|
Dr. Stab posted:Why is men's sports considered to be open, while women's sports is not? It's not like women are allowed to compete in men's events. There are sports for which women typically outperform men. What if a man had an intersex condition that made him particularly suited to gymnastics? Could he be considered too good to be male? There's plenty of sports where women are allowed to compete with men. There's no rule against a woman playing in the NFL, or the NHL, or the NBA. It doesn't happen, because women aren't competitive with men in (most) top level sports.
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
I think there are legitimate good faith concerns people can have over protecting the competitive integrity of high level sports that can represent things like people's careers, or one of the most important moments of their entire life. None of these concerns apply to high school sports. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Is it solved? I'll admit I'm not exactly an expert on the subject, but I was under the impression that the effects of transitioning on elite level athletes is a relatively unexplored field so far just because it's fairly new, and there aren't a ton of examples to work with yet. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a lot of interesting new data coming out on the subject over the next decade or so. And to be clear, sports organizations should absolutely be free to set whatever guidelines they believe to be fair given the best current data they have to work with. It just seems way too early to start making very strong statements about what we definitely know for sure on the subject right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Should non-transitioning trans women compete in women's divisions? Genuine question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Again, not an expert, but it seems like sorting for other characteristics is just going to end up sort of de facto recreating sex divisions anyway, isn't it? Maybe with a very small handful of outliers. Which might be a thing worth doing in a vacuum, but in reality seems like spending a lot of effort and burning through an enormous amount of goodwill over something that's a pretty niche philosophical issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Dog King posted:It would have some divisions that had more men or more women but none of them would exclusively be men or women. You could also have more divisions this way, allowing more people to compete meaningfully, like they do in combat sports because of weight divisions. Fair enough, I suppose I can see some value that would make it an improvement over the current system. I still think in the world as it exists right now where half the nation thinks children transitioning is child abuse there's probably more meaningful battles to choose than breaking down gender segregated sports.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you don't care about this issue why are you spending your time arguing about it on a message board. I never said I didn't care about the issue. I think the question of how to sort transitioning people into gender segregated sports is interesting and meaningful in the real world right here and now for a number of practical and philosophical reasons. What I said probably isn't worth doing right now is going ten steps further and breaking down the concept of segregated gender in sports entirely. Because that position is going to lose 90% of the population immediately, even if we were to grant that it might be something worth thinking about, which I'm not convinced it is. What I'm interested in is if it does end up being the case that trans women have a noticeable advantage (and I suppose along with that trans men having a noticeable disadvantage) across a wide range of athletic competitions, what should sports policy be? I don't think the data exists right now to be able to give a definite answer to if they do or not, but it seems inevitable that the data will eventually be there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why not, nothing said here is going to be read by anyone beyond a few nerds on a dying comedy forum, the conversation is just for us. Why shouldn't we analyze alternatives to the way things are, "oh no one will do that right now" applies to like 99.9999% of the stuff people talk about on here, just shut down the forums if we can't talk about anything that isn't going to happen in the next 5 minutes I suppose what I'm trying to do in this thread is form an opinion about the topic that I'm not an expert on. I'm not asking questions like "what should we do in sports if trans women turn out to have a noticeable advantage?" rhetorically, I want to have an answer to that question, for carrying outside of this thread to other people I talk to elsewhere. But I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that there's no value in having entirely theoretical discussions about topics that aren't going to be as impactful in the real world. They can be interesting subjects too, and I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to say they shouldn't be discussed at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
That's pretty bleak. I suppose if it comes down to those choices then I prefer the (1%?) of the population getting the short end then the 50%, but it doesn't feel good to say. I assume these advantages go away if people transition before puberty? If so, then I suppose it just highlights the importance of fighting those battles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
