Dumpster Fire Discussions

[IglooDame]

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

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

Certainly! My own sense of it is that transgender imposter syndrome (aka "am I trans enough?") is the feeling that since I'm not suicidally dysphoric (dysphoria meaning feeling very wrong about my sex generally or some specific aspect of it) or wanting to take a sharp implement to my crotch/mammary equipment or a thousand percent certain every waking moment that I want all the surgeries as soon as possible, that I'm not really transgender, that I don't meet the guidelines, that maybe this is just a fetish or a phase. Female imposter syndrome is similar, that okay sure I'm transgender and transitioning now, but I'm too tall, shoulders too broad, too ugly, have the wrong crotch equipment, have too low a voice, don't have the experience of growing up female, etc etc etc, to be considered a woman or (more to the point) to hang out with other women and socialize as one of them. I don't know that all transwomen experience both of those, but transgender imposter syndrome is very common and very visible in the servers I'm in, female imposter syndrome somewhat less so. There is I assume a male imposter syndrome equivalent.

Transmasc is shorthand for trans masculine, and I suppose I use it interchangeably with "transgender men" or maybe as an adjective.

 

[sophie]

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


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

I'm actually not familiar with these terms specifically, but at least for me, the first 6 months after I came out were just a long persistent agony over whether any of it was real, or whether it was some flight of fancy or some weird fetish or something I'd talked myself into, or a delusion. When you're around trans women who have been out a bit longer they all seem to have such clear convictions that they're trans, and they're able to tell very specific, detailed stories about their pre-out time that signals an unambiguously obvious "I've been trans and I've known for a very long time." At least for me, when I first came out, I looked at those stories and really didn't feel like I had anything like them: I didn't have the "When I was 6 years old I tried on my mom's shoes" story (I thought), or the "When I was in high school I was a severely depressed wreck who was regularly called a *** despite having a girlfriend" story (I thought), or even really the "My dysphoria was driving me to s*****e and if I didn't come out when I did I wouldn't be alive today" (I thought). I felt like a normal person in their 20s whose life was mostly fine, but had this persistent feeling that I wanted to live, be, and be seen as a woman that I couldn't put away. I figured that if I just tried a few things out I'd know up or down and that would settle it, and the result was always the same: "well, I don't hate this, but I still don't know." I kept going in expecting I would see something that would "click" and then I would know that I am trans, and that never actually came. And when all you have to compare yourself to is other trans people who have had a lot more time to be with themselves and develop the confidence in themselves and their own identity, doubt creeps in when you don't get that "click." "Maybe this isn't me. Maybe I'm making it all up. Maybe I just want to feel special. Maybe I'm stealing valor." And I ended up stuck in this middle ground where I wasn't sure if I actually was trans, but was very sure that I couldn't go back to what I was. So that - that awkward ground where you understand intellectually that you are trans, and you feel yourself bristle at the very thought that someone might come and take that truth away from you, but nonetheless constantly feel like a fraud pantomiming an identity - is at least what comes to my mind when I hear the term.

Put another way, it's like Neo before the climax of the Matrix: he's very certain that he made the right choice in taking the red pill, and he knows he can't go back now that he's made that choice, and he knows that there is no spoon, but he can't shake that vestigial conviction that the sweat in the dojo is real, and that he's bound by the laws of physics in the distance he can jump. So many people around him are so sure of who he is, but he can only doubt, and then he runs into the Oracle's prodigies: people younger than him who are sure and capable and seem to intuitively understand the world in ways he can't. He goes to the Oracle looking to be told what he is, and it's only once he's released from the pressure of needing to have a definitive answer that he finally has the freedom to learn the answer himself through experience.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

A couple related things that hit me years back... still processing...

1. Straight men love ogling muscle-men. Pro-wraslin' and comics are pretty undeniable proof of this.
2. Straight porn has a a truckload of penis, despite the focus on the "male gaze" or what-have-you... there is very much lotta penis involved... and male consumers love it.

So turning to the nebulous "they" you reference... sexy transwomen... of which there are many... should ironically, be the least of their worries.

