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)

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12625025)
I hope your rising testosterone levels erased any confusion you might have had about yourself!

I don't thing I was ever confused as such. It's just, it never turned into THE big issue of my identity. There are things I rate up there as defining who I am, but they're just not about whether I wear pants or a skirt. I'd still be just as ok as being either, really.

cullennz 7th March 2019 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12625032)
Apparently the government of Canada disagrees. They think parents can be excluded from the decision.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trans-t...a-court-rules/

That story a quite frankly ******* scary and stupid on so many levels it is not funny.

Ziggurat 7th March 2019 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12625130)
That would be unethical. Plus, I don't even know for sure that your grandmother is a she.

It's her preferred pronoun, that's all anyone knows for sure.

attempt5001 7th March 2019 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624054)
No, I am arguing that we shouldn't be excluding transwomen on the grounds that they aren't really women. If there are more objective criteria to be used that ends up with them being excluded then I am open to look at that but they may well/probably will also catch a number of biological women.

Because they AREN'T getting brushed aside. The vast vast majority of those cis-women have exactly the same chance of competing in top level elite sports as they always had. ZERO.

And those who aren't elite will still be able to compete at their non-elite levels because 0.3% can't displace 50% entirely.



No I have simply looked at the arguments put forward and countered it.

If the argument is that it is significantly more prejudicial to include transwomen as exclude them that would seem laughable.

If the argument is that transwomen have a biological advantage then I would probably agree, but most elite sportspeople were born with a biological advantage, so what's the reasoning for drawing the line where it is other than 'transwomen are not real women'?

The truth of the matter is that there really isn't anything sacred about the existing rules. They were drawn up based on an easy metric to suit a societal need. Those needs may be changing. So its worth looking again at the rules to see if we can come up with something better.

highlight 1 - The objective criteria is being a biological woman.

highlight 2 - It is the HOPE of the POSSIBILITY of having the chance of competing at an elite/professional level that would be significantly diminished among a much larger proportion of biological women, particularly young girls. One might argue it would also be unfairly increased in trans-women. Anyone born male has the same likelihood of becoming an elite male athlete as anyone else born male. Same thing for females within the current paradigm. Many females and males feel that is fair and valuable and worth preserving.

highlight 3 - Yes. that's the unavoidable crux. Doing the best with "what you're born with" is foundational to fair play in sport. That's why it is deemed unfair to artificially increase hormone levels and it seems similarly unfair to allow one to artificially lower them to the threshold of the maximum limit. (see above point regarding unfairly increasing the likelihood of one group being able to compete at an elite level).

highlight 4 - That's a reasonable statement, but I think your detractors on this thread are pointing out that this seems impossible since biological sex is both influential on sporting ability and not-changeable. Some alternatives have been presented, but they don't seem feasible. Do you have any others to present?

Belz... 7th March 2019 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12625161)
It's her preferred pronoun, that's all anyone knows for sure.

Ze are correct.

angrysoba 7th March 2019 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12625492)
Ze are correct.

Misgendering, Ziggurat prefers xmnjnsjbubkwub which is pronounced "ajksninbhwnkgspd".

Archie Gemmill Goal 8th March 2019 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12625225)
Anyone born male has the same likelihood of becoming an elite male athlete as anyone else born male. Same thing for females within the current paradigm. Many females and males feel that is fair and valuable and worth preserving.

This is demonstrably not the case. Which is part of the point I have been making all along. For a multitude of reasons not least of all biological differences WITHIN the groups being discussed.

Somehow this has been seen as denying that there are biological differences between the groups as well. Which is bizarre.

In some sports such as boxing or weightlifting these differences are seen as important enough to have different classes of competition. in others like tennis, basketball and soccer it isn't.

You can look at the people who compete in elite sports and realise that there are certain body shapes and physical attributes that make people excel. There aren't many 5'4 guys in the NBA, there aren't many skinny little guys winning the 100m and there aren't many muscle-bound hulks running marathons.