The point of the hypothetical seems to be asking the question "At what point, if any, do we decide that someone's physiological advantages disqualify them from participating in a category of sports supposedly created to protect the competitive integrity of a group of people incapable of competing fairly with people who have those physiological advantages?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Do people think it would be a problem if, down the road at some point, trans women were disproportionally represented in elite level women's sports? I don't know if it'll end up being the case, it seems like the preliminary data is starting to point that direction, but it's hardly conclusive yet. But I think it's a realistic enough possibility to be worth talking about now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What preliminary data is this? Could you provide it? Sure, someone posted some stuff a couple pages ago. It doesn't seem like enough to be definitive hard proof yet. But there's also the fact that it's going to be hard to get a ton of data at this point in time just because it's such a new subject and the numbers of people involved are so small. That's going to change over the next decade or so I imagine. Dog King posted:https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Basically it appears you've decided based on a post on a webforum, that doesn't actually support your point, that this hypothetical seems likely. No, I don't think I said that. I said some preliminary data seems to exist that suggests there might possibly be a problem in the future although it's too early to say for certain and we need to gather more data before forming stronger opinions about it. I will admit I am making an assumption that if a group of people has a meaningful physiological advantage in sports then over a sufficient amount of time, other factors being equal, they will probably come to be overrepresented in sports. It seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. And furthermore, I don't think it would end up being particularly surprising if it did turn out to be the case. We know, for a fact, that male athletes are substantially more capable than female ones. That's not even a contested point. I wouldn't consider it at all startling if it turned out to the case that going under HRT for a few years is not actually enough to completely equalize performance. I'm far from an elite level athlete, but even I know from my amateur level weightlifting that building muscle is substantially harder than maintaining muscle once you've built it. It's a fact that males are far more able than females to build muscle, and it seems pretty dubious that a few years of HRT would make all of that extra muscle mass disappear if you were actively trying to maintain it. But again, we don't have enough data yet, to say for sure. Getting more of it is a good thing that we should be doing, because evidence based policies are good. quote:It's worth noting that is exactly the hypothetical that acknowledged transphobes use to create a moral panic around transgender women, despite the fact that they have already been allowed for over a decade and do not dominate any sport or even threaten to. I don't think refusing to engage in plausible hypotheticals because they raise uncomfortable questions about a politically charged topic is helpful. Trans women could come to be overrepresented in women's sports. It's a thing that could conceivably happen. It seems to me that transphobic people are making that argument precisely because it's one of the few areas they have where they might be a grain of truth in what they're saying. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility is ceding ground to them in the eyes of undecided people whose support is required to accomplish anything. For the record, I don't find it surprising that a tiny and historically oppressed segment of the population isn't immediately dominating in sports the instant they're allowed in. I don't think that's strong enough reason to say that they absolutely for sure never will. quote:So you're going to have to do a lot better than what-ifs if you're going to be matching transgender rhetoric, and you're going to have to provide better support. I think being willing to engage with subjects like this and consider uncomfortable but plausible hypotheticals is a lot better support than chanting "trans women are women" over and over. It's a true statement, it's also largely irrelevant in this particular context, and it's not convincing to anyone who isn't already fully on board with you to begin with. I want to know what we should do if it does end up being the case that trans women are overrepresented in women's sports. Because that's going to be a poo poo show. If you think things are bad right now when the right is raising a moral panic over inference and a handful of examples, imagine what it'll be like if it ever comes to be the case that the facts can't be disputed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:It's bullshit that is not real and you're wanting to pretend it's real because you want to concoct fantasies that justify discrimination. Do you think it's possible that you're the one concocting a fantasy because it might well turn out to be the case that the reality of the situation is lovely and in the end we're going to have to pick a group of people to be unfair to, no matter what we choose? And that really really sucks. And yes, to be clear, people taking concerns over elite level sports and using those concerns to justify oppressing teenagers in high school are scum. Colonel Cool fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 16, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Currently data does not support your position. So why have you decided that it is trending the opposite? If you have better data then I'd love to see it. If it does turn out to be the case that HRT completely equalizes all physiological advantages that going through male puberty and training in a male body for most of your life confers then that would be amazing. Problem solved. I don't believe that a decade or two of competition results, particularly given the current environment for trans people, demonstrates that. It is necessarily the fact that we're going to be making some inferences at the moment based on the little data we have available, given how poorly studied the subject currently is. Like some studies suggesting that trans women maintain some level of strength advantage over cis women, even after a period of HRT. quote:You're not actually engaging with uncomfortable but plausible hypotheticals, you're going "hey maybe this transphobic talking point could be real, lets pretend it's possible and give it credit" I suggest that what you're doing is going "this is a talking point that some transphobic people use, therefore it is necessarily entirely incorrect".