[RD] Trans people in sport

[schlaufuchs]

Considering existing incentives and the fact that professional athletes have been known to cheat in any way imaginable, including by risking their health and committing actual felonies to improve their results/placement (just ask WADA) I would bet my left testicle that several from among those 10,000 would compete as women in a heartbeat, if there were no rules in place from stopping that from happening.

Sincere, non-rhetorical question: say there was an open slot for a tenure-track position at a University, how would you go about determining whether an applicant was qualified for the position?

 

[Yeekim]

We already have / had rules in-place. The thread started due to additional rules imposed by sporting bodies that have had an increasingly negative affect on trans athletes and even caught cis athletes in the crossfire.

This isn't to say I think the existing rules are perfect, but it's beyond the scope of the thread and it's certainly not something I'm discussing.

Why would existing rules not be pertinent to a thread called "Trans people in sport"?

Watch out! This seems like a bad faith gotcha by someone who should know better! This is why I explictly said "cis male". If someone is self-IDing as a different assigned at birth - surprise - they're not cis!

One who has identified as a woman is indeed "cis male" no longer. By suggesting she is one regardless (and is abusing a system), one would be questioning validity of her self-ID and opening themselves to accusations of transphobia.
(Edited to be more impersonal and fixing pronouns).

So your made-up discussion was based on what I said to a completely different poster? And you didn't think you needed to maybe clarify that at any point? That sure is a . . . choice.

I mean, if you can't parse the difference between "this is an argument transphobes use, be careful about the impact" to "you are a transphobe", that kinda sounds like a you problem.

I would expect some consistency in a posters position, regardless of whom they address. Given that our exchange started by my quoting of that post of yours, I believed you could connect the dots.

 

[Yeekim]

Sincere, non-rhetorical question: say there was an open slot for a tenure-track position at a University, how would you go about determining whether an applicant was qualified for the position?

I guess I would look at their qualifications as a teacher (maybe based on student feedback and number/performance of thesises they have instructed) and as a scientist (probably based on number of citations).

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Now may be a good time to remind you that I have not once in this thread taken a position as to whether we need those rules - i.e. whether a hypothetical situation where cis-women can be eliminated from top positions in sport is a problem.

So the best you can do is conjure up a hypothetical scare scenario?

 

[Gorbles]

I would expect some consistency in a posters position, regardless of whom they address. Given that our exchange started by my quoting of that post of yours, I believed you could connect the dots.

This is the Internet. You are in a position where you should absolutely understand the need for explicit phrasing due to the problems in discussing with just text (as supposed to face-to-face or the like). I tend not to associate the position of one poster with another without them explicitly saying so, because people tend to get offended when lumped together with positions they don't actually hold themselves.

Why would existing rules not be pertinent to a thread called "Trans people in sport"?

Because people have already referenced the existing rules as an acceptable compromise wrt. to a baseline. Trying to gotcha people by insinuating they're accepting of rules that already to whatever extent exclude trans people is going to be viewed poorly from the offset. If you want to actually understand peoples' positions, you need better arguments, presented in better faith than "connect the dots".

One who has identified as a woman is indeed "cis male" no longer. By suggesting she is one regardless (and is abusing a system), one would be questioning validity of her self-ID and opening themselves to accusations of transphobia.

Again, I was talking explicitly about cis males. By definition, not trans. . Either read my posts or don't, I'm fine with it either way. At least I'm getting a good feel for exactly how you wanted to "understand my position".

 

[schlaufuchs]

I guess I would look at their qualifications as a teacher (maybe based on student feedback and number/performance of thesises they have instructed) and as a scientist (probably based on number of citations).

And of course, those can be fabricated, right? A teacher could have misrepresented their cert or their degree; high praise from students could be the product of a teacher that freely gives high marks or allows students to goof off in class; there are all manner of duplicitous publications that will publish anybody with a pulse and a couple of thousand dollars, and there are certainly instances of academics claiming references in political rags or in other junk journals because their poorly sourced arguments serve a particular ideological end, or else they may have written an article whose body is complete gibberish, but happens to also have a compelling-sounding title or abstract, which gets referenced because on that basis, at which point other papers in the field might reference it because it has been referenced. Consequently, a hiring board might want to verify these things, right? They might ask for transcripts from the credential-awarding institutions; they might ask for letters of recommendation from distinguished faculty who have advised, taught, or worked with the candidate; they might ask faculty to read through the publications themselves and ensure they are coming from respectable, peer-reviewed institutions, and are not filled with gobbledygook; they might bring the candidate in for an interview, where a panel of peers might ask them questions about their research and background to determine if they represent themselves well. Do you think that is reasonable for them to do?

