they won their state championships. So maybe there are lots of girls who'd be capable of competing with boys; we can't really know because we haven't really let them try.

I dunno, just thinking out loud.


* Although in some sports, like jiu-jitsu, open-weight competitions still exist, and the smaller athletes do sometimes win. I'm thinking of 5'4" Mackenzie Dern vs. 6'2" Gabrielle Garcia. Of course this instance of an athlete with such a dramatic size disadvantage winning sticks in the mind precisely because it's so unusual, but like I say, open-weight events do still exist, and not just as exhibitions.

North Carolina (2020) and South Carolina (2022) were the two girl wrestlers who won state championships against the boys, both in 106 pound weight class (lightest division). I know one came from a family of wrestlers, not sure of the other. Height doesn't really help in wrestling (long arms helps, but height also has disadvantages to balance that out).

Edit: the other had jiu-jitsu background.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

If we called them "biological female's sports", would excluding trans women be therefore acceptable?

 

[Berzerker]

You don't speak for a single trans person, I've seen these arguments before made by transphobes and now you, but i repeat myself.

I speak for myself, I get to do that

'just simple, basic acceptance as another face in the crowd.'

Trans people dont want that?

 

[NovaKart]

It does seem like some of these disagreements stem from a feeling that if there’s any situation in which transwomen are not treated the same as cisgender women that this threatens the idea that transwomen are women.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If we called them "biological female's sports", would excluding trans women be therefore acceptable?

But we don't.

 

[Gorbles]

'Transwomen are women' erases trans people.

This isn't how erasure works, but I'm pretty sure you know that already

 

[Berzerker]

we are erasing trans people, they dont exist if they're just men and women

the world is not binary...right?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Former police officer Derek Chauvin appeals conviction for murdering George Floyd

Chauvin was found guilty of pinning Floyd to the ground with his knee during an attempted arrest

The former Minneapolis police officer found guilty of murder in the killing of George Floyd has appealed his conviction, saying among other things that the jury was intimidated by ongoing, sometimes violent protests and prejudiced by excessive pre-trial publicity.

Derek Chauvin asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals in a filing Monday to reverse his conviction and order a new trial in a new venue or order a re-sentencing.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chauvin-appeal-floyd-murder-conviction-1.6434200

 

[Traitorfish]

But we don't.

I understand that, but I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.

The argument which has been presented is that excluding trans women from something which is described as "women's sports" implicitly invalidates their identity as women, so it seems to follow that if we describe what are now called "women's sports" in different terms, terms which do not invoke gender identity but simply describe natal biology, the objection should be satisfied. If not, then it seems that the demand for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is based on something else, that it provides some other benefit to trans women, to women's sports, or both. And if it is resolved, is the argument for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is just making a point about specificity in naming conventions?

The latter seems frivolous so I'm going to charitably assume that advocates of trans women in women's sports aren't arguing from that position, that they are in fact arguing from the former position, that the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is actually a good thing in itself, that it has merit beyond satisfying some technicality. But that requires a case to be made, and it doesn't seem like there is, at least as of yet, a widely shared understanding of what that case might be.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I understand that, but I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.

The argument which has been presented is that excluding trans women from something which is described as "women's sports" implicitly invalidates their identity as women, so it seems to follow that if we describe what are now called "women's sports" in different terms, terms which do not invoke gender identity but simply describe natal biology, the objection should be satisfied. If not, then it seems that the demand for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is based on something else, that it provides some other benefit to trans women, to women's sports, or both. And if it is resolved, is the argument for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is just making a point about specificity in naming conventions?

The latter seems frivolous so I'm going to charitably assume that advocates of trans women in women's sports aren't arguing from that position, that they are in fact arguing from the former position, that the inclusion of trans women in women's sports is actually a good thing in itself, that it has merit beyond satisfying some technicality. But that requires a case to be made, and it doesn't seem like there is, at least as of yet, a widely shared understanding of what that case might be.

In order to exclude trans women wholesale from women's sports you have to make a compelling case

that case has not been made yet, and those advocating for the exclusion of trans women from women's sports are more than likely doing it from a place of bigotry

 

[Traitorfish]

In order to exclude trans women wholesale from women's sports you have to make a compelling case

that case has not been made yet, and those advocating for the exclusion of trans women from women's sports are more than likely doing it from a place of bigotry

That is premised on the argument that, if trans women are women, they are included in women's sports by default, so a specific choice has to be made for them to be excluded.