 

[RobAnybody]

Thanks to @IglooDame & @schlaufuchs for your responses, I understand better.
But on a completely different note :

A couple related things that hit me years back... still processing...

1. Straight men love ogling muscle-men. Pro-wraslin' and comics are pretty undeniable proof of this.
2. Straight porn has a a truckload of penis, despite the focus on the "male gaze" or what-have-you... there is very much lotta penis involved... and male consumers love it.

I think this is more "wish-fulfilment" or "self-insertion" (no pun intended) - as in straight guys just envision themselves *in that role*. For both #1 & #2. Not that they/we are viewing the male as a sexual object, but rather that "that is so totes awesome!! I am now picturing myself doing that!!", for both examples. As crude & juvenile as it may be, I just think that never really goes away.

 

[Traitorfish]

Women's sports excluding men (established criticism of gender as a binary aside for the moment) doesn't therefore justify further exclusion of women.

No, but it demonstrates that we have accepted that exclusion is itself justifiable, and we're arguing about the terms. It isn't self-evident that gender-identity represents an acceptable basis for exclusion but natal sex does not: you would need to make an argument to that effect.

Moreso when you consider that this topic is never posited with regards to men's sports.

"Men's sports" isn't really a thing, though, at a competitive level. Most men's divisions are open divisions: anyone can compete in principle, but as a very general rule, those performing at a competitive level are men. In those sports were a strict segregation by sex or gender exists, it's really an artefact of whenever the rules were written; nobody is trying to keep women out of "men's sports", and if a women felt she could perform competitively would probably be allowed the opportunity to do so. The exceptions are contact sports were the safety of female competitors is perceived to be enough of a risk for sanctioning bodies to lay down an explicit prohibition.

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?

It doesn't: men, as I pointed out are also uniformly excluded from women's sports. But men very generally do not want to compete in women's sports, so this is not a point of conflict.

 

[sophie]

It doesn't: men, as I pointed out are also uniformly excluded from women's sports. But men very generally do not want to compete in women's sports, so this is not a point of conflict.

Yes, in our present reality we have two competitive pools: one for men and one for women. All men go in the men pool and all women go in the women pool. Trans women are women, and so logically ought to be placed in the women pool. You have now stated that the presence of trans women renders this arrangement of pools somehow unreasonable, such that the way we define, label, or categorize them needs to be changed. What is the justification behind this change being necessary? What purpose are you hoping to achieve in doing so?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

this is a good point. technically, there is 0 barrier to anybody, male or female, competing in the vast majority of sports played by men in principle. in practice, women are at too large a physical disadvantage to bother. but they are allowed.

the point about height vs wealth background etc. made me think about it a little more too. some sports have weight classes, others do not. it comes down to how much you want to stratify, but i can't help but feel it's completely arbitrary even if you don't consider trans, but just look at how particular sports do things generally. height is probably at least as important in basketball as weight is in mma (within reason for both), for example. yet basketball does not have height classes. track events like 1 mile and 2 mile don't have weight classes, either, despite that 250+ pound men are likely at a greater disadvantage in running the 2 mile than women who run distance vs men.

so where do hormonal differentials impacting physical performance fit into this? though i accept that hormones provide an advantage (or insufficient disadvantage, depending who takes them when), how different is this from other stratifications being done in sports? i've seen people unironically suggest that athletes are just allowed to use whatever drugs, supplements, etc as they want. i get the reasoning, though i don't think it's healthy for the athletes and would effectively push people who don't want to be on steroids or similar out of competing at all. though sometimes it felt that way vs the roidmongers in high school anyway (we all more or less knew who they were, at least on our own teams).

trans could be its own category similar to weight class, but maybe that's not merited in every sport (i would require darned good evidence to accept it in esports for example, or things like darts/billiards/etc).

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.

these capabilities are derived from a choice they made, and are unique to them (in women's sports). though see below

Don't forget that the people complaining about trans women having the athletic advantage of a male puberty are also largely the people trying hard to make sure all trans women are forced to experience male puberty.

this is a good point, and i don't know how to reconcile it, other than to stop being arbitrary with what ages we let people make life changing decisions for themselves.

