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)

bobdroege7 8th March 2019 10:43 PM

I think it's settled law since Renee Richards.

And I also think women's sports can handle the competition.

cullennz 8th March 2019 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdroege7 (Post 12626794)
I think it's settled law since Renee Richards.

And I also think women's sports can handle the competition.

Competing against males?

Good luck with that

cullennz 8th March 2019 10:48 PM

I can see exactly what till happen actually.

Prediction

Elite women, and I mean women, not woman, will start boycotting big events in protest.

Brainster 9th March 2019 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdroege7 (Post 12626794)
I think it's settled law since Renee Richards.

The irony is that even Richards now accepts that it wasn't right for her to be playing against women:

Quote:

“Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12626003)

The spirit of competition is the core of sports,

Which is more or less literally what I just said in my previous post. But I would also say that inclusiveness is also at the core of sports.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:30 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.

I have provided an example of this very thing occurring without it killing the sport, or even apparently impacting it in the slightest and as far as I can tell not one person who advocates transwomen being excluded from women's sport has attempted to tell me why that transwoman should be banned from playing sport.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 03:38 AM

So, it's the "la la la, I can't hear you!" argument by now? :p

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:40 AM

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.

Well, I think I mentioned earlier that what is being lost is the pretence that these women ever had a chance in the first place. And seems to assume that women only play sports because they think they could be Serena Williams... I am not sure that's the case. But in any case again this seems to simply assume that transwomen are going to completely dominate sports and there will be no outlet for other women and I think I have repeatedly said that i acknowledge that maintaining the competitive element is important.

Quote:

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.
I can only go on the arguments being made... and the thread title and repeated attempts to scream the same thing isn't convincing to me. And I do think that anyone who has concluded that trans-women shouldn't ever compete against cis-women hasn't given it due thought because I have given an example where it seems to work fine.

And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 03:43 AM

And obviously 1 case trumps the majority of cases, right? Do I need to even explain why that's retarded?

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:46 AM

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.

And I think I started a while back by saying 'if that's the rule then change the name to cis-women sports and see what reaction you get' we already had one person claim that's an insult to women here.

And look at the responses being dealt with here.... dripping with scorn and disdain for transwomen. 'Men in bras'. It's pathetic. And if you are asking me to believe that these people have seriously thought about the issue with an open mind and empathy for those involved then I am going to call ********.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626924)
And obviously 1 case trumps the majority of cases, right? Do I need to even explain why that's retarded?

I think you need to explain why you repeatedly argue like a moron but actually, beyond that I'd actually prefer you don't engage with me at all since it seems beyond you to actually comprehend what I am saying and your derogatory posts add exactly zero to any informed discussion on the topic.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626926)
And I think I started a while back by saying 'if that's the rule then change the name to cis-women sports and see what reaction you get' we already had one person claim that's an insult to women here.

And look at the responses being dealt with here.... dripping with scorn and disdain for transwomen. 'Men in bras'. It's pathetic. And if you are asking me to believe that these people have seriously thought about the issue with an open mind and empathy for those involved then I am going to call ********.

I think the general consensus about just about everything is that you're allowed make fun of it if you're one. I wore a bra and for that matter a dress before. More than once. So what are YOUR qualifications to tell me what I can or can't say about it, silly?

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626927)
I think you need to explain why you repeatedly argue like a moron but actually, beyond that I'd actually prefer you don't engage with me at all since it seems beyond you to actually comprehend what I am saying and your derogatory posts add exactly zero to any informed discussion on the topic.

Says the guy whose only argument so far has been trying to bark some more verbose version of "transphobe!!!" at everyone who disagrees? Sorry, complaining about people comprehending your argument may work after you have a sound argument, not INSTEAD of :p

But seriously, even above, what you do is just dodge the question, and just go into barking "transphobe!!" mode instead. Yeah, that's a surprise ;)

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:57 AM

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 think it would need to be fleshed out a little to understand how it would work in practice. I think if it was largely invisible then people might be OK with it but if it looked obviously cooked then maybe not.