So when someone argues 'you can't let people with a biological advantage thanks to an accident of birth compete and win at sports, it wouldn't be fair' I just look at the current situation and go 'huh?' Because that is exactly the situation we have right now.

If someone says 'but some people have too much of an advantage and it will spoil the competition' then I have sympathy for that position but I am asking to then define 'too much' and to look at ways we can address that without simply excluding entire classes of people many of whom may not have that level of advantage at all.

And to look at real cases such as the transwomen I have shown a couple of times rather than invented fantasies about Roger Federer suddenly competing as a woman.

Roboramma 8th March 2019 03:52 AM

I'm 5'7". If I wanted to create a basketball league to play and compete with other people between 5' and 5'10" because I thought it would be more interesting I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.

Some of the people competing would have other genetic advantages than height that would affect their ability to play the game. They might have proportionately long arms, or better reaction times, or countless other advantages. Okay. But the particular people involved simply came to an agreement that we were only interested in competing with people within a particular range of height.

It might turn out that some people would enjoy watching our games. Maybe a fandom would arise. Cool.

If someone then came in and said he identified as 5'5", even though he was 6'3", I don't think that should obligate us to let him join the game.

Archie Gemmill Goal 8th March 2019 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12625825)
I'm 5'7". If I wanted to create a basketball league to play and compete with other people between 5' and 5'10" because I thought it would be more interesting I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.

And what if you decided to exclude Dutch people because statistically they are taller than average?

Roboramma 8th March 2019 04:06 AM

That's actually an interesting point.

I guess that if taken to it's end it leads to the conclusion that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12625829)
And what if you decided to exclude Dutch people because statistically they are taller than average?

Yes, what would be the problem then?

We routinely make up categories like that. E.g., the weight categories in boxing. E.g., there's wheelchair basketball, where you have to be disabled to even be allowed on the field.

And before you pull out of the ass some "but you don't REALLY have to be disabled" stupidity, here's the actual definition in their rules:
PLAYER: Any individual who, because of permanent severe leg disability or paralysis of the lower portion of the body, will benefit through participation in wheelchair basketball and who would be denied the opportunity to play basketball, were it not for the wheelchair adaptation, is eligible.
That's it. If you are physically able to play without a wheelchair, you don't qualify for it.

And yes it's discrimination. So what?


You just seem to be the kind of silly person whose only argument seems to be barking some form of "but it's discrimination!" like a broken parrot. So what, silly? We discriminate every day, and it's ok. If you want it to mean anything, you have to show that it's UNFAIR discrimination. Otherwise it doesn't mean Jack Schitt. Arguing that we should make it MORE unfair in the name of "but it's discrimination!!!111eleventeen" is the dumbest idea ever.

Belz... 8th March 2019 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12625863)
Arguing that we should make it MORE unfair in the name of "but it's discrimination!!!111eleventeen" is the dumbest idea ever.

Worse still, it's the idea that we should discriminate against a larger group in order to let a tiny group win unfairly.


Thing is, there is no perfect solution for trans people. You can check for hormone levels all you want, but their biological advantages, as a group, don't vanish. Against men they can't compete, and against women they have unfair advantages, and you can't give them their own league because there are too few of them. So what's the solution? Make them win against women, that's what!

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 05:28 AM

Pretty much.

Ziggurat 8th March 2019 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12625829)
And what if you decided to exclude Dutch people because statistically they are taller than average?

What forms of discrimination are we allowed to engage in?

For the most part, western societies have decided that we should not discriminate on the basis of factors which are superficial, but we can discriminate on the basis of factors which are substantive. Race, for example, is mostly considered superficial for employment (actors playing roles of historic persons is an example of a rare exception). Eyesight is considered substantive for many jobs (you can't fly a plane if you're blind).

Is the difference between men and women substantive? When it comes to sports, I think the answer is yes, and society for the most part agrees, which justifies segregated mens and womens sports. Is the difference between trans women and women substantive when it comes to sports? I think the answer is still yes.

