[RD] LGBTQ news

[Theov]

'We're being hounded': Transgender runner barred from Olympics rips World Athletics' decision to 'maintain fairness' in women's sports​

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-ne...s/news-story/fd8f80895aee9454d5682a5fa9912109

"That means all the work French native Halba Diouf has done is all for naught."
This is very short minded and egocentric.
One could argue that with Halba Diouf competing, someone else has done all her work for naught. So, this is just playing the victim card, while everyone has a victim card.

Diouf went through male puberty (she transitioned as an adult), which gives her an unfair advantage over the females who didn't.

There has to be a line somewhere between the male and female categories (or we do away with female sports all together).
We've seen what happens when you open up the category to anyone:

Bearded powerlifter who identified as a woman enters female event and smashes record

Bearded bloke enters women’s powerlifting event and shatters record held by trans athlete

www.sportbible.com

Logical conclusion: some people who identify as a woman can, and some can't compete.
Any subjective line she [edit: we] would draw would exclude someone else in turn.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Excuse me if im extremely skeptical about the terf propaganda you've just posted

 

[Theov]

Excuse me if im extremely skeptical about the terf propaganda you've just posted

No need to apologize. We don't agree on many things - so we can include this one as well if you want.

terf:
trans-exclusionary radical feminist

 

[Sommerswerd]

We've seen what happens when you open up the category to anyone:

Bearded powerlifter who identified as a woman enters female event and smashes record

Bearded bloke enters women’s powerlifting event and shatters record held by trans athlete

www.sportbible.com

Logical conclusion: some people who identify as a woman can, and some can't compete.
Any subjective line she would draw would exclude someone else in turn.

The story about the guy who entered the womens powerlifting competition involved a man who was openly trolling and admitted that he was dishonestly claiming to identify as female in order to make some point about illegitimacy of trans identity. This particular example was just one I had in mind when I was discussing in another thread, the contrast between confronting malicious, disingenuous trans identity claims on the one hand versus respecting genuine trans identity assertions on the other.

People like this powerlifter...being dishonest, disingenuous and arguably maliciously so, can't serve as a legitimate basis or "proof" to make trans identity of others illegitimate.

As an aside, people advocating gun rights see this so clearly and often argue it so forcefully, when complaining that law abiding gun owners should not be punished for the actions of criminals... but often those same folks would hold this dishonest powerlifter up as an example of why all trans people should be punished.

Also, taking the relative harm into account... it seems to me that excluding all trans women from competition because there might be one malicious grifter is causing more harm than it is preventing. There is no evidence, or even any suggestion that Halba Diouf is dishonestly asserting trans identity... they just changed the rules that allowed her to compete, thus excluding her.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Let's not forget that the sources are explicitly anti-trans, this is like quoting a white nationalist website for evidence that poc's are inferior, it's bs

 

[Sommerswerd]

You don't even need to discredit the source, because the argument is poor on the merits. "We see what happens when you open up the category to anyone" is a false premise. The real way to characterize this is ""We see what happens when people lie and cheat", which is always a possibility in any competition. The competition wasn't open to "anyone", it was open to women, and the guy featured in the article is a liar and a cheater. He intentionally entered the competition on false pretenses.

So yes, I'd agree that it is important to note where a source is anti trans, because that context is appropriate to understanding the presence/potential for dishonesty and/or bias, but in this case, the argument is bad on its face, regardless of whether the source was even credible in the first place.

 

[sophie]

it’s really just incredible how incapable transphobic cis men are of distinguishing between cis men and trans women…except when it comes to commenting on our bodies, then suddenly they’re very very good at distinguishing us from cis men.

Hmmm if only there were a word for it. Like misogyny…but colored by specific transphobic biases…aw shoot no word comes to mind…guess we’ll never be able to describe this trans-specific misogyny.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Edit: Will hold my judgement for now

 

[Theov]

The story about the guy who entered the womens powerlifting competition involved a man who was openly trolling and admitted that he was dishonestly claiming to identify as female in order to make some point about illegitimacy of trans identity. This particular example was just one I had in mind when I was discussing in another thread, the contrast between confronting malicious, disingenuous trans identity claims on the one hand versus respecting genuine trans identity assertions on the other.

People like this powerlifter...being dishonest, disingenuous and arguably maliciously so, can't serve as a legitimate basis or "proof" to make trans identity of others illegitimate.