 

[sophie]

these capabilities are derived from a choice they made, and are unique to them (in women's sports). though see below

It's a "choice they made" in the same way that a person with astigmatism "chooses" to wear corrective lenses or a person with depression "chooses" to take SSRIs. When the options are life or death/being unable to function in the world, I don't really see how that would be called a choice

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a "choice they made" in the same way that a person with astigmatism "chooses" to wear corrective lenses or a person with depression "chooses" to take SSRIs. When the options are life or death/being unable to function in the world, I don't really see how that would be called a choice

more choices are made than that though. the timing of when its done, whether to compete in sports, which sports to compete in.

another way to look at the stratification is that in wrestling, you are not allowed to wrestle lower weight classes than your own. however, you *can* compete in arbitrarily higher weight classes, if you want. sometimes a team will gamble that their more skilled person can handle the higher weight class, and move a weaker wrestler into the lower one, to see if they can take both weights.

the problem for trans competition in sports appears to be analogous to being in a position where it is either compete vs lower or higher weight class, so to speak.

your assessment that sports arbitrarily allow this in other contexts, or de facto exclude people on factors they can't control is valid though. not a lot of good answers here.

 

[sophie]

the timing of when its done

I don't think you really understand what it feels like to experience cis puberty as a trans person, much less as a trans person who knows they are trans as they are experiencing cis puberty. It's like saying someone suffering from third degree burns has a choice over when to seek medical treatment.

whether to compete in sports, which sports to compete in

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Isn't this a choice every person has?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think you really understand what it feels like to experience cis puberty as a trans person

didn't claim otherwise, either. discussion in context of whether there's a material advantage conferred. you can't have a physical advantage/disadvantage of x puberty if you don't have it.

remember my post was in reference to the other poster mentioning how some people are opposed to kids choosing before they go through puberty, which is itself a tough question. but it also influences this discussion for obvious reasons.

It's like saying someone suffering from third degree burns has a choice over when to seek medical treatment.

not in the context of the argument i made, no

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Isn't this a choice every person has?

some sports would not/couldn't confer such an advantage, to my knowledge. as a result the distinction is important. to have an unfair advantage, you must both have the physical advantage and select a sport where it matters. one or the other won't result in an unfair advantage

 

[sophie]

didn't claim otherwise, either. discussion in context of whether there's a material advantage conferred. you can't have a physical advantage/disadvantage of x puberty if you don't have it.

remember my post was in reference to the other poster mentioning how some people are opposed to kids choosing before they go through puberty, which is itself a tough question. but it also influences this discussion for obvious reasons.

But I don't really see how this becomes a "choice," much less how it is a choice that is distinct from cis people? If you are trans and you realize it before puberty, then you will always "choose" to stop your cis puberty from happening. The only times where you wouldn't are a) because you didn't realize until after it happened (i.e. not by choice), or b) you were prevented from doing so by family, doctors, or the state (again, not by choice).

some sports would not/couldn't confer such an advantage, to my knowledge. as a result the distinction is important. to have an unfair advantage, you must both have the physical advantage and select a sport where it matters. one or the other won't result in an unfair advantage

But again, how is this any different from, say, a tall cis person "choosing" to play basketball, or a cis girl who experiences puberty early "choosing" to continue playing soccer after already playing it for 5 years? The question isn't whether certain physical characteristics advantage certain individuals who posses those characteristics. The question is how are those advantages present in trans people in a way that makes it categorically distinct from the way it already works with cis people that everybody is more or less fine with. "Choice" could be one - that trans people choose to give themselves an advantage by refraining from puberty blockers or delaying the start of HRT, but I think you'd struggle to find a single trans person who, knowing they are trans at the onset of puberty, would choose not to avoid cis puberty. And once you get away from that distinct type of choice, we're back in the world of putative distinctions that have very direct analogues in "cis advantages we're otherwise ok with."

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, in our present reality we have two competitive pools: one for men and one for women. All men go in the men pool and all women go in the women pool. Trans women are women, and so logically ought to be placed in the women pool. You have now stated that the presence of trans women renders this arrangement of pools somehow unreasonable, such that the way we define, label, or categorize them needs to be changed. What is the justification behind this change being necessary? What purpose are you hoping to achieve in doing so?

