International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Trans Women are not Women (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325369)

sadhatter 6th March 2019 08:26 AM

How is the solution not re just re brand it bio male and bio female sports?

theprestige 6th March 2019 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623500)
How is the solution not re just re brand it bio male and bio female sports?

For one thing, it segregates transwomen from biowomen.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12623506)
For one thing, it segregates transwomen from biowomen.

No it segregated bio males from bio females.

JoeMorgue 6th March 2019 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623526)
No it segregated bio males from bio females.

Which will be seen as denying the "woman-ness" of trans-women and start the whole "So you're saying trans-women aren't real women?" thing again and we're right back at square one with only the exact same paths to go down again.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12623528)
Which will be seen as denying the "woman-ness" of trans-women and start the whole "So you're saying trans-women aren't real women?" thing again and we're right back at square one with only the exact same paths to go down again.

But we are not, if sex and gender are 2 separate things, then we can sort by either. If they are the same, then we encounter the issue of the point being resolved already.

They can be all the woman they want, it's not women's boxing is bio female boxing.

The only counter to the point is by claiming sex and gender are the same.

Belz... 6th March 2019 09:04 AM

If the choice is causing prejudice to 50% of the population or 0.3%, the choice is easy. I'm all ears for a third option.

theprestige 6th March 2019 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623526)
No it segregated bio males from bio females.

Gender is a social construct coupled to a biological fact. Gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder in which a person's sense of their own gender does not comport with their biological fact. The best treatment seems to be a combination of:

- Making an effort to adjust the patient's biological fact to more closely approximate their sense of gender

- Making an effort to adjust the social construct to accommodate their sense of gender regardless of their biological facts.

A transwoman competes as a woman not because she wants to test herself against bio-women (at least, one hopes not - punching down like that would be mean-spiritied and uncompetitive), but because she wants to be seen as and treated as a biological woman.

Which brings us right back to the title and topic of the thread: Transwomen are not women. Or are they?

How do you uphold principles of inclusivity and tolerance? How do you honor and support a transsexual's self-image and social identity, if at the same time you mark out a huge area of entertainment and commerce? If, within that area, you say, "self-identify however you want, but you're not really a bio-woman, we know it, you know it, and now you have admit it, and go compete with the bio-men"?

And if sport doesn't have to honor a transwoman's self-identity, then why does anyone else? Men's and women's bathrooms? Transgenders just use their bio-gendered bathroom. Problem solved! That's what the social conservatives have been saying all along anyway. And the TERFs. And, soon, the entire world of competitive sports. Either that, or the entire world of competitive sports will have no women in it at all. Just a category dominated by men, and a category dominated by transwomen.

My point being, you can't just solve the problem of sport along biological lines in a vacuum. There's a larger cultural shift in progress here. How we treat transgenders in sports will have echoes in other areas of society.

theprestige 6th March 2019 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623536)
The only counter to the point is by claiming sex and gender are the same.

Sex and gender are the same for almost everyone. The question is, how do we deal humanely with the few of us for whom sex and gender are different?

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623500)
How is the solution not re just re brand it bio male and bio female sports?

Haven't you heard? If a trans woman has a penis, it's a biologically female penis.

I really don't want to Google the link to where I saw that argument put forward, but it wasn't intended as a joke.

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12623551)
My point being, you can't just solve the problem of sport along biological lines in a vacuum. There's a larger cultural shift in progress here. How we treat transgenders in sports will have echoes in other areas of society.

Sure. But we're knocking down Chesterton's fences left and right with no idea what's going to happen. It won't be all good.

theprestige 6th March 2019 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12623567)
Sure. But we're knocking down Chesterton's fences left and right with no idea what's going to happen. It won't be all good.

For sure. Not a day goes by that I don't pour one out for all the fences lost in the culture wars.

I'm trying to make a good-faith attempt at debate, starting from the premise that transgendered people are human beings who deserve humane treatment and basic respect for their problems and their solutions.

I don't see how that humanitarian view can be reconciled with the problem of gender in competitive sport. I'm just hoping that the debate can proceed along those lines - how to reconcile the issue of humane treatment of transsexuals with the issue of fair competition in professional sport.

