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)

novaphile 9th March 2019 04:34 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.

Particularly in light of the "participation trophy" world, I wonder if that may lead to an answer.

Allow trans-woman to compete with women, but put them in a different prize stream. i.e. medals/prizes for the first three women, and medals/prizes for the first three trans-women.

Within sports like golf, these prizes could even be separately funded by advertisers etc.

Just a thought.

theprestige 9th March 2019 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novaphile (Post 12627371)
Particularly in light of the "participation trophy" world, I wonder if that may lead to an answer.



Allow trans-woman to compete with women, but put them in a different prize stream. i.e. medals/prizes for the first three women, and medals/prizes for the first three trans-women.



Within sports like golf, these prizes could even be separately funded by advertisers etc.



Just a thought.

Seems like you'd still be dicking over actual women, though.

"Congratulations! You finished seventh overall, but here's your gold medal for first finisher in the not-actually-a-man category!"

And of course you'd be dicking over transwomen, too.

"Congratulations! Here's your gold medal in the not-actually-a-woman category!". Remember: Transgenders aren't actually interested in being genderfluid intersex entities.

novaphile 9th March 2019 05:24 PM

:(

The definition of a good compromise?

Everyone goes home unhappy?

theprestige 9th March 2019 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novaphile (Post 12627410)
:(



The definition of a good compromise?



Everyone goes home unhappy?

I'm not looking for a compromise. I'm looking for an answer.

So far, the answer seems to be that transwomen are not women. But that doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Lithrael 9th March 2019 10:54 PM

"Congratulations! You finished seventh overall, but here's your gold medal for first finisher in the ciswoman category!"

And

"Congratulations! Here's your gold medal in the transwoman category!"

Seem fine to me if the alternatives are “ciswomen and transwomen can’t play together” or “ciswomen can’t win basically ever.”

Ty folks for discussing handicaps as well. I agree that some sports would be tough or impossible to brute fairness into, but I still think all the straight timed/weighted/point performance type sports would be doable. Subtract the record cis female performance from the record cis male performance for a starting point and work from there. I don’t actually mind if it ends up being too hard on trans athletes because I don’t even really care if they get a perfectly fair shake so much as I want them to get to play.

cullennz 9th March 2019 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 12627559)
"Congratulations! You finished seventh overall, but here's your gold medal for first finisher in the ciswoman category!"

And

"Congratulations! Here's your gold medal in the transwoman category!"

Seem fine to me if the alternatives are “ciswomen and transwomen can’t play together” or “ciswomen can’t win basically ever.”

Ty folks for discussing handicaps as well. I agree that some sports would be tough or impossible to brute fairness into, but I still think all the straight timed/weighted/point performance type sports would be doable. Subtract the record cis female performance from the record cis male performance for a starting point and work from there. I don’t actually mind if it ends up being too hard on trans athletes because I don’t even really care if they get a perfectly fair shake so much as I want them to get to play.

Or they could just have their own sports category.........Men, Women, Trans Women/Women with blokes bod's

HansMustermann 10th March 2019 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12627375)
Transgenders aren't actually interested in being genderfluid intersex entities.

I dunno. The one transgender I actually know about on the forum actually said that she's ok with being a third category in sports, about half a dozen pages back in this very thread. One of the trans-women used as an example in this thread also agrees by now that she shouldn't have competed with biological women, too. The rest of the talk has been guys telling the transgenders what they REALLY want.

Really, Belz nailed it. Some people who aren't even in that pool are trying to tell those who are what they should be offended about, and even getting offended on their behalf.

HansMustermann 10th March 2019 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novaphile (Post 12627371)
Allow trans-woman to compete with women, but put them in a different prize stream. i.e. medals/prizes for the first three women, and medals/prizes for the first three trans-women.

That's still shafting the biological women, because there are only places for so many candidates in such events. E.g., in the olympics IIRC there might be ONE per country. Or if not, there's only so many lanes on a sprint track. So adding any trans-women will simply push out some biological women from that pool of candidates. And if enough trans-women compete they may simply leave no more room for the biological women.

For other sports, there's a pyramid style elimination process until only 2 are left to compete against each other. It's not clear at all how would you even conclude who's first and who's second among those who got eliminated before even the semifinals, if only the trans-women make it there.

