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)

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 04:59 AM

Incidentally at the other end of sports, quite often there is the opposite problem. Kids and amateur women who would like to participate with men being excluded because teams are sex segregated. I think most people would argue that any woman/girl who wants to play with men should be allowed to right?

angrysoba 6th March 2019 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623338)
Incidentally at the other end of sports, quite often there is the opposite problem. Kids and amateur women who would like to participate with men being excluded because teams are sex segregated. I think most people would argue that any woman/girl who wants to play with men should be allowed to right?

Yes, I would argue that consenting adults should have the opportunity.

Belz... 6th March 2019 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623336)
this is already the case. We just pretend it isn't by calling them women's and men's sports rather than 'Elite sport' and 'not as good/strong' sports.

Of course, but I think "women's champion of the world" sounds more prestigious than "featherweight champion".

ETA: However, even then you'd have issues, because you have featherweight men, who will also outperform women. In fact, I don't think you can find a category where this won't happen, forcing women into their own categories anyway.

angrysoba 6th March 2019 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623337)
I follow you up to here but don't see that this follows. There are plenty of non-elite professional sportspeople at various levels. In fact that is what women's sport currently is and it does quite well in many areas.

There are, but think of say the English Football League. Once you get down to the lowest threshold of players being able to be paid full-time for what they do you will probably find it hard, if not impossible, for many women to break into even those ranks. Hence, their participation becomes rare. Similarly, Serena Williams playing at 400th in the world. I don't know if that ranking pays well, but there is almost certainly a severe drop off after that, and one of the reasons she is so good is because she received the kind of intense coaching that is given to those who show promise of going further. If women's tennis was not a separate thing, she probably would never have been as good.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12623154)
Is this a thing that actually exists? The only comparable examples I know of are of no help to women at all. They tend to be split between amateur and pro - but they would still be dominated by cis-males. Obviously there are leagues in which teams can get promoted or relegated but again, in say the FA in the UK all the teams are male and probably will remain that way. I can see women getting into sports where there are specializations - coxes in rowing etc... baseball relief pitchers who have some special throw, etc... darts, snooker (oddly enough men seem to dominate these sports too!) Also I know of things like rugby sevens where the best teams play for the cup, the less good ones play for the plate and the worst ones play for spoon - or try to avoid it. Still, even the worst teams would probably be all-male affairs. I know of veterans leagues which use only over-40s but again all male.

I literally canít see a way of women being competitive without their own leagues. So yeah, I agree with luchog about being clueless regarding luchogís fix, despite luchog not giving a ratís arse about sport. I await enlightenment.

It is most certainly not a thing.

I find sports boring as hell but I have a lot of friends who like them and in my opinion, luchog has a point of view that comes from a great understanding of the feelings of transgender people, but a lack of knowledge in sport, and the feelings of those who compete.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623315)
But if biological women are not as good as biological men then 'women's' and 'men's' designations are effectively the same thing.It seems to be just a quirk of our social conditioning that we ended up here where womens and mens elite sports are seen as equivalent despite the gulf in class but you cannot deny that this binary system is excluding trans people and as ideas of gender change there are going to be issues like this that need to be rethought.

I am not clear what the answer is but maybe it is about having classes that better reflect what would actually be going on. Of course, you could just redefine Women's sports as Cis-women's sports. But I imagine a lot of women would object to that too.

And that is what bothers me about a lot of this. Women who want to close off their world to transwomen, deny that they are women and assume bad faith on the part of transwomen - you just want to muscle in on our space so you can beat us up/rape us/molest kids/stop us playing sport/etc etc

Someone's feelings matter until they have real effects, then logic and reason are to be used.

Sport isn't generally to make people feel better at competitive levels, it's to make money, no team is going to pick worse players to be nice. No one is going to want to watch that team, and they will lose they will not make money and fold.

And if law were instituted in the MLB nhl etc. Teams would simply pull out and form new leagues, as people would be less willing to watch a sport with less skilled players.

HansMustermann 6th March 2019 05:24 AM

Wait... wait... so all I had to do to not suck at sports in school would have been to wear a skirt? Damn. Why wasn't that a thing in my time? I mean, I liked wearing girl clothes anyway :p

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623333)
Yes, so women would mostly compete in the lower professional rankings. The top tiers would be dominated, perhaps entirely populated, by men.

I don't even think "lower professional" would be low enough. If the bar to low professional gets lowered ,more men will try.

I got out of competitive (not pro, like pride or ufc obviously, local stuff) material arts because i was mediocre as hell, i could kind of almost make it but with a lot more effort, and less results. If the bar was 20% lower because of being flooded, I'd probably have stayed.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623337)
I follow you up to here but don't see that this follows. There are plenty of non-elite professional sportspeople at various levels. In fact that is what women's sport currently is and it does quite well in many areas.