I don't see how luchog's proposal will solve this problem. I hope he'll return to this thread to explain a bit more about what he has in mind. Hopefully also he can bring some more insights about the issue of transwomen in competitive sports.

Belz... 6th March 2019 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12623562)
Haven't you heard? If a trans woman has a penis, it's a biologically female penis.

I really don't want to Google the link to where I saw that argument put forward, but it wasn't intended as a joke.

Well, if nothing else it's consistent; it follows directly from that person's ideology.

theprestige 6th March 2019 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623588)
Well, if nothing else it's consistent; it follows directly from that person's ideology.

And that's kind of the bottom line, I think. The reduction to the absurd is intended to refute a false line of reasoning. When confronted with the choice of:
- biologically female penises; or
- something that isn't absurd;

The result is supposed to be that you choose something that isn't absurd. But what sometimes ends up happening is that people double down on the absurd thing rather than give up their ideology.

And that's why I'm a social conservative. I want to keep the rate of progress slow enough that the absurdists can't rush into power before the rest of us fully realize how ******* insane they are; and so that we don't rush into too much harm before we realize that what we thought was progress really wasn't.

And that's why I'll probably always be a counter-revolutionary.

HansMustermann 6th March 2019 10:47 AM

Err... exactly how is "biologically female penis" NOT the absurd option? :p

Belz... 6th March 2019 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12623644)
Err... exactly how is "biologically female penis" NOT the absurd option? :p

That's exactly his point.

theprestige 6th March 2019 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12623644)
Err... exactly how is "biologically female penis" NOT the absurd option? : p

That's an excellent question for you to ask the Crazypants McGee who came up with the idea. I'm certainly unable to answer it.

deadrose 6th March 2019 11:43 AM

The IOC has been allowing transgender athletes since 2004, depending on their hormonal status. Have the Olympics since then been won by transgender athletes? All of the contests? Any of the contests?

Maybe they're not overrunning the sports world after all.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623494)
Sports point is not to decide who is what sex,

Well it must be at least part of the point because that's what is being done currently

Quote:

it is fair competition.
No, it's about competition within an arbitrary set of rules.

Quote:

You might as well say tampons should change design because they remind trans people they are different.
The design of tampons isn't arbitrary.

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623736)
Quote:

it is fair competition.
No, it's about competition within an arbitrary set of rules.

That's what "fair" means.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623497)
They would complain if John mackinrow (sp?) Joined the league and beat her. Because he was born with many advantages due to his biology.

Williams was born with biological advantages over other women as well. And John McEnroe is not a transwoman. He is in his late 50s though so Serena might give him a good game!

theprestige 6th March 2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadrose (Post 12623715)
The IOC has been allowing transgender athletes since 2004, depending on their hormonal status.

Cite?

Quote:

Have the Olympics since then been won by transgender athletes? All of the contests? Any of the contests?

Maybe they're not overrunning the sports world after all.
Let's see what the Olympics have actually been allowing, before we leap to any conclusions.

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623739)
Williams was born with biological advantages over other women as well. And John McEnroe is not a transwoman. He is in his late 50s though so Serena might give him a good game!

Ok then as I said, pit women and men against one another, and see what happens.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623536)
But we are not, if sex and gender are 2 separate things, then we can sort by either. If they are the same, then we encounter the issue of the point being resolved already.

They can be all the woman they want, it's not women's boxing is bio female boxing.

The only counter to the point is by claiming sex and gender are the same.

I already mentioned this a while back and would be willing to bet it would be met by just as much wrath from those who insist that cis is an unnecessary made-up identifier.

theprestige 6th March 2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623736)
The design of tampons isn't arbitrary.

Neither is the segregation of competitive sport by gender.

Brainster 6th March 2019 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623364)
I can't say I mopped the floor with her, but I can say I won more than I lost. And it had nothing to do with skill, she had me beat on all fronts that way, it was simply that with equal effort I had some severe advantages.

This. Back in my college days I played a fair amount of tennis. I was just okay; against men with any degree of skill I would get whipped, and I didn't even dream about trying out for the team. But I often played gals on the women's team and was seldom challenged even against the best woman; most sets were 6-0 or 6-1. Indeed, I suspect that the concept of mixed doubles was arrived at because it allowed women able to play on the same court as men.