And it's impossible to even figure out if the best biological woman was the one who made it to the semi-finals by luckily enough only drawing matches against other biological women, or the one who had to fight against the trans-woman in the very first elimination tier and lost.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12627188)
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.

Oh, this I agree with. Visible examples and role models are important. But that is somewhat different than saying that it's only about winning. In fact you said it yourself 'excelling and competing' but I believe they can still excel and compete in a world where transwomen also participate.

And you know what the weird thing, a lot of the faces arguing to exclude transwomen here are the same ones that will tell you if you switch topic to STEM employment (for example) than role models don't matter, that removing barriers doesn't matter and that it's just tough that women don't have the attitudes/aptitudes required to succeed.

You seem to be able to be able to comprehend arguments so this is not for your benefit but I will spell it out clearly for the hard of thinking - I do not advocate for a system in which transwomen completely dominate sport, in which ciswomen don't have a chance to compete, in which no ciswomen ever can win anything.

And if the only way to achieve that was to exclude them entirely then I would reluctantly agree that its for the best. I just don't agree that we are at that point, and I have given an example of the kind of situation where it seems to be working OK.


Quote:

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.
I think we can all imagine scenarios where it would generate considerable difficulties, and some of us at least can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't. My question has always been whether there are ways we can manage things that would allow us to steer it to the latter. The counter arguments have generally been screaming nonsense about men in bras, Roger Federer identifying as a woman on a Tuesday, or 0.3% of a population entirely displacing 50% (through mathematical magic apparently). Of course there have also been the non-readers.

Quote:

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.
Well indeed. And what I have asked is to discuss biological and social realities rather than invented nonsense. And I have said at least once that I don't know what the actual magnitude of difference between a transwoman and a cis woman is in terms of biological advantage. And nobody else has been forthcoming with this. The transwoman in my example speaks about how hormone therapy significantly changes their biological advantage. And I have not seen anyone speak out to say they feel that they have an unfair advantage or that they don't want to play alongside her. I haven't heard any reports that she is making a mockery of the sport, or her league or the games she participates in.

And yet people here insist that she needs to be banned from competing. And I haven't seen anyone offer a single reason for that other than that she belongs to a group that they want to exclude.

And yes it's just 1 example, but nobody is seriously trying to argue that she is unique are they? There must be hundreds or thousands of people like her who could all participate happily in women's sports without causing any problems whatsoever.

Are there other situations where it doesn't work as well? Undoubtedly. Could things become an issue in future if the numbers skewed significantly? Quite possibly. But that is an argument to address those issues, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

JihadJane 10th March 2019 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627633)
Oh, this I agree with. Visible examples and role models are important. But that is somewhat different than saying that it's only about winning. In fact you said it yourself 'excelling and competing' but I believe they can still excel and compete in a world where transwomen also participate.

And you know what the weird thing, a lot of the faces arguing to exclude transwomen here are the same ones that will tell you if you switch topic to STEM employment (for example) than role models don't matter, that removing barriers doesn't matter and that it's just tough that women don't have the attitudes/aptitudes required to succeed.

You seem to be able to be able to comprehend arguments so this is not for your benefit but I will spell it out clearly for the hard of thinking - I do not advocate for a system in which transwomen completely dominate sport, in which ciswomen don't have a chance to compete, in which no ciswomen ever can win anything.

And if the only way to achieve that was to exclude them entirely then I would reluctantly agree that its for the best. I just don't agree that we are at that point, and I have given an example of the kind of situation where it seems to be working OK.




I think we can all imagine scenarios where it would generate considerable difficulties, and some of us at least can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't. My question has always been whether there are ways we can manage things that would allow us to steer it to the latter. The counter arguments have generally been screaming nonsense about men in bras, Roger Federer identifying as a woman on a Tuesday, or 0.3% of a population entirely displacing 50% (through mathematical magic apparently). Of course there have also been the non-readers.



Well indeed. And what I have asked is to discuss biological and social realities rather than invented nonsense. And I have said at least once that I don't know what the actual magnitude of difference between a transwoman and a cis woman is in terms of biological advantage. And nobody else has been forthcoming with this. The transwoman in my example speaks about how hormone therapy significantly changes their biological advantage. And I have not seen anyone speak out to say they feel that they have an unfair advantage or that they don't want to play alongside her. I haven't heard any reports that she is making a mockery of the sport, or her league or the games she participates in.