It would seem to follow from this that if we were to call women's sports "biological female sports", then it appears that trans women would not be automatically included, so this conflict is resolved. Would advocates of trans women's inclusions in women's sports be satisfied with this outcome? Not "is this outcome plausible", I know it isn't, but, hypothetically, would it be sufficient to address their complaint? Would it get to the heart of what their complaint actually is?

My expectation is that it would not, that advocates of trans women's inclusion in women's sports see that inclusion as being a good thing in and of itself, that they are motivated not by a pedantic desire to resolve some conceptual incoherence, but because they want trans women to be allowed to compete against natal biological females. So, if trans women's inclusion in women's sports is good in its own right, it should be possible to explain why.

 

[Gorbles]

The argument which has been presented is that excluding trans women from something which is described as "women's sports" implicitly invalidates their identity as women, so it seems to follow that if we describe what are now called "women's sports" in different terms, terms which do not invoke gender identity but simply describe natal biology, the objection should be satisfied.

"in order to satisfy the semantics of excluding specific women from women's sports we're going to redefine what women's sports means" sure seems exclusionary to me, but hey.

So, if trans women's inclusion in women's sports is good in its own right, it should be possible to explain why.

Because they're women. There doesn't really need to be any further qualifier, especially considering such division far predates any appreciation of science on the subject. The subject has been shoehorned in to support objections, more than it has to validate any specific participant(s). It's purely an ideological creed.

 

[Naskra]

Because they're women

It becomes so obvious when you put it that way.

 

[Traitorfish]

"in order to satisfy the semantics of excluding specific women from women's sports we're going to redefine what women's sports means" sure seems exclusionary to me, but hey.

I don't disagree that it's exclusionary, but "women's sports" is already an exclusionary category of men, the assumption that some measure of exclusion is justified is built-in.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't disagree that it's exclusionary, but "women's sports" is already an exclusionary category of men, the assumption that some measure of exclusion is justified is built-in.

Women's sports excluding men (established criticism of gender as a binary aside for the moment) doesn't therefore justify further exclusion of women. Moreso when you consider that this topic is never posited with regards to men's sports.

 

[sophie]

That is premised on the argument that, if trans women are women, they are included in women's sports by default, so a specific choice has to be made for them to be excluded.

It would seem to follow from this that if we were to call women's sports "biological female sports", then it appears that trans women would not be automatically included, so this conflict is resolved. Would advocates of trans women's inclusions in women's sports be satisfied with this outcome? Not "is this outcome plausible", I know it isn't, but, hypothetically, would it be sufficient to address their complaint? Would it get to the heart of what their complaint actually is?

My expectation is that it would not, that advocates of trans women's inclusion in women's sports see that inclusion as being a good thing in and of itself, that they are motivated not by a pedantic desire to resolve some conceptual incoherence, but because they want trans women to be allowed to compete against natal biological females. So, if trans women's inclusion in women's sports is good in its own right, it should be possible to explain why.

The question is actually the opposite, not why should trans women include themselves, but why does their presence demand particular scrutiny and exclusion, to the point of even narrowly redefining the definition of the divisions for them specifically. What about us demands this singular interest?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Cis men like ogling top tier cis woman athletes. If trans women are allowed to compete with cis women and win top honors, then cis men will be confused and fear that they are gay.

 

[RobAnybody]

@IglooDame I'm reading along, & have two questions I'd like to ask (bolding below is mine):

Over the past year or so, I've done a pretty massive amount of gender-related introspection while sorting out some trans imposter syndrome (sorted) and female imposter syndrome (in progress)...

But as far as I know, there aren't any transmasc folk...

Can you explain what these terms mean? I have never heard them before. Thanks in advance.

 

[IglooDame]

The question is actually the opposite, not why should trans women include themselves, but why does their presence demand particular scrutiny and exclusion, to the point of even narrowly redefining the definition of the divisions for them specifically. What about us demands this singular interest?

Remember the gay marriage debate, with certain people harping on the "traditional definition of marriage", so homosexuals were grudgingly allowed to have civil unions instead?