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Trans women are less than a percentage point of the population It's not expected to increase over much. It's an issue that is usually categorized with disdain of ones own body social isolation and all other assorted misery that makes becoming a hyper competent athlete pretty dodgy. Should this somehow become a problem how is it different than tall women being over represented in certain categories of sports? I think saying being trans is just a natural advantage like being tall is a valid answer to the problem, and probably one I could buy on a philosophical level. But I think an issue is is that being tall is a natural advantage to certain sports, where being male is a natural advantage to most sports. Short girls have other sports they can compete in, they don't have to go into basketball. And if it did come to be the case that trans women were dominating most elite sports it seems kind of lovely for cis girls to know that it's very unlikely they'd ever be able to be competitive at the top levels of whatever sport they were interested in. Which is sort of the primary reason we formed gendered sports in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sorry, try again. Buddy if you think the argument that muscles are important for winning in sports and initial data suggesting that trans women maintain a greater muscle mass than cis women even after a period of HRT is insufficient to demonstrate even a reason for possible concern then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We'll see what the historians say about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:this whole argument is ridiculous. if, in your absurd hypothetical, transwomen were dominant like tallness correlates with in basketball, and as you seem to think "it would be kind of lovely for cis girls to know they're unlikely to be competitive at top levels", why isn't your suggestion that there be a short women league to keep out the unfairly advantaged tall women?? Seems kind of lovely for the short women otherwise, don't you think? Why is a woman being trans different in your view? The existence of some unfairness is a reality of the world and isn't a reason to throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do about anything. Gendered sports seems to be reasonably successful at providing a wide range of options for a wide range of the population in a way that works reasonably well. Which isn't to say that we can't make improvements where possible, like the existence of weight categories in a number of sports. I don't have any objections to making a short girl basketball league if there was a great demand for it, but it doesn't seem like there is. I'm not even necessarily saying that if it does turn out to be the case that trans women have an advantage then we need to keep them out of elite level sports. Maybe that's the unfairness that we learn to live with. All I'm saying is that it's a possibility that this is a problem which we should be able to confront, because if we don't then the right is going to offer solutions to that problem that we don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Woozy you are not a transphobe and you are posting a lot of interesting things but its almost impossible for anyone to have a meaningful discussion around it when the space is infested with people like myco or cool who are incredibly blatantly transphobic assholes the mods don't want to clean up for ??? reasons, despite them doing the whole "doesnt back themselves up or defend their points" thing that was promised to get people removed. If the bar for being a blatantly transphobic rear end in a top hat is "thinks that it is reasonably plausible that trans women might come to be disproportionally represented in elite level women's sports" then I think we're doing pretty okay in the grand scheme of things. Yes, we don't have overwhelming evidence of this being the case, yet. That isn't anywhere near enough reason to say that it is an absurd bad faith concern that only nefarious transphobes could hold, when we consider the current circumstantial evidence. Trans women currently seem to be reasonably competitive with cis women, despite all the current social factors hindering their performance that have started, and should hopefully continue, to diminish over time. This stands in contrast to trans men who do not seem to be very competitive with other men right now. We know for a fact that physically, male performance notably outpaces female performance. We have studies suggesting that some of that performance advantage persists for a notable degree of time after starting HRT. We know for a fact that certain biological advantages, like height, are 100% linked to male puberty and will not go away with HRT. It seems plausible at this point that the fact that trans women aren't currently performing notably above cis women across the board could be due to things like a vanishingly small sample size, the terrible way society has treated and continues to treat trans people, and the relatively short amount of time trans women have been competing at elite levels. None of these facts are sufficient at the moment to conclusively prove anything one way or another, which is why we should continue to gather evidence and wait and see. No, I don't have the exact data being demanded, because if I did have that data then it wouldn't be a hypothetical, it would be a fact. And I don't think people demanding that data earnestly believe that the current circumstantial evidence is insufficient to even indicate a possible concern. I think it's a convenient thing to demand because it's an easy way to sidestep the possible fact that cis and trans women competing might end up having some level of inherent imbalance. I think that's a pretty reasonable statement to make.