Not compared to men's sport by any means.

Do you understand the concept of a 'ringer" ? Trans women would effectively be ringers in any female league.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623338)
Incidentally at the other end of sports, quite often there is the opposite problem. Kids and amateur women who would like to participate with men being excluded because teams are sex segregated. I think most people would argue that any woman/girl who wants to play with men should be allowed to right?

Depends on the sport. I'm not sentencing a female fighter to brain damage if they was to fight a male pro. And if I'm the league in not taking that chance insurance wise.

Id also not allow someone to fight 20% out of their weight class.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 05:43 AM

Anecdote alert

When I was into fitness and MMA I along with a few friends tried to get into it competitively. I was mediocre bordering on bad. Never fought anywhere people paid to see, local "a bunch of guys in a gym with a 20 dollar trade marked name. " crap.

One of our friends was a female who later went on to a bit of local fame, no one who is going to be on a wheeties box, but someone who made money via fighting on a few occasions because people wanted to see her level of skill.

Being by far the smallest guy, I was the only one to take her up when she wanted to spar (obviously not in the ring, when hanging out, etc. Friendly competition done safely. ).

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

The biggest thing I noticed was the impact of my strikes, against a guy of equal size I always had trouble doing damage, and hitting hard and accurate enough to throw someone off their game. While I sparred with her, I'd pull my punches for fear of doing lasting harm.

And that is what would happen if we made leagues Co ed. A bunch of small guys who have little skill are going to take the place of more skilled athletes because natural advantage makes sports harder for women (of all kinds).

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623337)
I follow you up to here but don't see that this follows. There are plenty of non-elite professional sportspeople at various levels. In fact that is what women's sport currently is and it does quite well in many areas.

It does well because itís women, and a lot of spectators specifically want to see women. But if itís a few women mixed in with low tier men, that appeal is largely gone. And you cannot have professional sports without spectators supporting it.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623350)
Someone's feelings matter until they have real effects, then logic and reason are to be used.

Sport isn't generally to make people feel better at competitive levels, it's to make money, no team is going to pick worse players to be nice. No one is going to want to watch that team, and they will lose they will not make money and fold.

And if law were instituted in the MLB nhl etc. Teams would simply pull out and form new leagues, as people would be less willing to watch a sport with less skilled players.

I am not following.

There already is the picking and watching of worse players - it's women's sports.

And no, most sport is not about making money. That's the 1% of professional elite athletes.

Here is an example of a transwoman playing competitive sport with women at a very non-elite level... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47438175

Do you think they should be stopped? Do you feel they are muscling in on a woman's space?

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12623355)
Not compared to men's sport by any means.

Do you understand the concept of a 'ringer" ? Trans women would effectively be ringers in any female league.

Not necessarily and even if that is the case then I don't think the solution is simply to cling to the way things have always been done in the past by excluding transwomen and branding them 'not women'.

Belz... 6th March 2019 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623383)
I am not following.

There already is the picking and watching of worse players - it's women's sports.

Except that women's sports only include women, ensuring that women can compete and win. If you just throw in different skill categories, men will dominate all of them, except the very lowest ones. If that's OK with you, fine, but I think it wouldn't be ok with female competitors.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12623366)
It does well because itís women, and a lot of spectators specifically want to see women. But if itís a few women mixed in with low tier men, that appeal is largely gone. And you cannot have professional sports without spectators supporting it.

'I would pay to watch a sportsperson if they have a vagina but if they are equally good and have a penis I wouldn't' seems an odd logic though, don't you think?

It also seems as if we have contradictory theories working here. If pro sports is about revenue and people prefer to watch women than low-tier men then what incentive would there be for teams to recruit low-tier men over women?

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623390)
Except that women's sports only include women, ensuring that women can compete and win. If you just throw in different skill categories, men will dominate all of them, except the very lowest ones. If that's OK with you, fine, but I think it wouldn't be ok with female competitors.

Well then we are arguing a different thing. This is now about creating a competitive category where people don't necessarily dominate because of a biological advantage. That's not about whether the participant is male or female though.

Although we should be honest and admit that pretty much all sports have an element of biological advantage and the male/female split is somewhat arbitrary because we as a society have decided that it is important for women to have an opportunity to be the best woman in sports.

As far as I know there isn't a baseball league for people under 6'. And we should acknowledge that while the top 1% of most sports don't include women, they don't include 99% of men either.

Someone mentioned Serena Williams earlier and how as a woman she was selected and promoted and able to succeed in the category. Lucky for her she wasn't born trans then? She would have been excluded from competing. And probably lucky for her she wasn't born a cis-man because chances are she would have been nothing special.

It's perfectly OK to say 'transwomen entering sport is going to throw up some interesting questions and challenges and we should look at how we best incorporate these new paradigms into our sports because we don't want to destroy the sport' but the title of this thread is just repeating a tired old nonsense and excluding transwomen from competing in sports is not the answer.

