Transgender athletes (and related stuff)

[Vorpal]

True, but from what I've seen there is a lot of hostility to them, frequently presented as hostility to ideas (yes, that old chestnut). The intolerance is far from one sided. Some of which is a function of more general problems with social media communication but much of it can't be explained by that alone.

A lot of comments that trans people should never be included in their identified gender and always according to birth sex, regardless of any medical interventions they might have had. Plenty of more toxic stuff along with that. That to me is not acceptance.

Lets take a trip back to the OP.
Transgender Athletes; Using their superior male physiques to supplant women in competition ..
Is wrong. Is cheating.
McKinnion is one of the worst, and most vocal about his rights to compete and win women's races.
Does anyone here support a mans right to enter a woman's sporting event for the purpose of winning through the advantage of a more powerful, male, physique ?

We've been through this before. The advantages are not what you think they are. Men vary more individually, as do women, than the differences between people who are born with different sets of genitalia. The average Japanese male is shorter and lighter than than the average Dutch woman, and considerably so compared to the average Dutch man. Will you say that they cannot compete together?

[landsurfer]

We've been through this before. The advantages are not what you think they are. Men vary more individually, as do women, than the differences between people who are born with different sets of genitalia. The average Japanese male is shorter and lighter than than the average Dutch woman, and considerably so compared to the average Dutch man. Will you say that they cannot compete together?

They cannot compete together.
Your comparison ignores the effects of testosterone and the different muscle building and bulk that it contributes to. Your Japanese male would have a very different watts / kilo performance than the woman.

[Vorpal]

We've been through this before. The advantages are not what you think they are. Men vary more individually, as do women, than the differences between people who are born with different sets of genitalia. The average Japanese male is shorter and lighter than than the average Dutch woman, and considerably so compared to the average Dutch man. Will you say that they cannot compete together?

They cannot compete together.
Your comparison ignores the effects of testosterone and the different muscle building and bulk that it contributes to. Your Japanese male would have a very different watts / kilo performance than the woman.

It does not ignore the effects. Most aspects of our bodies are the same way and comparing averages ignores the wide ranges.

Even looking at averages, women have advantages in some areas, and men in others. Very, very few things come down to solely muscle power & bulk.

[landsurfer]

Even looking at averages, women have advantages in some areas, and men in others. Very, very few things come down to solely muscle power & bulk.

Apart from possibly track cycling ... ?

[mercalia]

accepted as what? ( "trans women") as women maybe not, as people fine. I am puzzled at all the kerfuffal since dealing with one another as just genderlless/sexless people is more than adequate most of the time? There are just a few situations where it matters eg dating, childbirth, "safespaces"?

Accepted as what they identify as.

The strange thing about this whole matter is that weakens the idea of delusion - if you think you are a woman ( a trans woman ) then you are one. That doesnt seem right to me, people can be deluded, suffer delusions and strongly believe all sorts of things to the same degree as trans do ( I assume) ( thats the gist that that Monty Python sketch is prophetically criticising?) but we dont accept them as such? we deal with them sympathetically yes.

[mercalia]

Can you believe what the BBC says? seems like you have to be careful on trans matters

'Blackpool woman accessed child abuse images in hospital bed’.

....So, I can see how the BBC News website editors decided on that headline for a report about Julia Marshall who, on 14th July, was sentenced to nine months in jail over what a judge called a ‘vast’ collection of over 80,000 child abuse images. ......What you would not learn is that Julia Marshall was born male and in recorded court documents, has another alias: John Robert Marshall.

as I keep in plugging away, the trans defn of trans-woman means she is a women so no need for the trans prefix. Even the BBC have been taken in. why "real" women are so fearful?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-failed-the-facts-over-a-crime-concerning-gender-identity?

[D363]

accepted as what? ( "trans women") as women maybe not, as people fine. I am puzzled at all the kerfuffal since dealing with one another as just genderlless/sexless people is more than adequate most of the time? There are just a few situations where it matters eg dating, childbirth, "safespaces"?

Accepted as what they identify as.

The strange thing about this whole matter is that weakens the idea of delusion - if you think you are a woman ( a trans woman ) then you are one. That doesnt seem right to me, people can be deluded, suffer delusions and strongly believe all sorts of things to the same degree as trans do ( I assume) ( thats the gist that that Monty Python sketch is prophetically criticising?) but we dont accept them as such? we deal with them sympathetically yes.

