Transgender athletes (and related stuff)

[Vorpal]

I think possibly we have wandered from the title since, but in the case of human transgender athletes it's not that hard to categorise them according to their biological sex, which they will have altered only following puberty in the presence of large amounts of the hormones of their sex, and resulting in irreversible changes to skeletal structure, stature, muscle, bone mass, and so on. Attempting to alter that later in life is a bit like the stripes on a poodle, and while a transwoman might have endogenous hormone levels similar to a natal woman, that doesn't reverse the effects of puberty - I have a sister two year's older than I, and she used to physically bully me somewhat. At some point during puberty I became conscious that I was suddenly MUCH stronger than she, and this stopped. This was not through any sporting effort or training of my own, but simply the natural results of male rather than female puberty.

To the extent that we have 'male' and 'female' categories in sport they exist because of this sexual dimorphism that is the product of adolescence, nothing to do with 'gender identity'.

It may not be hard to classify *most* athletes according to their biological sex. The implication is, as has been form the start of this thread, that that makes it okay to discriminate against those who don't fit your neat categories.

I don't think it's ok.
I aslo don't think that it's ok to compare transfolk to 'stripes on a poodle'. I would very much like you to think about how that sounds.

[thelawnet]

It may not be hard to classify *most* athletes according to their biological sex. The implication is, as has been form the start of this thread, that that makes it okay to discriminate against those who don't fit your neat categories.

I don't think it's ok.
I aslo don't think that it's ok to compare transfolk to 'stripes on a poodle'. I would very much like you to think about how that sounds.

Discrimination is part of sport - you wouldn't let a fat bloke compete in the TdF, nor a fully grown man in the under-12 rugby team. This discrimination is essential to integrity and safety of sport and it does not bother me for a second, as someone who has been 'discriminated against' by not being good enough to compete in professional sport.

The categories are very neat - you are either under 13 or you are not, you are either under 72.5kg to compete as a lightweight rower or you are not.

When it comes to transwomen, there's zero testable difference between them and men. Some may choose to alter their appearance or their hormone levels, but that is not a requirement to be identified as a transwoman.

When we are talking about people with verifiable disorders of sexual development then in some cases they will not fit neatly into a specific category (although since we have only two categories, that's what will have to be done), but this has zero to do with the sociological phenomenon of 'identifying as a woman'.

[Jdsk]

World Rugby's decision:
https://www.world.rugby/news/591776

And an editorial and coverage by The Economist (might be paywalled):
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/17/letting-trans-women-play-in-womens-sports-is-often-unfair
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/10/17/a-ban-by-world-rugby-could-prove-influential-for-transgender-sports

NB the absence of biological fundamentalism in either.

Jonathan

[thelawnet]

World Rugby's decision:
https://www.world.rugby/news/591776

And an editorial and coverage by The Economist (might be paywalled):
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/17/letting-trans-women-play-in-womens-sports-is-often-unfair
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/10/17/a-ban-by-world-rugby-could-prove-influential-for-transgender-sports

NB the absence of biological fundamentalism in either.

Not sure what 'biological fundamentalism' is, but if you see click the evidence link https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugb ... 0.2020.pdf

then it treats 'male-to-female' as slightly weakened males, which is quite clear in its approach. It then says 'they can't play international rugby'.

Various what you might be referring to 'biological fundamentalists' were consulted:

[mercalia]

The story of Jan Morris

'I was born a man, but only achieved serenity as a woman': Travel writer JAN MORRIS - who died this week - tells of her 1970s transition and a wife whose love never wavered

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8994593/Travel-writer-JAN-MORRIS-died-week-tells-1970s-transition.html


and a Spectator story about the LBG group that didnt want to be LBGT and were victimised for that

The LBG Alliance
It is sceptical of some of the claims of transgender activists. Hence there is no ‘T’ in its name. Its aim is to protect and promote the interests of people who are attracted to the same sex – that is, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals – and therefore it believes that the reality of sex is quite an important thing. As its website says, ‘We believe that biological sex is observed in the womb and/or at birth and not assigned’. It also believes that current gender ideologies – such as genderfluidity, sex as a ‘feeling’, the idea that a man who identifies as a woman can be a lesbian, etc. – are ‘pseudo-scientific’.....The key reason the LGB Alliance rejects the ‘T’ of transgenderism is because it believes that the cult of genderfluidity poses a risk to the rights of people who are attracted to people of the same sex.For example, if people with male body parts can identify as lesbians – which they can, and often do – then this shrinks the space for actual lesbians (women attracted to women) to express their concerns and interests.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-disgraceful-crusade-against-the-lgb-alliance?