 

[Yeekim]

Do you think that is reasonable for them to do?

I do - at least wrt the chosen candidate.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

For what feels like the 600th time now, the question is not whether a difference exists between cis men and cis women the questions are twofold:

Is there ever a scenario where a divergence in performance between biological females is so severe that prohibition or restriction of the one from competition is warranted?

If no, then why should the same standard not apply to trans women?

Because the divergence between cis men and cis women, are not wholly removed by the act of transitioning.

As a cis guy, I'm not the right person to ask.

Yet here we are debating it. It feels like you're 'checking out' when the answer doesn't suit your position.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Please stay on the topic and not each other.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Because the divergence between cis men and cis women, are not wholly removed by the act of transitioning.

And the divergence between tall women and short women is not wholly removed by the act of crouching, but I don't really see what that has to do with anything as, as we just noted, the presence of divergence has no bearing on eligibility among cis women.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

And the divergence between tall women and short women is not wholly removed by the act of crouching, but I don't really see what that has to do with anything as, as we just noted, the presence of divergence has no bearing on eligibility among cis women.

I agree that crouching has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I agree that crouching has nothing to do with any of this.

1) Divergence within the women group does not matter for eligibility
2) Trans women need to be ruled ineligible from the women group because they diverge from cis women

Make this make sense.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Because divergence within the women group is the agreed constraint of the completion. Without rules as such it is not fair or competitive.

There are plenty of situations where divergence is limited and removed for the fairness of the sport.

 

[NovaKart]

Transwomen are moving from one group to the other group and it seems like people don’t want to acknowledge this. I think this is the point that’s causing a lot of disagreement here.

 

[Lexicus]

Transwomen are moving from one group to the other group and it seems like people don’t want to acknowledge this. I think this is the point that’s causing a lot of disagreement here.

I guess this is the point of divergence, because it seems obvious to me that trans people are in one group the whole time and are commonly horribly traumatized by society's insistence that they are in the wrong group.

Because divergence within the women group is the agreed constraint of the completion. Without rules as such it is not fair or competitive.

The first statement doesn't make any sense, and the second statement doesn't follow from anything anyone ITT has said. No one is saying there should be no rules.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

The first statement doesn't make any sense, and the second statement doesn't follow from anything anyone ITT has said. No one is saying there should be no rules

I was attempting to use the same words, clumsy as they were, that the poster I was replying to used.

Its really not a complex sentence. It makes more sense when you include the context it was replying to....


There are are sports that have physical constraints to entry, this is done as a way to ensure the playing field is to an agreed 'level'. Height, weight, age, gender.

I feel plenty here have said that there should not be constraints that stop trans women competing against cis women.

If this is not the case, again as I asked an earlier poster.. What do you think the rules should be?

 

[bernie14]

I was attempting to use the same words, clumsy as they were, that the poster I was replying to used.

Its really not a complex sentence. It makes more sense when you include the context it was replying to....


There are are sports that have physical constraints to entry, this is done as a way to ensure the playing field is to an agreed 'level'. Height, weight, age, gender.

I feel plenty here have said that there should not be constraints that stop trans women competing against cis women.

If this is not the case, again as I asked an earlier poster.. What do you think the rules should be?

but for all practical purposes, it's not gender, perhaps not even biological sex. it is the differences provided by sexual dimorphism

 

[NovaKart]

I guess this is the point of divergence, because it seems obvious to me that trans people are in one group the whole time and are commonly horribly traumatized by society's insistence that they are in the wrong group.



The first statement doesn't make any sense, and the second statement doesn't follow from anything anyone ITT has said. No one is saying there should be no rules.

It’s not just society’s insistence though, it’s not like people just randomly decide some people are men and some are women. There are differences in their bodies, which is way people transition - moving from one group to the other.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s not just society’s insistence though, it’s not like people just randomly decide some people are men and some are women. There are differences in their bodies, which is way people transition - moving from one group to the other.

Transitioning is not 'moving from one group to the other.'

If this is not the case, again as I asked an earlier poster.. What do you think the rules should be?

I think rules like the ones we're seeing from a lot of sporting bodies are unfair and discriminatory and the rules should not be set up to arbitrarily exclude trans women from women's sports on any level. Beyond that I am unqualified to comment.

 

[NovaKart]

Transitioning is not 'moving from one group to the other.'



I think rules like the ones we're seeing from a lot of sporting bodies are unfair and discriminatory and the rules should not be set up to arbitrarily exclude trans women from women's sports on any level. Beyond that I am unqualified to comment.

It is physically for the purpose of sex segregated categories.