You have appealed to the existence of other differences, such as height, which can also be substantive for sports, and questioned why we don't segregate on that basis. Well, the answer to that is that the existence of a substantive difference doesn't always require you to segregate on that basis. In the case of sports, it's basically a question of what basis people want to segregate along. It appears people aren't interested in a separate basketball league for short people. They are interested in a separate basketball league for women.

So do fans want trans women competing in the womens sports leagues? I think the answer is largely no.

And I don't think any further justification is actually required.

Belz... 8th March 2019 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12625924)
For the most part, western societies have decided that we should not discriminate on the basis of factors which are superficial, but we can discriminate on the basis of factors which are substantive.

I can't believe you had to explain this to a grown adult.

Archie Gemmill Goal 8th March 2019 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12625836)
That's actually an interesting point.

I guess that if taken to it's end it leads to the conclusion that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

Well I am not sure it does i think all it means is that if we are excluding people we need to be careful on the grounds we are excluding them that those grounds are justifiable and that it's not simply a matter of prejudice.

Archie Gemmill Goal 8th March 2019 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12625924)
What forms of discrimination are we allowed to engage in?

For the most part, western societies have decided that we should not discriminate on the basis of factors which are superficial, but we can discriminate on the basis of factors which are substantive. Race, for example, is mostly considered superficial for employment (actors playing roles of historic persons is an example of a rare exception). Eyesight is considered substantive for many jobs (you can't fly a plane if you're blind).

And I don't think I have ever argued otherwise. However we need to exercise caution when we decide on which factors are substantive because we most certainly do not discriminate on EVERY factor that is substantive.

i think anyone who tried to argue that we shouldn't let Kenyans compete in distance running because they keep winning all the time would be rightly castigated for it and yet it would appear there is something substantive in certain East African ethnicities that gives them an advantage.

Quote:

Is the difference between men and women substantive? When it comes to sports, I think the answer is yes, and society for the most part agrees, which justifies segregated mens and womens sports. Is the difference between trans women and women substantive when it comes to sports? I think the answer is still yes.
Well this is part of the key question. But we should also bear in mind that there is quite a broad distribution across these groups which means its very difficult to simply apply broad brush strokes to individuals.

Not all Kenyans are great distance runners. Not all transwomen are going to significantly or even necessarily ANY better than ciswomen in a given sport.

Quote:


You have appealed to the existence of other differences, such as height, which can also be substantive for sports, and questioned why we don't segregate on that basis. Well, the answer to that is that the existence of a substantive difference doesn't always require you to segregate on that basis. In the case of sports, it's basically a question of what basis people want to segregate along. It appears people aren't interested in a separate basketball league for short people. They are interested in a separate basketball league for women.
Indeed. But that's a choice we make and therefore we need to exercise thought about how we make it in a way that isn't unnecessarily prejudiced and, no, we don't just get to say 'well people like it that way so tough' otherwise we might well continue to have racially segregated sports.

Quote:

So do fans want trans women competing in the womens sports leagues? I think the answer is largely no.
Well we don't actually know what fans think, or how they will feel after its been happening for 20 or 30 years. But that's not really the key question anyway. Did fans necessarily want black people competing in baseball alongside white people?

Quote:


And I don't think any further justification is actually required.
Well I disagree. We don't pander to prejudice and discrimination and bigotry in other fields and I don't think we should do so in sport either.

So I don't think this is the issue at all, the issue is the one you raised initially - can transwomen compete in sport alongside women while still maintaining the integrity of the sport and the competition and my feeling on this is that the answer is probably, yes, sometimes. Is there therefore a sound justification for excluding those people?

Archie Gemmill Goal 8th March 2019 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12625925)
I can't believe you had to explain this to a grown adult.

He didn't. I know this is all going over your head so probably best just ignore it from now on.

JoeMorgue 8th March 2019 08:02 AM

Sports are inherently different from job searching or our legal system and it doesn't make you "woker than us" to pretend it is not.

The spirit of competition is the core of sports, not a side affect.

Jane not getting a job simply because she's a woman is discrimination.