And yet people here insist that she needs to be banned from competing. And I haven't seen anyone offer a single reason for that other than that she belongs to a group that they want to exclude.

And yes it's just 1 example, but nobody is seriously trying to argue that she is unique are they? There must be hundreds or thousands of people like her who could all participate happily in women's sports without causing any problems whatsoever.

Are there other situations where it doesn't work as well? Undoubtedly. Could things become an issue in future if the numbers skewed significantly? Quite possibly. But that is an argument to address those issues, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You don't care about women.

Darat 10th March 2019 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12627425)
I'm not looking for a compromise. I'm looking for an answer.

So far, the answer seems to be that transwomen are not women. But that doesn't seem to solve the problem.

It would seem an answer could be that trans women are not women as classed by sporting organisations. They could be held to be women in many other places. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

Darat 10th March 2019 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627143)
Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Governments have shown themselves quite willing to intervene and force a particular solution on sporting bodies.

Of course society will make the decision,what else do think could happen?

HansMustermann 10th March 2019 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JihadJane (Post 12627657)
You don't care about women.

'Course he cares. But only if they were born with a penis :p

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12627668)
Of course society will make the decision,what else do think could happen?

Government isn't society. When government steps in and forces a decision about this sort of thing, it's usually because a special interest wants something different than society does.

Belz... 10th March 2019 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12627188)
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.

It's a sad thought that people can't get inspired by others that don't share some superficial characteristic with them.

Belz... 10th March 2019 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12627612)
I dunno. The one transgender I actually know about on the forum actually said that she's ok with being a third category in sports, about half a dozen pages back in this very thread. One of the trans-women used as an example in this thread also agrees by now that she shouldn't have competed with biological women, too. The rest of the talk has been guys telling the transgenders what they REALLY want.

Really, Belz nailed it. Some people who aren't even in that pool are trying to tell those who are what they should be offended about, and even getting offended on their behalf.

As a sidenote, it turned out that the overwhelming majority (90+%?) of the Native American population didn't care about the sports team name "Redskins".

But a lot of crackers were outraged.

HansMustermann 10th March 2019 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12627750)
It's a sad thought that people can't get inspired by others that don't share some superficial characteristic with them.

I'd say it's more like people are more inspired if they think that they too could do it. If it's a case of, yeah, someone else could, but YOU don't qualify, I dunno, I wouldn't be very inspired myself.

Darat 10th March 2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627749)
Government isn't society. When government steps in and forces a decision about this sort of thing, it's usually because a special interest wants something different than society does.

What utter nonsense, government is one of the ways societies decide to organise, government is just as much a part of society as a sporting organisation.

sadhatter 10th March 2019 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12627760)
I'd say it's more like people are more inspired if they think that they too could do it. If it's a case of, yeah, someone else could, but YOU don't qualify, I dunno, I wouldn't be very inspired myself.

That kinda makes me sad that people feel that way.

Personally I get inspired by people doing big things, doesn't matter if it's a thing I can do, it's the fact that an individual doing something awesome in their field .

Honestly if this is an opinion the majority of folks have, I think that is a huge part of the problem. Seems like a low key jealousy.

HansMustermann 10th March 2019 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12627814)
That kinda makes me sad that people feel that way.

Personally I get inspired by people doing big things, doesn't matter if it's a thing I can do, it's the fact that an individual doing something awesome in their field .

Honestly if this is an opinion the majority of folks have, I think that is a huge part of the problem. Seems like a low key jealousy.

I don't think it's jealousy, but rather pragmatism. I won't put a lot of effort into something, if I know I'm excluded from the start from going anywhere with it. The whole dream is that if I put enough effort into it -- even if I actually won't put in that effort, but I COULD put it -- or discover I have the secret X-Men gene, or are force sensitive, or whatever, I too could be the next Pele or Maradona. (To pick some examples from soccer that inspired my generation of teenagers.)

Same reason as why in the monomyth the hero starts as an everyman, really. You're a lot more inspired if it basically tells you that you too could be the hero.