Matthew Best 6th March 2019 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623429)
Well, my point was, given how little information you gave, it's not easy to draw a rational conclusion. Sure, the post was written in a way that it 'leads' to a specific conclusion, but is it the correct one?

Well, to be honest I don't have any more information than that. I can imagine what the Chinese woman who won the last mixed gold medal thought, though.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623537)
If the choice is causing prejudice to 50% of the population or 0.3%, the choice is easy. I'm all ears for a third option.

Is that the choice?

Does that apply to other areas of discrimation as well? It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals because there are more Christians than homosexuals?

The vast majority of males and females are not and never will be elite athletes. Nothing that happens with transpeople will ever change that.

I find it hard to accept that it's prejudice against half the world to make it more difficult for them to become something they were never ever going to be anyway.

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadrose (Post 12623715)
The IOC has been allowing transgender athletes since 2004, depending on their hormonal status. Have the Olympics since then been won by transgender athletes? All of the contests? Any of the contests?

Maybe they're not overrunning the sports world after all.

The 2004 IOC rules required athletes to have undergone full sex change surgery. The new 2015 guidelines no longer require that. We should not expect to know the effects of this change for quite some time.

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623761)
Is that the choice?

Well, yeah. Either trans people can't compete at all, or most women who would qualify for those competition don't stand a chance. What's your third option?

Quote:

Does that apply to other areas of discrimation as well? It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals because there are more Christians than homosexuals?
No, but that's not very comparable, is it? Not discriminating against homosexuals does not prevent them from doing anything else.

Quote:

The vast majority of males and females are not and never will be elite athletes.
This is at the very least the four millionth time you point this out, and it's still as irrelevant as it was the first time around.

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 12623756)
Well, to be honest I don't have any more information than that. I can imagine what the Chinese woman who won the last mixed gold medal thought, though.

If that's all you have then you can't possibly arrive at a conclusion.

deadrose 6th March 2019 12:21 PM

As of last year they've also lowered the level of available testosterone allowed, which would be very hard to achieve without having had at least partial surgery.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623738)
That's what "fair" means.

Then every possible solution would have to be considered fair. I don't think you mean that.

I think most people would want to watch a contest they consider fair in that people are operating under the same rules.

But then Federer v Williams would be fair

Or everyone allowed to take steroids would be fair.

No, fairness seems to go beyond that but then it becomes highly subjective.

Is it about both sides having an even chance of winning?
Is it about both sides having equal opportunity to succeed?

If we keep tennis as an example there are possibly a greater number of men who could compete evenly with Serena Williams than there are women. There will be a vast number of women who could have trained their whole lives and still not be anywhere near her standard. So what's fair in this scenario?

Let's take 3 competitors:

1. Serena Williams
2. Berena Williams - A ciswoman who was born in exactly the same circumstances as Serena, trained just as much but is 10% less 'biologically fit for tennis'
3. Serena Willimans - A transwoman who was born in exactly the same circumstances as Serena, trained just as much, but is 10% more 'biologically fit for tennis'

Can you explain to me why its fair for 2 to compete with 1 but not fair for 1 to compete with 3?

cullennz 6th March 2019 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623761)
Is that the choice?

Does that apply to other areas of discrimation as well? It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals because there are more Christians than homosexuals?

The vast majority of males and females are not and never will be elite athletes. Nothing that happens with transpeople will ever change that.

I find it hard to accept that it's prejudice against half the world to make it more difficult for them to become something they were never ever going to be anyway.

Do you think 26 year olds should be able to enter boxing tournaments with 15 year olds?

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623773)
Well, yeah. Either trans people can't compete at all, or most women who would qualify for those competition don't stand a chance. What's your third option?

And 'most women who would qualify for those competitions' is not anywhere near 50% of the population.

In fact, assuming that competitions remain the same size then even if I accept your logic then 1 transwoman accepted into the competition means 1 ciswoman being denied entrance. So the numbers affected are, and always would be identical from that point of view.

Quote:

No, but that's not very comparable, is it? Not discriminating against homosexuals does not prevent them from doing anything else.
Well it's exactly the same logic. The second sentence here makes no sense to me. Christians would say that not discriminating against homosexuals stops them practising their religion. Allowing transwomen to win everything in sport would make absolutely no tangible difference to the vast majority of women

Quote:

This is at the very least the four millionth time you point this out, and it's still as irrelevant as it was the first time around.
It matters when you quote spurious numbers to make a point.