Belz... 6th March 2019 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623400)
Well then we are arguing a different thing. This is now about creating a competitive category where people don't necessarily dominate because of a biological advantage. That's not about whether the participant is male or female though.

I don't follow. The entire thread is about being male or female.

The point is that the current categories ensure that women can compete and win. The proposed solution would break that.

Quote:

Although we should be honest and admit that pretty much all sports have an element of biological advantage and the male/female split is somewhat arbitrary because we as a society have decided that it is important for women to have an opportunity to be the best woman in sports.
Isn't it important for women to feel like they can compete and succeed?

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623396)
'I would pay to watch a sportsperson if they have a vagina but if they are equally good and have a penis I wouldn't' seems an odd logic though, don't you think?

Whether it's logical or not is irrelevant, it's what actually happens. People pay more money to see Serena Williams than they do to see Tomislav Brkic.

Quote:

It also seems as if we have contradictory theories working here. If pro sports is about revenue and people prefer to watch women than low-tier men then what incentive would there be for teams to recruit low-tier men over women?
Because people also like competitive matches, and they like winners. An all-women's team that always loses to men isn't going to be a draw, not even for viewers who want to watch women.

Matthew Best 6th March 2019 06:45 AM

Here's something I didn't know (probably not really relevant to this discussion, but interesting nonetheless).

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

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

Belz... 6th March 2019 06:48 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Those evil men!

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623404)
I don't follow. The entire thread is about being male or female.

But your objection wasn't. Your objection was about being able to define categories where there can be genuine competition regardless of biological advantage

Quote:

The point is that the current categories ensure that women can compete and win. The proposed solution would break that.
No, the current categories ensure SOME women can compete and win, other women can't and yet other women are told they aren't women at all and aren't even allowed to play.

If the proposed solution would be worse (and to be honest I haven't seen an actual proposed solution) then we need a different solution. But let's not pretend that what we have is perfect.

Quote:

Isn't it important for women to feel like they can compete and succeed?
I don't know. I never felt like I could compete and succeed in sport, did I miss out on something important because of biological disadvantage? And what does compete and succeed even really mean?

Competing and succeeding vs people who are generally just as good/bad as you? Or competing and succeeding as the best in the world?

Because the vast majority of women can't compete and succeed with the best women in the world anyway and never could for a multitude of reasons.

Belz... 6th March 2019 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623420)
But your objection wasn't. Your objection was about being able to define categories where there can be genuine competition regardless of biological advantage

I would argue that it includes biological advantage, but ok.

Quote:

No, the current categories ensure SOME women can compete and win, other women can't and yet other women are told they aren't women at all and aren't even allowed to play.
That's a useless nitpick, again. That's true for ALL competitions, everywhere.

Quote:

If the proposed solution would be worse (and to be honest I haven't seen an actual proposed solution) then we need a different solution. But let's not pretend that what we have is perfect.
No one made that pretense, so what are you arguing, here?

Quote:

I don't know. I never felt like I could compete and succeed in sport, did I miss out on something important because of biological disadvantage? And what does compete and succeed even really mean?
Think of it differently: what if you were excluded not because of your skill, but your gender, hair colour, address or political leanings?

Matthew Best 6th March 2019 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623416)
Those evil men!

I suppose some people might think that.

Others may just have the reaction: (sigh), same as it ever was....

Belz... 6th March 2019 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 12623425)
I suppose some people might think that.

Others may just have the reaction: (sigh), same as it ever was....

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

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12623410)
Whether it's logical or not is irrelevant, it's what actually happens. People pay more money to see Serena Williams than they do to see Tomislav Brkic.

Cool, then let transgender women compete in the women's category as women.


Quote:

Because people also like competitive matches, and they like winners. An all-women's team that always loses to men isn't going to be a draw, not even for viewers who want to watch women.
Then don't put together a competition that involves all-women's teams competing and losing with all-men teams. There are already transwomen competing in some sports and they haven't been destroyed. It seems the argument is that its OK for transwomen to compete in sports as long as they don't get too good and win all the time?

Belz... 6th March 2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623430)
Cool, then let transgender women compete in the women's category as women.

How does that follow? In theory trans women are going to dominate cis women just as (but not as much as) men would.

JoeMorgue 6th March 2019 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623430)
It seems the argument is that its OK for transwomen to compete in sports as long as they don't get too good and win all the time?

No the argument is not sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a bunch of biological men who identify as a women dominating biological women is going to be seen as fair.

The elephant in the room is pretty much jumping up and down screaming LOOKIT ME! LOOKIT ME! at this point.

We can't create a viable, sustainable system in areas of physical competitiveness that creates the illusion that biological females can compete with biological males consistently in most areas.