But not as much if it's a case of "yeah, well, you COULD be the hero IF you had been born with a dick. But you weren't. Sorry, kid." You can't really imagine even a half-way realistic scenario that ends up with you being the hero.

attempt5001 10th March 2019 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12627814)
That kinda makes me sad that people feel that way.

Personally I get inspired by people doing big things, doesn't matter if it's a thing I can do, it's the fact that an individual doing something awesome in their field .

Honestly if this is an opinion the majority of folks have, I think that is a huge part of the problem. Seems like a low key jealousy.

There are different types of inspiration. One type is encouraging in that it shows great things are possible. Another type is encouraging and motivating because it suggests that you also may be able to excel. If you are only ever a spectator (to sport or any other aspect of life), their is no need for the latter. For potential participants however, it's quite impactful.

attempt5001 10th March 2019 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627633)
Oh, this I agree with. Visible examples and role models are important. But that is somewhat different than saying that it's only about winning. In fact you said it yourself 'excelling and competing' but I believe they can still excel and compete in a world where transwomen also participate.

I think female athletes feel (rightly) that they have worked very hard and still only made relatively minor (in some sports at least) headway in gaining exposure and airtime. I can understand why they would feel (and respond) strongly to the possibility of losing any of that ground.

Quote:

And you know what the weird thing, a lot of the faces arguing to exclude transwomen here are the same ones that will tell you if you switch topic to STEM employment (for example) than role models don't matter, that removing barriers doesn't matter and that it's just tough that women don't have the attitudes/aptitudes required to succeed.
I won't derail this thread, but I'd be interested in participating in a separate thread on this issue, particularly with those like yourself who have more hands-on experience.

Quote:

You seem to be able to be able to comprehend arguments so this is not for your benefit but I will spell it out clearly for the hard of thinking - I do not advocate for a system in which transwomen completely dominate sport, in which ciswomen don't have a chance to compete, in which no ciswomen ever can win anything.

And if the only way to achieve that was to exclude them entirely then I would reluctantly agree that its for the best. I just don't agree that we are at that point, and I have given an example of the kind of situation where it seems to be working OK.
Fair enough. At present I feel like at the end, we are will stuck because biological sex creates an un-level playing field, but I'm willing to continue to discuss. Can you remind me of your example? I think I missed it in the thread.

Quote:

I think we can all imagine scenarios where it would generate considerable difficulties, and some of us at least can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't. My question has always been whether there are ways we can manage things that would allow us to steer it to the latter. The counter arguments have generally been screaming nonsense about men in bras, Roger Federer identifying as a woman on a Tuesday, or 0.3% of a population entirely displacing 50% (through mathematical magic apparently). Of course there have also been the non-readers.
Right. My feeling is that the difficulties would be the "rule" and the times things run smoothly would be the "exceptions", but I'm happy to continue to read and consider your opinions and ideas as well.

Quote:

Well indeed. And what I have asked is to discuss biological and social realities rather than invented nonsense. And I have said at least once that I don't know what the actual magnitude of difference between a transwoman and a cis woman is in terms of biological advantage. And nobody else has been forthcoming with this. The transwoman in my example speaks about how hormone therapy significantly changes their biological advantage. And I have not seen anyone speak out to say they feel that they have an unfair advantage or that they don't want to play alongside her. I haven't heard any reports that she is making a mockery of the sport, or her league or the games she participates in.

And yet people here insist that she needs to be banned from competing. And I haven't seen anyone offer a single reason for that other than that she belongs to a group that they want to exclude.

And yes it's just 1 example, but nobody is seriously trying to argue that she is unique are they? There must be hundreds or thousands of people like her who could all participate happily in women's sports without causing any problems whatsoever.

Are there other situations where it doesn't work as well? Undoubtedly. Could things become an issue in future if the numbers skewed significantly? Quite possibly. But that is an argument to address those issues, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem I see, with respect to biological advantage is the distribution among the population. I'm confident you already understand this, so I won't belabour it, but there is one distribution for males, and a different distribution for females, which makes competition mostly unfeasible. The distribution for trans-women, would likely fall between the other two and be sufficiently unique so as to also make competition unfeasible. It's not the individual cases (for or against) that are problematic, it's the populations trends.