If your primary goal is to preserve the idea of trans people as delusional then your sympathy isn't likely to be well received.

To then post about a sex offender could make the point you're trying to, about the BBC's reporting, but it also makes another one, about what kinds of events and incidents involving trans people are worth commenting on.

[mercalia]

Accepted as what they identify as.

The strange thing about this whole matter is that weakens the idea of delusion - if you think you are a woman ( a trans woman ) then you are one. That doesnt seem right to me, people can be deluded, suffer delusions and strongly believe all sorts of things to the same degree as trans do ( I assume) ( thats the gist that that Monty Python sketch is prophetically criticising?) but we dont accept them as such? we deal with them sympathetically yes.

If your primary goal is to preserve the idea of trans people as delusional then your sympathy isn't likely to be well received.

To then post about a sex offender could make the point you're trying to, about the BBC's reporting, but it also makes another one, about what kinds of events and incidents involving trans people are worth commenting on.

saying nothing of the kind. just commenting that it seems that the defn of trans as given by them, seems to preclude the possibility of delusion or being mistaken, since if you think you are a woman you are one? ( Mrs May was going to set that out in law with self indentification, that fortunatley Boris has stopped. good for him he has done one thing right) The comment about the BBC was another point and an example but related to the defn of trans that being a trans-woman=a woman so why bother with the prefix ( and the BBC didnt bother): that it was about a criminal was not the important point but shows the danger of the accepted defn. I am surprised that the prevalent defn of trans with the implication that a trans X is an X hasnt been challenged as it has lead to so much trouble . eg the BBC reference mentioned the judges didnt know where to send the criminal womans or mans jail. Trans people seem to want to borrow a feature of man/woman = male/female ( sex) that dont allow for delusion and by sleight of hand apply it to them through their self serving defn ( where since it is about mental attitudes delusion should have a role? There are few mental matters that dont allow for delusion eg having a head ache, there can be phantom pains in removed limbs, the pain is real enough, though, just not the source)

LGBTQ . I have no problems with L or G or B since they only make claims about desires and attractions without touching on the man/woman matter. T is another matter. A Spectator article I mentioned above seemed to suggest we need to allow men to eg wear long hair, paint their nails and wear makeup and still be men and women to do the equivalant of "climb trees and fix cars" and still be women, rather than adjust their bodies.

[Vorpal]

mercalia: it's not just what trans people say, but also what science says
here are a couple of articles
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/ ... -identity/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

Please stop posting things that suggest trans folks are mentally ill or deluded.

Thanks.

p.s. whether women want to climb trees or work on cars or men want long hair has nothing to do with gender.

[mercalia]

mercalia: it's not just what trans people say, but also what science says
here are a couple of articles
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/ ... -identity/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

Please stop posting things that suggest trans folks are mentally ill or deluded.

Thanks.

p.s. whether women want to climb trees or work on cars or men want long hair has nothing to do with gender.

I have slighly modified what I said to include being mistaken as well as being deluded. The points I make still holds.

I havent been saying any thing of the sort, just commenting on their use of language. so get your facts right. You should read more carefully what I am and not saying.I am more subtle than you are crediting me with. I am not saying any thing about whether they are experiencing something authentic, only the language they use. "trans-woman" fine just dont infer "woman" its no good quoting (a Harvard postgraduate) science as any discoveries they make have no simple bearing on common language use that predates any thing they find. Atleast you need to accept as legitimate whether our common useage should be adjusted - some will say no. Science tends to redefine common words or replace them eg we say that person is crazy, or mad. Scientists have more sophisticated useages or notions that we dont use in ordinary life & it would be wrong to do so? "Gender" as used by scientists is a scientific term that has re interpreted a common useage( if any). To some extent the issues are multi disciplinary requiring the input of scientists and philosophers. The Harvard lady was only contributing the scientific side ( it seems). Scientists generally are very naive when it comes to matter of language as they mutate language very readily



Thanks.

if you want an very old example of how scientists mutate the language they use consider our understanding of colour & perception. science has shown us that eg redness doesnt reside in a red object the same way as its shape does ( secondary and primary qualities) that light reflected on objects absorb some wavelengths and reflect others and our eyes translate that into the experience of red. so should we stop saying things are red? scientists regard red ( light) as a certain wavelengh of light.

man and woman, male and female are very very old ideas?