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:too long didnt read cause no links to evidence for claim. Sure, here you go. It's easy to miss in the thread scroll. Dog King posted:https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:CC do you have any piece of evidence that is actually something you can point to target then just a possibility you have conceived. I think all of the things I posted are reasonable enough pieces of circumstantial evidence that are sufficient to support an inductive argument. People are obviously free to disagree if they want to, and I'd be interested in seeing reasons for why. edit for edit: quote:It is not at all obvious to me why these social factors would inhibit women currently competing in the sport as opposed to inhibit the overall number of women participated in the sport. Sure. Being treated badly by society could conceivably hinder someone's motivation to train as hard as they can as much as they can. I imagine the pressure elite level athletes are under while training is already crushing, and adding in additional social pressure against you competing at all sounds pretty inhibiting. Colonel Cool fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Did you miss the posts directly under it, and elsewhere? Checking the post under it... BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:If I had to bet, I would say it's very unlikely that MtF athletes will not retain a performance advantage in strength-focused sports with a very large cis male/female performance gap. I think there's still a good chance for other sports that the performance advantage could disappear. I didn't find many of the posts elsewhere to be particularly convincing. They mostly seemed to consist of people saying "well it's not happening yet, therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe it will happen ever." I remember that line of argument five years ago was along the lines of "well a trans woman has never won an elite level athletic competition so clearly there's no issue at all". The goalposts seem to be shifting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Would you mind walking me through your inductive reasoning Yes, sorry I replied before you edited. 1) Males have substantial physiological advantages over females to the point that we consider it impossible for them to compete fairly in high level athletic competitions together. 2) We are starting to see studies indicating that trans women retain some amount of that physiological advantage after being on HRT for over a year (though certainly not all), linked numerous times in this thread. Therefore: 3) If and when we equalize the other relevant factors to athletic performance, over the course of time, it seems reasonable that trans women may begin to outcompete cis women in athletic events. There's some other stuff I posted speculating on why this doesn't seem to be the case yet that I think are reasonable possible explanations, but it isn't strictly necessary for the above argument. It seems pretty obvious that if we equalized for all the other factors then a physical advantage is going to be the deciding factor. 2) might turn out not to be the case, it's too early to say for sure and we don't have an enormous amount of data to work with. Even 1) might turn out not to be the case, though it seems pretty unlikely. And it might even turn out to be the case that we never end up equalizing the other factors, which seems kind of sad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:But as you and those posts both talk about there is a significant lack of data to say that there's is an advantage or not for transitioning athletes Extensive studies on the subject don't exist, yet. Because elite level trans athletes are new and vanishingly rare. So we work off of what data we do currently have and try to make extrapolations. quote:It's not particularly reasonable to think that, it's built almost entirely out of a gut reaction to the events that what little data we have doesn't really show to pan out. Which is why people say it's a transphobic reaction because it's...an emotional response to exclude trans people based on no evidence but an assumption that they don't belong. I disagree that no evidence exists, obviously. And I don't believe I ever made an argument that trans people should be excluded from any sports, including elite level sports. I've even said that if it does end up being the case that trans women do have some level of advantage then the fairest possible solution might end up being accepting that level of advantage as unavoidable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Are trans women women? Yes, obviously. It's also not a question that's incredibly relevant to this topic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Given how the last person reacted to that question and furthermore the fact that three seperate accounts have been permabanned because of that question in this thread alone, its incredibly relevant. Trans women are a subcategory of woman, just like cis women are a subcategory of women.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:To give you benefit of the doubt I don't believe there are numerous physical sports where males do not have a notable physical advantage. I believe you can find some hyper niche cases where females might have an edge, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that males aren't advantaged in the vast majority of them. In sports where fair competition is reasonably possible then I support desegregating sports entirely. I have said over and over that insufficient data exists at this time to conclusively prove an advantage exists. This is not the same thing as saying that no evidence suggesting that this might be the case exists. edit - we segregate sports by sex, and sometimes by weight categories. We could make a nearly infinite number of categories and characteristics to segregate sports by. The sex one seems to work pretty well most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:So there is no evidence, your words, yet