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12627796)
What utter nonsense, government is one of the ways societies decide to organise, government is just as much a part of society as a sporting organisation.

Exactly: it's a part. It isn't the whole. It often doesn't represent the whole or even the majority. Government intervening to force sports organizations to include trans athletes in womens' competitions is an example of government not representing the whole, or even the majority.

And sports organizations, while also only part of society, are the most relevant part for making decisions about those sports. You said so yourself.

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12627814)
That kinda makes me sad that people feel that way.

Personally I get inspired by people doing big things

Is it really inspiring if a biological male runs faster than biological females?

I don't really think that's inspiring.

theprestige 10th March 2019 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627903)
Is it really inspiring if a biological male runs faster than biological females?



I don't really think that's inspiring.

That's because you're committing the heresy of gender superiority.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attempt5001 (Post 12627879)
I think female athletes feel (rightly) that they have worked very hard and still only made relatively minor (in some sports at least) headway in gaining exposure and airtime. I can understand why they would feel (and respond) strongly to the possibility of losing any of that ground.



I won't derail this thread, but I'd be interested in participating in a separate thread on this issue, particularly with those like yourself who have more hands-on experience.



Fair enough. At present I feel like at the end, we are will stuck because biological sex creates an un-level playing field, but I'm willing to continue to discuss. Can you remind me of your example? I think I missed it in the thread.



Right. My feeling is that the difficulties would be the "rule" and the times things run smoothly would be the "exceptions", but I'm happy to continue to read and consider your opinions and ideas as well.



The problem I see, with respect to biological advantage is the distribution among the population. I'm confident you already understand this, so I won't belabour it, but there is one distribution for males, and a different distribution for females, which makes competition mostly unfeasible. The distribution for trans-women, would likely fall between the other two and be sufficiently unique so as to also make competition unfeasible. It's not the individual cases (for or against) that are problematic, it's the populations trends.

Here again is the example i gave of a transwoman competing with other women in a non-elite but competitive environment.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/0...rmone-therapy/

Now she argues that her hormone therapy pretty much levels the playing field and i don't have any evidence that she is wrong in that.

Now she is not the biggest strongest best man in football suddenly deciding she wants to play in women's sport. But equally she isn't competing against the best women either.

i give this example because it was in the press here recently and I haven't seen anyone come out to argue it or say that they don't like playing against her or that it's unfair. and yet there are a handful of people here arguing that this needs to be stopped before it destroys women's sport entirely.

and that's why I don't like arguments from population differences, because they don't apply to individuals.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627901)
Exactly: it's a part. It isn't the whole. It often doesn't represent the whole or even the majority. Government intervening to force sports organizations to include trans athletes in womens' competitions is an example of government not representing the whole, or even the majority.

And sports organizations, while also only part of society, are the most relevant part for making decisions about those sports. You said so yourself.

I think you need to be careful here in assuming (as you seem to be) that because action is taken in favour of a minority that it is taken only on behalf of a minority.

cullennz 10th March 2019 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627926)
Here again is the example i gave of a transwoman competing with other women in a non-elite but competitive environment.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/0...rmone-therapy/

Now she argues that her hormone therapy pretty much levels the playing field and i don't have any evidence that she is wrong in that.

Now she is not the biggest strongest best man in football suddenly deciding she wants to play in women's sport. But equally she isn't competing against the best women either.

i give this example because it was in the press here recently and I haven't seen anyone come out to argue it or say that they don't like playing against her or that it's unfair. and yet there are a handful of people here arguing that this needs to be stopped before it destroys women's sport entirely.

and that's why I don't like arguments from population differences, because they don't apply to individuals.

“Yesterday my football team containing two trans women lost 5-1 twice to a team containing no trans women, so you can take your trans advantage and shove it.”

Odd logic

:boggled:

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627937)
I think you need to be careful here in assuming (as you seem to be) that because action is taken in favour of a minority that it is taken only on behalf of a minority.

You seem to think the motives matter. They don't, not really.

Olmstead 10th March 2019 02:00 PM

A woman could have the best possible genetic makeup for a certain sport and rigorously follow a perfect training routine, but still lose to an average trans-woman athlete.