Jane not being able to lift as much weight because she's a woman is not.

theprestige 8th March 2019 08:33 AM

I think once AGG understands the reason why women and men are segregated in sports, he'll also understand why it's a bad idea for transwomen to compete with women in sports.

But this thread is not up to the task. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Belz... 8th March 2019 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626000)
He didn't.

He really did.

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 08:35 AM

Actually, as I was saying before, Jane CAN legally be discriminated even for a job for any reason that is relevant to the job. E.g., even taking his "but what if someone was too tall?", yeah, we routinely discriminate against big people when hiring a jockey. If Jane weighs like 200 pounds, we CAN say, no, sorry, you're not riding my horses.

Or conversely, for ST Voyager, they explicitly hired only people over IIRC 7 ft tall to play the Hirogen. And it's perfectly legal.

And before someone thinks that yeah, but you can't set your own arbitrary criteria... well, you can't make it completely arbitrary, but if you can make a coherent case for why it's relevant to the job description, yes we can even for a job. E.g., Hooters can very legally hire only women with big boobs. E.g., a modelling agency can and will fire you for gaining weight, and there ain't anything anyone can do about it.

One can bark, "BUT IT'S DISCRIMINATION!!!111eleventeen" at the moon until they're blue in the face like Smurfette, and it won't make any difference.


Actually, let me make it even clearer: a lot of people think that the law requires one to bend over backwards to accommodate everyone. It doesn't. At least over here basically the law only asks you to try to find a reasonable compromise, if it's reasonably possible to accommodate them without causing much disruption or any other problems. E.g., if someone can't work Saturdays because of their religion, but it wouldn't be any disruption to only schedule their shifts on the other 6 weekdays, you should probably do just that. But if that's not possible for either of the two parties, then bye bye.

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12626028)
I think once AGG understands the reason why women and men are segregated in sports, he'll also understand why it's a bad idea for transwomen to compete with women in sports.

Oh, I think he made it clear he understand that there are biological differences. He just apparently doesn't give a flip if it's about the top 0.1% who are fit enough to compete. Screw them and their biological advantages. Well, at least as long as they're real women. He seems to care all right when it's trans-women.

IIRC it was JK Rowling who made an observation along the line that a lot of people didn't care when it was women having problems, but suddenly care when it's about guys in dresses. Of course, she got people screaming "transphobe!!!" at her for it, but it seems to me like treads like this just show that she was right.

Ziggurat 8th March 2019 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12625999)
Not all transwomen are going to significantly or even necessarily ANY better than ciswomen in a given sport.

Doesn't matter. We don't let a weak man enter a women's weightlifting competition just because he'll lose.

Quote:

Well we don't actually know what fans think, or how they will feel after its been happening for 20 or 30 years. But that's not really the key question anyway. Did fans necessarily want black people competing in baseball alongside white people?
For the most part, they didn't mind. Teams that integrated didn't take a financial hit for doing so.

Quote:

Well I disagree. We don't pander to prejudice and discrimination and bigotry in other fields and I don't think we should do so in sport either.
If you don't want any discrimination in sports, then do away with separate womens sports completely. Be honest about it.

But letting trans women compete in womens sports while trying to maintain the fiction that it even is still womens sports will kill it, and it will kill it dishonestly.

theprestige 8th March 2019 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12626228)
But letting trans women compete in womens sports while trying to maintain the fiction that it even is still womens sports will kill it, and it will kill it dishonestly.

"... wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect."

attempt5001 8th March 2019 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12625821)
This is demonstrably not the case. Which is part of the point I have been making all along. For a multitude of reasons not least of all biological differences WITHIN the groups being discussed.

Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), that number (and it's positive impact on women and young girls) could be significantly reduced if the opportunity is reduced, which seems very likely, especially at the highest levels, where there is the most exposure and impact. In this situation, the very act of being born female would be a disadvantage, no matter where on the genetically-well-suited-for-sport spectrum one lies.