As an aside, people advocating gun rights see this so clearly and often argue it so forcefully, when complaining that law abiding gun owners should not be punished for the actions of criminals... but often those same folks would hold this dishonest powerlifter up as an example of why all trans people should be punished.

Also, taking the relative harm into account... it seems to me that excluding all trans women from competition because there might be one malicious grifter is causing more harm than it is preventing. There is no evidence, or even any suggestion that Halba Diouf is dishonestly asserting trans identity... they just changed the rules that allowed her to compete, thus excluding her.

The original article I responded to, was about a trans woman who couldnt participate at the olympics because she didnt meet certain criteria.
The point I made was that if you want a women's division in sports, there has to be a line between women's sports and men's sports somewhere.
I pointed out one extreme, where there is no real boundary, and then you see a bodybuilder crush a women's record.

Of course he was not serious about it, but that was the point. Who can decide whether an athlete is 'serious' about their womanhood? What criteria do you use?

I didnt make any statement for or against trans people, nor did I say where I think that line should be.

But of course, some take it as an oportunity to bash cis men and call someone transphobe. Just because I didnt take a stance squarely behind the trans woman.

 

[Samson]

What criteria do you use?

You know there have been lots of different criteria applied, with much more obvious problems in too much exclusion than too much inclusion? The fact that finding the absolutely perfect answer is non-trivial does not mean we should not try for the least discriminatory solution.

 

[Theov]

the least discriminatory solution.

Which means... what?

 

[Samson]

Which means... what?

That is something we need to decide. Options I would put on the table are "best for the business of sport", "gets most people out and doing sport" and "maximises the magnitude of the genotype effect on the probability of winning".

If I had to choose I would go with the utilitarian answer of "gets most people out and doing sport".

Of course the definition we are actually using, at least at the top level, is what will allow the most graft for those who make the rules. We have a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Theov]

it’s really just incredible how incapable transphobic cis men are of distinguishing between cis men and trans women…except when it comes to commenting on our bodies, then suddenly they’re very very good at distinguishing us from cis men.

Hmmm if only there were a word for it. Like misogyny…but colored by specific transphobic biases…aw shoot no word comes to mind…guess we’ll never be able to describe this trans-specific misogyny.

All cis men, or are you projecting the opinion of some on an entire group? Because there is a word for that, too.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

We get it, you don't like trans women

 

[Sommerswerd]

The original article I responded to, was about a trans woman who couldnt participate at the olympics because she didnt meet certain criteria.
The point I made was that if you want a women's division in sports, there has to be a line between women's sports and men's sports somewhere.
I pointed out one extreme, where there is no real boundary, and then you see a bodybuilder crush a women's record.

Of course he was not serious about it, but that was the point. Who can decide whether an athlete is 'serious' about their womanhood? What criteria do you use?

I didnt make any statement for or against trans people, nor did I say where I think that line should be.

But of course, some take it as an oportunity to bash cis men and call someone transphobe. Just because I didnt take a stance squarely behind the trans woman.

I understand everything you are saying and I completely understood your original argument, as well as why you replied by posting the article that you did and what your original point was.

Your argument is unsound, as it is based on multiple premises which are false and/or incorrect.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's not just unsound, it's also bigotry, that wouldn't just impact upon trans women but also black cis women who are also in the firing line of transphobes

 

[Theov]

We get it, you don't like trans women

It's not a matter of 'like' or 'dont like'. It's a matter of acceptance.
Just because I dont agree with everything you say doesnt make me a transphobe or a bigot or any other word you want to sling at me.

I worked with transgenders before Civ3 was released, and whether I like or not is on an individual basis. I try not to generalize.

I rhought the original article was to start a discussion about fairness in sports and to what level transgenders should be allowed to participate.
Apparently it wasn't.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You definitely don't accept trans people

 

[Gorbles]

I didnt make any statement for or against trans people, nor did I say where I think that line should be.

There's a phrase that describes this style of argument, too

You are presenting a specific view of what you perceive to be a problem. In doing so, you are making the statement that it is a problem, and therefore, you did actually make a statement. Just because it wasn't explicitly stated doesn't mean people are making things up or "projecting" in response.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

His arguments will be used to justify the banning of trans people from multiple aspects of society