[Vorpal]

mercalia: it's not just what trans people say, but also what science says
here are a couple of articles
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/ ... -identity/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

Please stop posting things that suggest trans folks are mentally ill or deluded.

Thanks.

p.s. whether women want to climb trees or work on cars or men want long hair has nothing to do with gender.

I havent been saying any thing of the sort, just commenting on their use of language. so get your facts right. You should read more carefully what I am and not saying.I am more subtle than you are crediting me with. I am not saying any thing about whether they are experiencing something authentic, only the language they use. "trans-woman" fine just dont infer "woman" its no good quoting (a Harvard postgraduate) science as any discoveries they make have no simple bearing on common language use that predates any thing they find. Atleast you need to accept as legitimate whether our common useage should be adjusted - some will say no. Science tends to redefine common words or replace them eg we say that person is crazy, or mad. Scientists have more sophisticated useages or notions that we dont use in ordinary life & it would be wrong to do so? "Gender" as used by scientists is a scientific term that has re interpreted a common useage( if any). To some extent the issues are multi disciplinary requiring the input of scientists and philosophers. The Harvard lady was only contributing the scientific side ( it seems). Scientists generally are very naive when it comes to matter of language as they mutate language very readily



Thanks.

if you want an very old example of how scientists mutate the language they use consider our understanding of colour & perception. science has shown us that eg redness doesnt reside in a red object the same way as its shape does ( secondary and primary qualities) that light reflected on objects absorb some wavelengths and reflect others and our eyes translate that into the experience of red. so should we stop saying things are red? scientists regard red ( light) as a certain wavelengh of light.

man and woman, male and female are very very old ideas?

I'm sorry mercalia, but I read what you posted quite carefully, and more than once. If I have misintrepretted it, I don't think that the fault lies entirely with my reading.

That said, as far as I am concerned, trans women are women. In general, I do not see a need to distinguish. There are circumstances in which it useful. Most of them are either scientific, or none of my business. The scientific ones, I may have some interest in, if only because I want to support trans friends. Personal ones, I will leave to the relevant person to sort out or share, or not as they wish.

Trans folks tend only tell others that they are trans when it is significant in some way:
-they want people to refer to them by a different name and pronoun
-they are transitioning and want support/understanding from the people around them
-they are activitists and want to share their background.

I also know trans folks who don't talk much about gender or use the word trans. Science and medicine need the words. Activists need the words. The rest of us? Maybe not.

[mercalia]

An interesting short video from the BBC reporting on non western understanding of these matters.

Pre-colonial communities’ history of gender fluidity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-53573764/pre-colonial-communities-history-of-gender-fluidity

The one I find interesting is the Indian one of there being a third gender ( legally recognised in India) . If western trans people stopped trying to collapse all these flavours into just 2 and stop eg claiming that a trans woman is a woman, there would be less hostility from people like J K Rowling?

After watching this I am very puzzled at some ( probably the {possibly fictional} activists, ) western trans people wanting to collapse gender into just the binary man and woman, that some woman-women want to resist ( and then they are called trans-phobes). In fact after watching this these activists seem absurd: maybe they need to just accept they are what they are, sui generis?

The native north american example seems exotic by comparison?

[[XAP]Bob]

Worth dropping this in...
[youtube]W2y7osVtIX8[/youtube]

[mercalia]

Worth dropping this in...
[youtube]W2y7osVtIX8[/youtube]

she did make one ( serious ) mistake? That only 4% of the genes on the "sex" chromosomes are sex related doesnt mean they shouldnt be regarded as the sex ones, unless other chromosomes also play a part, rather than they can also be described in other ways due to the other genes in them, that they are not SOLEY sex related?

Any way this science doesnt necessarily have a bearing on our understanding of what we mean by men and women as those notions pre date this science and science doesnt automatically update them ( I gave some posts back the example of the use of colour words and the science of colour viz " that ball is round and red" means the same for the scientific literate as the the person who left school with little education or your grandparents who never did any science at school, inspite of the fact that the ball is not red in the same way as it is round)

[[XAP]Bob]

They *should* be described in another way. Why aren’t they pair 23?

No other chromosome has a name related to such a minor part of its function, and the naming is actively unhelpful.