Do you have any response to the other aspects of my post. Like you, I feel this is worth giving thought to and discussing. It seems though, (perhaps because of the thread title) that you are assuming that anyone who has concluded that trans-women should not compete against females has not given this due thought. I don't think that is the case given that even the very thoughtful alternatives seem non-viable.

Ron_Tomkins 8th March 2019 12:34 PM

This discussion has been focusing a lot on sports, but you don't even have to go there for moral disagreements to arise. Take movies. There have been a few cases of a movie director casting a person to play a character that is not the same gender/nationality that the actor is. So a non/chinese person playing a chinese character. A non trans person playing a trans character. Etc. But you realize this scandal is relatively new. I bet if Nutty Professor had been made today, people would be outraged at the decision to cast Eddie Murphy to play an obese man, rather than give the job to an actual obese actor (Then again, it would have to look a lot like actor playing the professor when he is thin)

Should movie directors be forced to only hire trans people to play trans characters or disabled people to play disabled characters? Should the Theory of Everything have been starred by an actual person with body paralysis playing professor Hawkins? No. Because part of what makes an actor is that he/she transforms themselves into something they are not. This has to do with a mixture of acting, make up, prosthetics, special effects, etc. Which is why Gary Sinise didn't need to chop his legs to play Leutenant Dan.


Likewise, if a sport is meant for a specific type of person with specific traits, then that's part of the rules of sports. There are sports meant specifically for disabled people, for instance. So, people in wheelchairs racing against each other. Not only is that not wrong (It would be ridiculous to have a non disabled runner complaining that he's being discriminated against being allowed to compete because he's not in a wheelchair, and that "he has as much right as them to compete") In fact, that's the whole point of having rules/guidelines as to who gets to compete. No one's telling you you can't do any of these things. Just join a group that has your particular type of gender/race/disability or lack of, to participate.

But, sadly, PC Culture has confused the living **** out of people, and lots of people are now incapable of differentiating discrimination from freedom of each group to create their own organization with its own individual set of requirements to join. Everyone is free to do so.

theprestige 8th March 2019 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12626332)
But, sadly, PC Culture has confused the living **** out of people, and lots of people are now incapable of differentiating discrimination from freedom of each group to create their own organization with its own individual set of requirements to join. Everyone is free to do so.

One of the specific problems of transgenders is that they do not want their own "third option" organization to be members of. They want to be members of one of the two existing gender organizations. Telling transwomen that they have to compete separately from other women is the opposite of what their transition is supposed to accomplish for them.

attempt5001 8th March 2019 12:55 PM

I also think it's reasonable to have the same standard for trans-women and females, which is that hormonal manipulation disqualifies one from participating in elite athletic competitions.

theprestige 8th March 2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12626361)
I also think it's reasonable to have the same standard for trans-women and females, which is that hormonal manipulation disqualifies one from participating in elite athletic competitions.

I think that's probably the most rational and humane solution. But it does have one gaping loophole to close: Transwomen who have not yet started any hormone manipulation.

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12626305)
Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), that number (and it's positive impact on women and young girls) could be significantly reduced if the opportunity is reduced, which seems very likely, especially at the highest levels, where there is the most exposure and impact. In this situation, the very act of being born female would be a disadvantage, no matter where on the genetically-well-suited-for-sport spectrum one lies.

TBH, I don't even buy his "but it's only the 0.1% most biologically advantaged" argument.

You know why? Because sport is also about inspiring people to try. I don't think 99.999% of the guys playing football in school or 99.999% of the girls playing, dunno, basketball used to be popular in my school, are ever going to be pro athletes. But the pro athletes inspired them to at least like that sport, and like to play it at least for fun. And inspired some to at least think they can try for a sports scholarship or such, even if it turned out they weren't that good.

If you tell half of them that nah, you have no chance in hell, because it's the guys with bras dominating everything, there goes that inspiration right out the window. There's no point in even trying to be like athletes X, Y and Z, if you know from the start that nah, mate, YOU weren't born in that privileged group.

We're talking about discouraging a MUCH larger pool of people than the supposed 0.1% that are good enough to try for pro.