That's precisely the point under dispute, though: do we sort people into pools based on gender identity, or does biology play a role? In practice, almost all advocates of trans women's participation in women's sports accept that participation should follow a period of hormonal therapy which will bring the athletes testosterone levels in line with natal females, so there is no serious position that gender identity is sufficient to determine eligibility for participation in women's sports. Everyone with any skin in the game agrees that biology plays some role, but disagree as to what role.

Don't forget that the people complaining about trans women having the athletic advantage of a male puberty are also largely the people trying hard to make sure all trans women are forced to experience male puberty.

The prolonged use of puberty blockers is likely to prohibit any future competitive athletic career, so I don't think this is really the paradox you're implying. Females experience rapid muscle and bone development in puberty, just not to the extent that males do; a natal male who skips puberty isn't going to be a female who happens to have male reproductive organ, they're going to be an undeveloped male.

 

[Gorbles]

No, but it demonstrates that we have accepted that exclusion is itself justifiable, and we're arguing about the terms. It isn't self-evident that gender-identity represents an acceptable basis for exclusion but natal sex does not: you would need to make an argument to that effect.

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).

"Men's sports" isn't really a thing, though, at a competitive level. Most men's divisions are open divisions: anyone can compete in principle, but as a very general rule, those performing at a competitive level are men. In those sports were a strict segregation by sex or gender exists, it's really an artefact of whenever the rules were written; nobody is trying to keep women out of "men's sports", and if a women felt she could perform competitively would probably be allowed the opportunity to do so. The exceptions are contact sports were the safety of female competitors is perceived to be enough of a risk for sanctioning bodies to lay down an explicit prohibition.

Historically, it absolutely is a thing, and we still feel the ramifications of that segregation now. Women were absolutely kept out of men's sports (and there are certain, rather obviously superficially-gendered examples that also go the other way), much like they were kept out of a bunch of things historically (as were other minorities, and so forth, throughout history up and to the modern day in various capacities).

The original point of contention was some measure of "fairness". If trans women have an unfair advantage, trans men have an unfair disadvantage. If unfair disadvantages don't matter because people aren't winning medals, then we can easily run that back around the medals won by trans women, who are incredibly few and far between, far less than the current conservative media drive would have you believe.

The prolonged use of puberty blockers is likely to prohibit any future competitive athletic career, so I don't think this is really the paradox you're implying. Females experience rapid muscle and bone development in puberty, just not to the extent that males do; a natal male who skips puberty isn't going to be a female who happens to have male reproductive organ, they're going to be an undeveloped male.

Puberty blockers do not skip puberty.

 

[sophie]

That's precisely the point under dispute, though: do we sort people into pools based on gender identity, or does biology play a role? In practice, almost all advocates of trans women's participation in women's sports accept that participation should follow a period of hormonal therapy which will bring the athletes testosterone levels in line with natal females, so there is no serious position that gender identity is sufficient to determine eligibility for participation in women's sports. Everyone with any skin in the game agrees that biology plays some role, but disagree as to what role.

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?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The prolonged use of puberty blockers is likely to prohibit any future competitive athletic career, so I don't think this is really the paradox you're implying. Females experience rapid muscle and bone development in puberty, just not to the extent that males do; a natal male who skips puberty isn't going to be a female who happens to have male reproductive organ, they're going to be an undeveloped male.

What the shitting christ are you on about mate

 

[Cloud_Strife]

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?

once you understand that england and it's little colonies are effectively ground zero for terfism, it becomes very obvious as to why they view trans women the way they do;

it's pure disdain lmao

 

[Synobun]

Puberty blockers do not skip puberty.

I must admit disappointment that Traitorfish is exploring that path again. He did so in the past and was corrected/educated. It's no longer a question of ignorance but willful denial.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I must admit disappointment that Traitorfish is exploring that path again. He did so in the past and was corrected/educated. It's no longer a question of ignorance but willful denial.

Just the constant "just asking questions" gimmick irt trans people is so tiring