we should still act on a maybe? If by "act on" you mean "acknowledge the possibility based on the current data while continuing to allow trans women to compete in women's categories and gathering more data on the subject." I think refusing to even entertain the notion until it's conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is one of the things giving fuel to the right's horrific and pointless bigotry. If one side seems like it's refusing to acknowledge reality then by necessity that gives more credence to the side saying the other thing in the eyes of people in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Prove that its reality then. Or stop posting. I've posted evidence which I find reasonably convincing, enough so to be somewhat concerning to me. You're obviously free to disagree with the quality of that evidence if you wish. And that's fine. But even beyond that, the perception of reality is still enough to be a major political concern even if the data eventually proved that it's not a huge deal. And dogmatically refusing to entertain the possibility isn't politically useful when you're not talking to anyone already 100% bought in to your side. Vincent Van Goatse posted:It doesn't. It really doesn't. There's obviously always going to be hardcore hateful bigots that'll never be swayed and will try to persecute trans people no matter what. I don't think that's a majority of people. I think a majority of people can probably be swayed, at least a little, depending on what the sides are telling them. And the opinions of that majority of people are the ones that end up mattering when it comes to real material issues, like banning trans kids from middle school sports.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Basically all you have said Cool is that something could happen based on "preliminary" data that itself says is useless, which you conveniently ignored. From there you have gone on to build a hypothetical situation based on data that does not say what it says it means. Sure, let's look at some quotes from the useless articles. quote:These observations in trained transgender individuals are consistent with the findings of the current review in untrained transgender individuals, whereby 30 months of GAHT may be sufficient to attenuate some, but not all, influencing factors associated with muscular endurance and performance. quote:Haemoglobin levels decrease to those seen in cisgender women after 4 months of hormone therapy. In contrast, despite significant decreases in muscle cross-sectional area, lean body mass and strength after 12–36 months of hormone therapy, values remain higher than that in cisgender women quote:It is possible that transwomen competing in sports may retain strength advantages over cisgender women, even after 3 years of hormone therapy. quote:Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport. quote:As previously stated, a major limitation in this area of research is the absence of studies in transgender athletes. I think all of this is pretty consistent with what I've said on the topic. There seems to be some evidence suggesting that an advantage may exist, but definite conclusions at the moment are necessarily limited because studies on the specific topic of trans athletes haven't been done as of yet, and we should do more research. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the existing evidence based on the fact that it doesn't conclusively prove this specific issue one way or another. We can probably make at least some inferences, such as trans athlete bodies probably don't function completely differently than physically fit trans bodies, or untrained trans bodies. If I may ask you a question. If evidence does eventually conclusively prove the fact that trans women athletes do have a competitive advantage in sports, would that change your mind on any of this, or would you say that that advantage is acceptable? Is there a level of advantage that you would find unacceptable?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, it isn't. You've claimed that data indicated a trend where your hypothetical was likely. It doesn't. I think the word I used was plausible. And I stand by it. I don't think the hypothetical is wild and outlandish, nor do I yet think that we have enough evidence to call it likely. If you don't think the evidence provided is sufficient to even raise the question then that's certainly your prerogative, but I disagree. quote:Your working backwards from an endpoint you've created out of whole cloth. I like these two statements together. I think you're the one working backwards from the endpoint that trans women are women, therefore they should be included in women's sports. And all of this talk about a lack of evidence is you blowing a smokescreen because you don't care if an advantage exists or not and it's superficially rhetorically effective to constantly demand very specific evidence that doesn't currently exist because the field is too new and small to have literally any research done on it yet. And that's fine, if your position is it's acceptable for trans women to dominate women's sports if it ends up happening! I think that's a perfectly philosophically justifiable position. I think it comes with a number of interesting practical and moral considerations, which is what I wish we were discussing, if you weren't so focused on tripping the discussion out of the starting gate on extremely basic and uncontroversial claims.