I don't think for example having transwomen run 110m instead of 100m would actually solve the issues

I imagine the solution might be different for different sports.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626932)
Says the guy whose only argument so far has been trying to bark some more verbose version of "transphobe!!!" at everyone who disagrees? Sorry, complaining about people comprehending your argument may work after you have a sound argument, not INSTEAD of :p

But seriously, even above, what you do is just dodge the question, and just go into barking "transphobe!!" mode instead. Yeah, that's a surprise ;)

How do you expect someone to respond when you literally answer my point 'that is not to say all transwomen should compete with all ciswomen all of the time' with 'and obviously 1 example trumps the majority'?

You have made no attempt to read what you are replying to and comprehend it. As this further post shows yet again.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626936)
How do you expect someone to respond when you literally answer my point 'that is not to say all transwomen should compete with all ciswomen all of the time' with 'and obviously 1 example trumps the majority'?

No, my dear, the message I was answering to had this gem, AGAIN: "I have given an example where it seems to work fine." Answering that with "and obviously 1 example trumps the majority" is inaccurate... how?

Seems to me like the comprehension problem still is on your side.

JihadJane 9th March 2019 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626914)
I have provided an example of this very thing occurring without it killing the sport, or even apparently impacting it in the slightest and as far as I can tell not one person who advocates transwomen being excluded from women's sport has attempted to tell me why that transwoman should be banned from playing sport.

LOL! Maybe get your head out of the sand, Archie!

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626938)
No, my dear BS-er, the message I was answering to, and even quoted,

Deary me. If that's an attempt at a lie then it's really risible. If it's an attempt at a counter when you can look back about 3 posts and see you quoted nothing and that the line I am referring to was the very last thing i said before what you said then you are beyond help.


Quote:

had this gem, AGAIN: "I have given an example where it seems to work fine." Answering that with "and obviously 1 example trumps the majority" is inaccurate... how?
Because it ignores exactly what I said in the following sentence. Did you get tired and stop reading?

Quote:

Seems to me like the comprehension problem still is on your side.
Well indeed. It would seem that way to you. However, I can't help you.I can explain things for you, I can't comprehend them for you.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JihadJane (Post 12626939)
LOL! Maybe get your head out of the sand, Archie!

If this supposed to refute the example?

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 04:20 AM

Plus, to address that example, examples of trans-men are irrelevant as to what a normal biological woman can do. Trans-men tend to have a lot of testosterone pumped into them, which is an anabolic steroid. I.e., the only women they're even remotely comparable to are ones which have been on steroids for years, which is not the kind that we allow in women's competitions. So pretending that what a trans-guy can do is relevant in any form or shape to the chances of a normal biological woman against a guy (with or without a bra) is pretty much nonsense.

Edit: and frankly, it's not the the standard I'd wish to promote in woman's sports. If the message we give is that to compete you'd need to be on par with a trans-man, I don't think it's very inspirational to most women. Because I dare say most still like to look like a woman. If you need the kind of testosterone levels that would put you on par with a trans-man, like the one in your example, that one starts to actually transform the body of a woman into a male look-alike. Shoulders starts to broaden, jaw grows leaving gaps between teeth, the clitoris starts to grow into a penis, etc. If THAT's what you need to do to compete against men, I think most women will say "no thanks". And probably the viewers too.

Archie Gemmill Goal 9th March 2019 04:28 AM

[quote=HansMustermann;12626947]Plus, to address that example, examples of trans-men are irrelevant [quote]

Good thing I didn't give one then. I really think we are done here.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 04:31 AM

Ah, right, the fine art of unilaterally proclaiming victory and stomping out. If there ever was a sign of a dummy who doesn't actually have an argument, that would be it.

So which one was yours then? I must admit that after 19 pages, it's hard to have it all in memory.

cullennz 9th March 2019 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626921)
Well, I think I mentioned earlier that what is being lost is the pretence that these women ever had a chance in the first place. And seems to assume that women only play sports because they think they could be Serena Williams... I am not sure that's the case. But in any case again this seems to simply assume that transwomen are going to completely dominate sports and there will be no outlet for other women and I think I have repeatedly said that i acknowledge that maintaining the competitive element is important.



I can only go on the arguments being made... and the thread title and repeated attempts to scream the same thing isn't convincing to me. And I do think that anyone who has concluded that trans-women shouldn't ever compete against cis-women hasn't given it due thought because I have given an example where it seems to work fine.

And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time.