Brendan O’Neill

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked, the online magazine.

[Vorpal]

and a Spectator story about the LBG group that didnt want to be LBGT and were victimised for that

The LBG Alliance
It is sceptical of some of the claims of transgender activists. Hence there is no ‘T’ in its name. Its aim is to protect and promote the interests of people who are attracted to the same sex – that is, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals – and therefore it believes that the reality of sex is quite an important thing. As its website says, ‘We believe that biological sex is observed in the womb and/or at birth and not assigned’. It also believes that current gender ideologies – such as genderfluidity, sex as a ‘feeling’, the idea that a man who identifies as a woman can be a lesbian, etc. – are ‘pseudo-scientific’.....The key reason the LGB Alliance rejects the ‘T’ of transgenderism is because it believes that the cult of genderfluidity poses a risk to the rights of people who are attracted to people of the same sex.For example, if people with male body parts can identify as lesbians – which they can, and often do – then this shrinks the space for actual lesbians (women attracted to women) to express their concerns and interests.

Victimised? The LGB Alliance is an anti-trans pressure group. Nothing more, nothing less.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/17/l ... -backlash/
They promote the problematic ideology that trans+ rights including gender recognition laws, self determination, access to single gender spaces that do not align with your gender at birth “hurt women and girls” and “undermine” LGB rights, and women's rights.
https://medium.com/james-finn/dont-be-f ... 0838f5b245

[landsurfer]

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/17/l ... -backlash/
They promote the problematic ideology that trans+ rights including gender recognition laws, self determination, access to single gender spaces that do not align with your gender at birth “hurt women and girls” and “undermine” LGB rights, and women's rights.
https://medium.com/james-finn/dont-be-f ... 0838f5b245

My girls have the right to use the female changing room at our local pool without being exposed to a penis ..... end of ....
Females, Women, Girls ..... fight for their rights !

[Vorpal]

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/17/l ... -backlash/
They promote the problematic ideology that trans+ rights including gender recognition laws, self determination, access to single gender spaces that do not align with your gender at birth “hurt women and girls” and “undermine” LGB rights, and women's rights.
https://medium.com/james-finn/dont-be-f ... 0838f5b245

My girls have the right to use the female changing room at our local pool without being exposed to a penis ..... end of ....
Females, Women, Girls ..... fight for their rights !

Trans women with penises don't go around exposing themselves in changing rooms. Whether they want to or not, they understand the likely reaction, and use private changing rooms, gender neutral changing rooms, or private cubicles. Honestly most transfolk ar too body-shy to even use the changing rooms. My trans friends go to *extreme* lengths to avoid having to face that problem, they arrive dressed, and just take off outer clothes, go only when there are LGBTQ sessions, or simply don't swim. They are the victims here and present *no* risk whatsoever to your girls.

Also, there honestly is no reason for this sort of prudishness. Most other European countries have mixed gender changing rooms, as well as female / male only.

[mercalia]

and a Spectator story about the LBG group that didnt want to be LBGT and were victimised for that

The LBG Alliance
It is sceptical of some of the claims of transgender activists. Hence there is no ‘T’ in its name. Its aim is to protect and promote the interests of people who are attracted to the same sex – that is, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals – and therefore it believes that the reality of sex is quite an important thing. As its website says, ‘We believe that biological sex is observed in the womb and/or at birth and not assigned’. It also believes that current gender ideologies – such as genderfluidity, sex as a ‘feeling’, the idea that a man who identifies as a woman can be a lesbian, etc. – are ‘pseudo-scientific’.....The key reason the LGB Alliance rejects the ‘T’ of transgenderism is because it believes that the cult of genderfluidity poses a risk to the rights of people who are attracted to people of the same sex.For example, if people with male body parts can identify as lesbians – which they can, and often do – then this shrinks the space for actual lesbians (women attracted to women) to express their concerns and interests.