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's a self-evident fact. You need some sort of evidence that these women are dominating women's sports to justify excluding them, and you entirely lack that evidence and propose a "solution" that would make it impossible to collect that evidence. The fact that some bigots think that they aren't actually women isn't material to the discussion. It is not a self-evident fact. Being a woman is not the sole qualifier for participating in women's sports. Do you think trans women who haven't gone on HRT should be able to participate in women's sports solely based on the fact that they are women? There obviously exist some limitations on your ability to join women's sports. What and where those limitations should be is what the question is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Below the college level? I absolutely do not give a gently caress. Bear in mind most of the trans panic bills right now are targeting children in public schools, and I don't see any good reason to give a poo poo if some JV softball player is on hormone blockers or not. I suppose my basic problem is that people are treating this as a solved issue, when it very much doesn't appear to be. The standards set by various athletic committees are very much experimental and consistent of what appear to be best faith efforts to set compromises that lets as many people compete as possible, while trying to preserve the competitive integrity of the sports in question. And I support their ability to do so. Individual sports committees seem like the best positioned organizations to be able to make as fair a ruling as possible and are a hell of a lot better than ignorant and malicious politicians. What I have an issue with is people acting like they're standing on much firmer ground than they actually are, when the data literally doesn't exist yet, and coming off as ideologically committed to a certain answer regardless of what the facts may or may not end up being. Which gives fuel to people profiting off of raising a moral panic about trans people and doing petty and malicious things like banning kids from sports. Colonel Cool fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:You have entirely misplaced the blame here. The outrage is about trans people existing full stop, and there's no evidence that regulations that require HRT have done anything to allay it. The fact that states are passing anti-trans sports bills targeting single-digit numbers of pre-pubescent children is proof that this is not "fueled" by supposed concerns about "competitive integrity". I don't agree. I think there exist a notable number of hateful bigots that just hate the existence of trans people. I also think there's a much larger number of undecided people that could be swayed either way and the left has a bit of a credibility problem in their eyes when it consistently refuses to even acknowledge the mere possibility of a problem existing. Call me optimistic, but I don't think half the country consists of orcs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:16
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:I think you're the one working backwards from the endpoint that trans women are women Bel Shazar posted:If you aren't starting there you are defending a transphobic point of view. You should stop defending transphobic points of view. Colonel Cool posted:I think you're the one working backwards from the endpoint that trans women are women, therefore they should be included in women's sports. Way to literally cut out the back half of the sentence you're quoting. How dishonest!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If the data doesn't exist yet, and it appears not to in scientific studies, then you are basing your own ad-hoc reckoning on incomplete data yourself. And there is a reason that I have never made an incredibly firm statement on the subject. I said that some evidence exists to suggest, which I think is a very reasonable statement to make, given our current data.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:In the meantime, why have you assumed that "competitive integrity" is a principle more important than allowing trans people to play in the correct gender of segregated sports? You've taken it for granted that that's true, and I don't see any reason to go along with that premise. Nope. Haven't done that either. Have in fact said that in the end trans women having a competitive advantage may be the unfairness that we end up living with because the alternatives end up being worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:24
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No I read the whole thing, but none of the rest of it matters if you aren't accepting that women are women, and none of the rest is relevant to women's sports if you do. Should trans women not on HRT be allowed to participate in college+ level women's sports?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:So what, exactly, is the thesis you are arguing? Is there a single declarative statement you're willing to advance as true? Because this sounds like Just Asking Questions. Some evidence exists to suggest that trans women may have some level of competitive advantage in sports and we need to be able to admit that fact and have an honest discussion about it, the results of which may eventually end up being that trans women have too large an advantage to be able to fairly participate in some elite level women's sports, especially sports that emphasize muscle. The left in general and trans people in specific are not well served by aggressively denying this fact and appearing to be detached from reality in the eyes of undecided voters. Conservatives and TERFs have latched onto this issue in particular because, unlike most of the things they say regarding trans people, they've found an issue where they may have some small amount of fact on their side. We should not cede that ground to them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Your questioning of things and hypothetical are a firm statement. Even if you do not believe that such a thing is the case, you are still presupposing that something that has no proff could have that level of proof at some point. Alongside that your choice of how to characterise people that are disagreeing with you is, to put it bluntly, rather undercutting your attempts to claim a disinterested position in this instance. I think sufficient evidence exists to support a hypothesis, and it is plausible that that hypothesis may be proved true in the future. And I don't think I'm the person that's had an issue with characterization in this thread lol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 13:53
|
|