Do we really want that?

I mean, we already have a problem with fat sedentary children. Do we really want more?

Plus, frankly, I'd rather tell, what, a couple thousand at most? that they can't play in the girl team because they were born without ovaries, than tell a few MILLION girls that, nah, sorry, you were born with ovaries and that means sports are not for you. From a utilitarian point of view, you know, the good of the many before the good of the few, and all that.

attempt5001 8th March 2019 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12626305)
Yes, but the risk in this scenario is that whereas it used to be possible for the 0.1% most genetically well-suited, determined, and fortunate females to compete in elite sport (which inspired a great many more to participate or just feel encouraged), ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626449)
TBH, I don't even buy his "but it's only the 0.1% most biologically advantaged" argument.

You know why? Because sport is also about inspiring people to try. I don't think 99.999% of the guys playing football in school or 99.999% of the girls playing, dunno, basketball used to be popular in my school, are ever going to be pro athletes. But the pro athletes inspired them to at least like that sport, and like to play it at least for fun. And inspired some to at least think they can try for a sports scholarship or such, even if it turned out they weren't that good.

Yes. I agree and I think we are both emphasizing the same point.

attempt5001 8th March 2019 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12626399)
I think that's probably the most rational and humane solution. But it does have one gaping loophole to close: Transwomen who have not yet started any hormone manipulation.

Yes. Perhaps acknowledging that elite sport is segregated by biological sex rather than gender helps here. As such, a trans-woman should retain the right to compete in male sports, regardless of degree of transition.

cullennz 8th March 2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12626466)
Yes. Perhaps acknowledging that elite sport is segregated by biological sex rather than gender helps here. As such, a trans-woman should retain the right to compete in male sports, regardless of degree of transition.

That is one of the man issues

A certain group of people that keep trying to manipulate the words gender and sex into being the same thing

They ain't

HansMustermann 8th March 2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12626461)
Yes. I agree and I think we are both emphasizing the same point.

Yup. I'm just more verbose, as usual :p

Wayward son 8th March 2019 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12625032)
Apparently the government of Canada disagrees. They think parents can be excluded from the decision.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trans-t...a-court-rules/

In this case the 14-year-old transgender child consented (the court agreed with the medical experts that this 14-year-old was capable of consenting - capacity to consent is not based upon age - for this treatment, so no further family consent was required, yet the medical experts felt it would be best for the family if both parents were also in agreement), his mother consented and medical experts all agreed that the treatment was in the best interests of the child's wellbeing.

The father refused to consent.

So how much sway should he have?

I would say zero. The courts correctly agreed. The father, who the court's written decision, listed as disingenuous, and as trying to delay court proceedings to delay a decision and thereby delay treatment, has probably permanently destroyed his relationship with his child in favour of pushing his worldview and ideology.

attempt5001 8th March 2019 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626544)
Yup. I'm just more verbose, as usual :p

:) We'll call it a clarifying emphasis ;)

Lithrael 8th March 2019 09:01 PM

I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.

attempt5001 8th March 2019 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 12626759)
I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.

Hi Lithrael. That's seems like a strategy that might work well for recreational competition, where, like you say, the goal is a fun and exciting finish to a race for example. I think the subtleties of coming up with an appropriately precise handicap system would be very difficult, unless it's the type of competition where all the competitors have one (such as for golf). I'm not familiar with any elite sports that use a handicap system. It seems counter to the spirit of maximum competitiveness that defines them, so I don't think it would work well in that context.

cullennz 8th March 2019 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 12626759)
I’m a little frustrated that nobody wants to even comment on the idea of using a handicap system to allow trans folks to compete without obliterating cis women. For some sports like racing it’s already a proven strategy to give people competing at a higher level a late start so they can still have the fun of striving for the finish line with everyone.

I can see your point, but it would have to be an extremely over complicated system for all sports, it would be undoable....Well obviously doable, if they spent years and years working it out and then reorganising the entirety of all world sport globally and spend billions, over a few thousand trans athletes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 AM.

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