Victimised? The LGB Alliance is an anti-trans pressure group. Nothing more, nothing less.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/17/l ... -backlash/
They promote the problematic ideology that trans+ rights including gender recognition laws, self determination, access to single gender spaces that do not align with your gender at birth “hurt women and girls” and “undermine” LGB rights, and women's rights.
https://medium.com/james-finn/dont-be-f ... 0838f5b245

if you have read the article it describes the way they have been victimised for their views ( whether right or wrong). Its one thing to criticise them another to try and snuff them out.

It is an interesting question whether T belongs with LBG, since LBG does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English.

In your answer to Landsurfer you are right that unisex facilities would solve alot of the problems

[Vorpal]

if you have read the article it describes the way they have been victimised for their views ( whether right or wrong). Its one thing to criticise them another to try and snuff them out.

It is an interesting question whether T belongs with LBG, since LBG does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English.

In your answer to Landsurfer you are right that unisex facilities would solve alot of the problems

I have read the article. The Spectator use lots of emotive words, like 'hounding' and 'branding', and attempt to defend their stance by saying that they are a gay rights group, and 'skeptical' of the claims of trans folk. They also suggest that people are misusing the word bigotry, when they apply to the LGB Alliance.

The author speculates (if indirectly) that decrying the LGB Aliiance is due to homophobia.

It is not. They are not 'skeptical'. They actively and vociferously work to deny transfolks of their rights. There is no scientific basis for their beliefs about transfolk, and the 'hounding' mainly consists of transfolk and their allies attempting to counter the harm they are doing. They absolutely deserve the label 'hate group'.

You may think that LGB does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English, but there are plenty of people who do, suggesting that same sex couples cannot get married becuase it undermines the concept of marriage and family. That teh *definition* of marriage is a man and woman; a gay or lesbian couple cannot be married nor have a family together.

The idea that transfolk undermine English (resumeably gender oriented words) is no different.

[mercalia]

if you have read the article it describes the way they have been victimised for their views ( whether right or wrong). Its one thing to criticise them another to try and snuff them out.

It is an interesting question whether T belongs with LBG, since LBG does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English.

In your answer to Landsurfer you are right that unisex facilities would solve alot of the problems

I have read the article. The Spectator use lots of emotive words, like 'hounding' and 'branding', and attempt to defend their stance by saying that they are a gay rights group, and 'skeptical' of the claims of trans folk. They also suggest that people are misusing the word bigotry, when they apply to the LGB Alliance.

The author speculates (if indirectly) that decrying the LGB Aliiance is due to homophobia.

It is not. They are not 'skeptical'. They actively and vociferously work to deny transfolks of their rights. There is no scientific basis for their beliefs about transfolk, and the 'hounding' mainly consists of transfolk and their allies attempting to counter the harm they are doing. They absolutely deserve the label 'hate group'.

You may think that LGB does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English, but there are plenty of people who do, suggesting that same sex couples cannot get married becuase it undermines the concept of marriage and family. That teh *definition* of marriage is a man and woman; a gay or lesbian couple cannot be married nor have a family together.

The idea that transfolk undermine English (resumeably gender oriented words) is no different.

well I had a look at their website and yes they do want to follow the standard view that eg trans women are not women that many normal women adhere to, and yes they say they think that accepting the claim they are damages LBG rights ( but then so do many normal women , eg Rowling?) ( I wonder what their argument is) it would seem that any rights they are denying trans people are due to overreach on the trans peoples part rather than denying them , period ( I dont know as I dont follow any of this stuff in any detail). If trans people stopped claiming to be what some think they are not but accept themselves sui generis there wouldnt be any problem just as religious peoples rights are protected by law a category that has nothing to do with LBG or T. Not sure what views you are referring to re no scientific basis. The main one seems to be that trans women are not women, the whole self identification idea. I am not sure science is at all relevent but commone language use. I came across a US trans website that as a by the way explained how they use the terms man, woman, male and female as all gender words. Such distortion of male and female which apply across species just generates muddle. Here is an argument. We have male and female chickens, dogs, horses and we have special names for the male and female eg hens/cockerals, dogs/bitches, stallions/mares hence men and women for humans . Yes in human beings there are social stereotypes that are deeply entrenched/ overlayed on top of these terms but to collapse that matter on to the basic notions would be wrong. OK there may be derived gender specific useages but I am not sure that would be evidence that eg trans women are women rather than trans women are those who self identify as women ( a tautology?)