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623786)
Then every possible solution would have to be considered fair.

It's considered fair when it's agreed to. It doesn't change its arbitrary nature.

Quote:

Can you explain to me why its fair for 2 to compete with 1 but not fair for 1 to compete with 3?
I'm sorry, I've run out of patience trying to explain to you the basics of human psychology and of words.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12623796)
Do you think 26 year olds should be able to enter boxing tournaments with 15 year olds?

I don't know. I imagine their are plenty 15 year olds who could outbox many 26 year olds. I wouldn't put one in the ring with the world champion though

Belz... 6th March 2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623808)
And 'most women who would qualify for those competitions' is not anywhere near 50% of the population.

That is. Completely. Irrelevant.

This point that you think is so important that you have to make it in every single post is completely void of any meaning. It's pointless. Stop bringing it up.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623809)
It's considered fair when it's agreed to. It doesn't change its arbitrary nature.

I'm sorry, I've run out of patience trying to explain to you the basics of human psychology and of words.

I'll take that as a no then.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623811)
That is. Completely. Irrelevant.

This point that you think is so important that you have to make it in every single post is completely void of any meaning. It's pointless. Stop bringing it up.

It's not irrelevant in the least. You just can't see the point because you are tied into an old paradigm and happy to throw transwomen under the bus thanks to bad maths.

theprestige 6th March 2019 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 12623413)
Here's something I didn't know (probably not really relevant to this discussion, but interesting nonetheless).

From 1968 until 1992 the Olympic skeet shooting event was open to men and women. Then in 1992 it was actually won by a woman.

So what happened at the next Olympics? It was made men-only.

When something like this is mentioned, I'm always curious about the details of what actually went into the decision. Unfortunately, there isn't much available from the usual convenience sources (i.e., Wikipedia).

But here's some thoughts that come to my mind:

The decision was apparently made by the international governing organization for competitive shooting: the ISSF. Whether this decision was made entirely internally, or influenced by the IOC, is not known.

The ISSF already had some segregated events, so it's not like they were committed to co-ed shooting competitions.

The fact that in 6 olympiads, a woman only won once, argues that clearly the co-ed format wasn't working. It's possible that they had already planned to eliminate the co-ed Olympic event, and it was just a quirk of history that a woman happened to win the last such event.

It might also have been a complete fluke. The woman who won only placed 8th at her next major international competition.

The ISSF is responsible for increasing international participation in their sport. They may have started with a co-ed skeet event simply because there weren't enough competitors to make a good Olympic field otherwise.

As competitive skeet shooting became more popular internationally, everyone understood that audiences wouldn't be interested in seeing women consistently lose to men, and so they knew they were going to have to cancel the co-ed event at some point anyway.

Maybe they had only the men's event in the next olympiad because they already had enough international competitors to make a full field. By the following olympiad, they had enough olympic-tier women to introduce a women's event.

The ISSF is responsible for increasing international participation in their sport. This probably means that sooner or later, they have to promote the sport in cultures with strong taboos against co-ed competition. Maybe in 1992 the were facing the choice of keeping the co-ed event, or getting several more countries to send competitors to the Olympics.

---

An interesting and relevant note about the women's event introduced in the next olympiad: The men's event had five series of 25 targets, for a total of 125 shots. The women's even had three series of 25 targets, for a total of 75 shots.

In Olympic Skeet, the shooter starts each round with the shotgun at their hip, lifting it to their shoulder only after the trap has been released. That's a certain amount of lifting and lowering.

And that brings us back to the convergence of skill and strength. Target shooting is all about fine motor control, but with the added challenge of progressive muscle stress over time.

A woman can certainly be as good a shot as a man, given the same innate talent and the same training regimen. For their first shots. Do they still have skill parity at the 75th shot? The 100th? At some point, strength and stamina become important factors in the athlete's ability to compete at the highest levels, regardless of how skillful they are, or how good their fine motor control is when they're fully rested.

It's probably no accident that Olympic Skeet requires of women only 3/5ths of the stamina it requires of men. That one Chinese woman that one time notwithstanding.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.