If the above is true, then the idea of them competing together is as ridiculous as having adults compete with children.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627903)
Is it really inspiring if a biological male runs faster than biological females?.

It could be.

I mean it's inspiring to some people when a Kenyan wins the 10,000m.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12627938)
“Yesterday my football team containing two trans women lost 5-1 twice to a team containing no trans women, so you can take your trans advantage and shove it.”

Odd logic

:boggled:

in what way is it odd?

Odder than 'well the male heavyweight champion would beat a woman easily if he suddenly identified as trans' ?

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12627942)
You seem to think the motives matter. They don't, not really.

No, you seem to be arguing that an action which helps one group only represents that group and I disagree. Nothing to do with motives.

The presence of unemployment benefits in my society don't only represent the minority of people who are unemployed but represent the majority of the society who think they are the right thing to do whether they are unemployed or not.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olmstead (Post 12627948)
.

If the above is true, .

Is it true?

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627926)
Here again is the example i gave of a transwoman competing with other women in a non-elite but competitive environment.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/0...rmone-therapy/

Now she argues that her hormone therapy pretty much levels the playing field and i don't have any evidence that she is wrong in that.

I do. Skeletal structure doesn't change with hormones. The Q angle of the knee is smaller for men than for women, as an example, which makes running more efficient for men. Neuromuscular efficiency will also remain different despite hormone treatment.

For example, the standing vertical jump (SVJ) for male athletes is much larger than for female athletes. The SVJ is a very interesting measure of athletic aptitude, because unlike strength, there's actually very little you can do to improve it. Football recruiters use it precisely because it's not really trainable, and so reveals information about an athlete's intrinsic potential. It's mostly a function of how fast your nervous system can recruit muscles to fire, and how many of them the nervous system can get to fire at the same time. Getting stronger doesn't change that, and does very little to improve the SVJ. Steroids likewise don't improve the SVJ. Which is why the loss of muscle mass due to hormone therapy won't really hurt the SVJ much either. But having a higher SVJ is an advantage in almost any athletic competition. So trans women will still have that neuromuscular efficiency advantage over biological women regardless of hormone therapy.

Quote:

and that's why I don't like arguments from population differences, because they don't apply to individuals.
The entire premise of having women's sports is because of population differences. If you can't consider population differences, then there's no reason to have women's sports at all. If that's really how you feel, then be honest about the logic, and advocate doing away with women's sports entirely. But the idea that you can't tolerate being judged as a member of a population if it excludes you from a league that is entirely premised on populations, well, that's a contradiction from the start.

Ziggurat 10th March 2019 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627957)
No, you seem to be arguing that an action which helps one group only represents that group and I disagree. Nothing to do with motives.

The presence of unemployment benefits in my society don't only represent the minority of people who are unemployed but represent the majority of the society who think they are the right thing to do whether they are unemployed or not.

You picked a really bad example. Unemployment benefits function as a sort of insurance, which could potentially be used by more people than actually use them. Most people will never be under consideration for benefits to transgendered.

A better example would be welfare for the developmentally disabled, since most people aren't even potentially in that category. But even there, you've skipped over so many steps (like needs and justifications) that the comparison is still fairly pointless.

Olmstead 10th March 2019 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627960)
Is it true?

I'm going to say yes, unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary:

"I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right."

Tamikka Brents on her fight with transgender fighter Fallon Fox

cullennz 10th March 2019 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627953)
in what way is it odd?

Odder than 'well the male heavyweight champion would beat a woman easily if he suddenly identified as trans' ?

Because football is a team game and the other 9 players might just be crap.

Or even their one goalie.

Presuming they are talking round ball.

It is a silly thing for them to say, and shows nothing without context.

Archie Gemmill Goal 10th March 2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olmstead (Post 12627967)
I'm going to say yes, unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary:

I think that's textbook prejudice then

Quote:

"I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right."

Tamikka Brents on her fight with transgender fighter Fallon Fox
Yep. And we have other examples where its just fine.

cullennz 10th March 2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12627990)
I think that's textbook prejudice then



Yep. And we have other examples where its just fine.

I must have missed these

Examples of trans women being whalloped by women in sports like boxing or MMA?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 AM.

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