The story of Jan Morris ( above) who claimed she knew she wasnt in the right body when she was 3 or 4 is interesting and puzzling and the self knowledge claimed needs examining and doesnt seem plausible to me. I cant remember much from that age than fleeting images about the room where my cot was and potty training room

[Vorpal]

The story of Jan Morris ( above) who claimed she knew she wasnt in the right body when she was 3 or 4 is interesting and puzzling and the self knowledge claimed needs examining and doesnt seem plausible to me. I cant remember much from that age than fleeting images about the room where my cot was and potty training room

Why can't you just accept that transfolk know what they're meant to be, the same as you do, and leave it at that?

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean they don't.

[roubaixtuesday]

if you have read the article it describes the way they have been victimised for their views ( whether right or wrong). Its one thing to criticise them another to try and snuff them out.

It is an interesting question whether T belongs with LBG, since LBG does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English.

In your answer to Landsurfer you are right that unisex facilities would solve alot of the problems

I have read the article. The Spectator use lots of emotive words, like 'hounding' and 'branding', and attempt to defend their stance by saying that they are a gay rights group, and 'skeptical' of the claims of trans folk. They also suggest that people are misusing the word bigotry, when they apply to the LGB Alliance.

The author speculates (if indirectly) that decrying the LGB Aliiance is due to homophobia.

It is not. They are not 'skeptical'. They actively and vociferously work to deny transfolks of their rights. There is no scientific basis for their beliefs about transfolk, and the 'hounding' mainly consists of transfolk and their allies attempting to counter the harm they are doing. They absolutely deserve the label 'hate group'.

You may think that LGB does nothing to undermine the standard notions in English, but there are plenty of people who do, suggesting that same sex couples cannot get married becuase it undermines the concept of marriage and family. That teh *definition* of marriage is a man and woman; a gay or lesbian couple cannot be married nor have a family together.

The idea that transfolk undermine English (resumeably gender oriented words) is no different.

well I had a look at their website and yes they do want to follow the standard view that eg trans women are not women that many normal women adhere to, and yes they say they think that accepting the claim they are damages LBG rights ( but then so do many normal women , eg Rowling?) ( I wonder what their argument is) it would seem that any rights they are denying trans people are due to overreach on the trans peoples part rather than denying them , period ( I dont know as I dont follow any of this stuff in any detail). If trans people stopped claiming to be what some think they are not but accept themselves sui generis there wouldnt be any problem just as religious peoples rights are protected by law a category that has nothing to do with LBG or T. Not sure what views you are referring to re no scientific basis. The main one seems to be that trans women are not women, the whole self identification idea. I am not sure science is at all relevent but commone language use. I came across a US trans website that as a by the way explained how they use the terms man, woman, male and female as all gender words. Such distortion of male and female which apply across species just generates muddle. Here is an argument. We have male and female chickens, dogs, horses and we have special names for the male and female eg hens/cockerals, dogs/bitches, stallions/mares hence men and women for humans . Yes in human beings there are social stereotypes that are deeply entrenched/ overlayed on top of these terms but to collapse that matter on to the basic notions would be wrong. OK there may be derived gender specific useages but I am not sure that would be evidence that eg trans women are women rather than trans women are those who self identify as women ( a tautology?)

The story of Jan Morris ( above) who claimed she knew she wasnt in the right body when she was 3 or 4 is interesting and puzzling and the self knowledge claimed needs examining and doesnt seem plausible to me. I cant remember much from that age than fleeting images about the room where my cot was and potty training room

Please don't use the phrase "normal" to label groups?

Minority groups are still a normal part of humanity.

[Jdsk]

The main one seems to be that trans women are not women, the whole self identification idea. I am not sure science is at all relevent but commone language use.

You seem to want to use language with which you're comfortable as a means to define other people. Language is there to communicate with other people and to describe the world, not to force complex situations with which you aren't familiar into simplistic predefined boxes.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

I don't think that argument depends on rationality... more on autonomy?

Jonathan