Um no you haven't

You have done the complete opposite by saying females should compete with males

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626944)
Because it ignores exactly what I said in the following sentence. Did you get tired and stop reading?

Err, no. Your next sentence said "And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time." Having ONE example of ONE woman who competed in ONE sport, still isn't quite up to that standard. If all you have is ONE outlier that arguably qualified, you're not at the point where you can handwave that it's a fair competition, just "not all the time". You're nowhere near the standard where tacking on a "just not all the time" at the end makes it all all right.

Sorry, your not making any logical sense is still your problem, not mine.

JihadJane 9th March 2019 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626945)
If this supposed to refute the example?

I was laughing at your laughable assertion that forcing women and girls to compete against men and boys has no impact on women and girl's sport.

Bikewer 9th March 2019 07:03 AM

Somewhat related... A “Daily Wire” article about a British rapper who broke female powerlifting records while “identifying” as a woman:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43986...-emily-zanotti

All apparently done tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps he makes a point.

Ziggurat 9th March 2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayward son (Post 12626660)
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.

Have you actually read the ruling? Because you're either clueless of its contents or misrepresenting its significance. The ruling explicitly states that the child does not need the consent of either parent. The court would have ruled the same way even if the mother were also opposed. Furthermore, apparently even telling the child that this might be the wrong decision will be treated by the court as violence against the child.

As for worldview and ideology, funny how you think that can only cut one way.

And your own comment that age isn't relevant for consent is troubling, to say the least.

Darat 9th March 2019 08:31 AM

Sports already bends our commitment to equality (in the sense of treating everyone the same regardless of sex) and equality in the sense of discriminating based on physical attributes so there is nothing either lawful or culturally that stops sporting bodies using what are normally "protected" classes for purposes of discrimination in sports.

Therefore it is really just a matter for the sporting bodies to determine if they want their "womens" sports to be open to trans women.

The idea of using testosterone levels to determine which class people are allowed to compete in seems to be based on bad science.

I would have thought using the sex chromosomes would be the sensible way to determine where someone can compete?

Obviously this will disappoint some people who cant compete in the particular class they want to but it would mean no one has to be excluded from competitive sports at all levels.

Belz... 9th March 2019 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12626931)
I think the general consensus about just about everything is that you're allowed make fun of it if you're one. I wore a bra and for that matter a dress before. More than once. So what are YOUR qualifications to tell me what I can or can't say about it, silly?

There's a category of people who think they are more qualified than you to know whether you should be offended by something. In fact, they'll even get offended in your name.

sadhatter 9th March 2019 08:53 AM

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.

Then change the definition of trans women for sport ( to head of the screams of 'transphobe' ) to require the woman to be taking hormones.

Seems to nicely tie the issue up.

sadhatter 9th March 2019 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayward son (Post 12626660)
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.

Yet if we were talking a tattoo, people would be stringing the mother up.

Imagine " well the child wanted one, the doctor said it wouldn't cause medical harm, and the mother was on board. I don't understand why the kid couldn't get a tattoo".

sadhatter 9th March 2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626913)
Which is more or less literally what I just said in my previous post. But I would also say that inclusiveness is also at the core of sports.

What? No, what sports are you thinking of?

From playground kids not getting picked, to city leagues to the NFL draft, sport is about not including certain people based on skill level. The fat kids isn't going to get picked for soccer, and when Wayne Gretzky comes to visit relatives he doesn't get to play for the city league team.

I hate watching sports ,but I at least understand them.

bobdroege7 9th March 2019 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12626799)
I can see exactly what till happen actually.

Prediction

Elite women, and I mean women, not woman, will start boycotting big events in protest.

When Richards entered her first women's professional event most of the women dropped out, but when she won her court case and entered the US Open there were not so many that dropped out.

So not a prediction if it has already happened.

Ziggurat 9th March 2019 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12627094)
Therefore it is really just a matter for the sporting bodies to determine if they want their "womens" sports to be open to trans women.

Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Governments have shown themselves quite willing to intervene and force a particular solution on sporting bodies.

jhunter1163 9th March 2019 10:23 AM

I ran sprints when I was in high school. I was pretty good, good enough to make the state meet. My personal best was 10.61 seconds for 100 meters. That time would win every Olympic women's competition ever held. In fact, it would tie the undisputed women's world record (there is controversy around FloJo's WR run.) So a pretty decent male high-school sprinter is as fast as the fastest woman who ever lived. That's not me blowing my own horn; that's just biology. Trans women are biologically men, and they have the athletic advantages that confers.

attempt5001 9th March 2019 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12626921)
Well, I think I mentioned earlier that what is being lost is the pretence that these women ever had a chance in the first place. And seems to assume that women only play sports because they think they could be Serena Williams... I am not sure that's the case. But in any case again this seems to simply assume that transwomen are going to completely dominate sports and there will be no outlet for other women and I think I have repeatedly said that i acknowledge that maintaining the competitive element is important.

I just watched a special about women in sport for International women's day and the universal emphasis from the women on why promoting women's sport is important is for exposure, so that young girls and women could be encouraged to participate, and attempt to excel if they choose and are capable. Growing up in a household of boys, I had pretty much zero appreciation for this. Even though every little boy I played hockey with were obviously inspired by seeing NHLers on TV (Canadian), I did not appreciate how that was lacking for women. Now as the husband of a very athletic wife and a father of three girls I am beginning to better understand that in our culture, sport has more value than just as a commercial entertainment venture. For health and fitness, as well as just for societal participation, visible examples of women excelling and competing is inspirational.

Quote:

I can only go on the arguments being made... and the thread title and repeated attempts to scream the same thing isn't convincing to me. And I do think that anyone who has concluded that trans-women shouldn't ever compete against cis-women hasn't given it due thought because I have given an example where it seems to work fine.

And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time.
I agree that the thread title puts the discussion into an unfortunate combative framework and I can understand your choice to take a defensive/protective stance. I can see you acknowledge the inherent challenge in the situation, but I feel like you may feel hesitant to concede any main points lest it appear that you are failing to defend a vulnerable group. I can appreciate that, but I feel like even compassionate reason will conclude that having trans-women compete with females is not the best solution. As you mentioned, some examples can be found where it hasn't been problematic, but as you also acknowledge, it can be inappropriate and I do feel it is likely to generate considerable difficulties for females if it becomes generally accepted.

One must concede the point that biological sex cannot be chosen, even if the point is raised in a bigoted fashion. This does not me one abandons compassion and advocacy, just that one pursues it within the limits of reality.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12627105)
Then change the definition of trans women for sport ( to head of the screams of 'transphobe' ) to require the woman to be taking hormones.

Seems to nicely tie the issue up.

That still leaves the issue that 12 months worth of lack of testosterone will not undo a lifetime of having it in your system. A woman taking testosterone will begin transforming the body into a male one, while a man not having it won't begin transforming the body in the other direction. E.g., the former will begin to have broader shoulders, while a castrated guy doesn't start having narrower shoulders.

Basically all you'll have is less quick muscle growth, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid, but even the musculature won't be undone in a year. (Unless you stop training, anyway.) The rest of the changes to your body are cumulative and a one way street.

sadhatter 9th March 2019 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12627215)
That still leaves the issue that 12 months worth of lack of testosterone will not undo a lifetime of having it in your system. A woman taking testosterone will begin transforming the body into a male one, while a man not having it won't begin transforming the body in the other direction. E.g., the former will begin to have broader shoulders, while a castrated guy doesn't start having narrower shoulders.

Basically all you'll have is less quick muscle growth, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid, but even the musculature won't be undone in a year. (Unless you stop training, anyway.) The rest of the changes to your body are cumulative and a one way street.

You seem to misunderstand my point.

By my definition one taking hormones is disqualified due to taking hormones. If they do not they are disqualified for being a different gender.

It's a lot of hot **** but apperantly we have to resort to word play to convince people that maybe it's a little unfair to have males (not men) competing against women in sport.

HansMustermann 9th March 2019 02:23 PM

Well, you may be a little optimistic if you think that'll stop the "it's unfair if I don't get a lollipop" gang. But more power to you if you manage to convince any of them.

mgidm86 9th March 2019 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12627295)
Well, you may be a little optimistic if you think that'll stop the "it's unfair if I don't get a lollipop" gang. But more power to you if you manage to convince any of them.

They don't need to be convinced and they can cry as long as they want. It won't change anything.

The thread title is correct. Thread over! ;)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:24 AM.

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