And that's what people are demanding we create, or at the very least never being happy with any system that isn't that.

They don't us to put a woman (cis or trans) against a man (cis or trans.) They want us to put a woman against a man and somehow just magically make it fair without given the woman any advantage which... just... isn't... possible. I'm sorry, biology is sexist sometimes.

If you put Katie Hidna on the gridiron with Refrigerator Perry, she's going to lose. If you put Ronda Rousey in the Octagon with Frank Mir, she is going to lose. If put on Lisa Leslie on the court with Shaq, she is going to lose.

What people want is for us to somehow make a world where that's just magically not true.

And Hidna, Rousey, and Leslie are all amazing athletes that deserve all the respect they get and more. I'm not taking anything away from them.

But we can't keep throwing different versions of what's supposed to be "fair" against the wall until we get to one that handicaps the men so the women can win but doesn't look like that's what it's doing so the women don't feel cheated out of their win. Because nothing's ever gonna stick to that wall. Because of reality.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623431)
How does that follow? In theory trans women are going to dominate cis women just as (but not as much as) men would.

People are happy to pay to see Serena Williams dominate every other woman so what's the difference?

Belz... 6th March 2019 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623454)
People are happy to pay to see Serena Williams dominate every other woman so what's the difference?

Are you playing games, here? Do you really not understand why women's sports exist? If what you say is true, there would be no segregation in sports, so clearly you're wrong, and people do care.

So could you either make an actual argument and stop pretending not to understand the basics of the discussion?

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12623443)
No the argument is not sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a bunch of biological men who identify as a women dominating biological women is going to be seen as fair.

The elephant in the room is pretty much jumping up and down screaming LOOKIT ME! LOOKIT ME! at this point.

We can't create a viable, sustainable system in areas of physical competitiveness that creates the illusion that biological females can compete with biological males in consistently in most areas.

And that's what people are demanding we create, or at the very least never being happy with any system that isn't that.

They don't us to put a woman (cis or trans) against a man (cis or trans.) They want us to put a woman against a man and somehow just magically make it fair without given the woman any advantage which... just... isn't... possible. I'm sorry, biological is sexist sometimes.

If you put Katie Hidna on the gridiron with Refrigerator Perry, she's going to lose. If you put Ronda Rousey in the Octagon with Frank Mir, she is going to lose. If put on Lisa Leslie on the court with Shaq, she is going to lose.

What people want is for us to somehow make a world where that's just magically not true.

And Hidna, Rousey, and Leslie are all amazing athletes that deserve all the respect they get and more. I'm not taking anything away from them.

But we can't keep throwing different versions of what's supposed to be "fair" against the wall until we get to one that handicaps the men so the women can win but doesn't look like that's what it's doing so the women don't feel cheated out of their win. Because nothing's ever gonna stick to that wall. Because of reality.

And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine. So if that's your answer then you have to go back to the drawing board.

Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

Belz... 6th March 2019 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623456)
And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine.

Of course you can, just like most men are excluded because that's the whole point.

Seriously, stop it.

JoeMorgue 6th March 2019 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623456)
Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

Yeah she's dominating women's tennis.

What people want is to maintain the illusion that she would dominate men's tennis as well.

If Roger Federer identified as a woman and stepped on the court against Serena Williams, he'd win. That's where the illusion breaks down.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12623455)
Are you playing games, here? Do you really not understand why women's sports exist?

No, I understand. But the question is how to facilitate the participation of other groups of women - namely transwomen - in sport and that may require rethinking things

Quote:

If what you say is true, there would be no segregation in sports, so clearly you're wrong, and people do care.
People care about all sorts of things. Some people care(d) about keeping black people away from their drinking fountains for example. That's not really an argument for anything.

Quote:

So could you either make an actual argument and stop pretending not to understand the basics of the discussion?
Ah, so questioning assumptions is not understanding the basics of discussion?

I think my argument is quite clear - a system which excludes transwomen from competing is not in my opinion justifiable. A different system should be found and in order to achieve that we need to look at things differently and stop relying on the old paradigm as a given.

If it's unfair that the majority of women can't compete with a transwoman in sport then it's just as unfair that they can't compete with Serena Williams. But that is just the nature of sport.

I don't have the solution, and agree that finding one may well be difficult but that's no reason to just give up. And it's certainly no reason to start beating the 'transwomen aren't women' drum.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12623461)
Yeah she's dominating women's tennis.

What people want is to maintain the illusion that she would dominate men's tennis as well.

I haven't seen this at all. She wouldn't. Nobody has claimed that.

All I am saying is that Serena Williams has a biological advantage over the average woman which has allowed her to excel in her sport. And if other women have biological advantages over her then it's completely arbitrary that one is OK and the other not. Not to say it's wrong, because sport sets arbitrary rules all the time, but it is still arbitrary.

Quote:

If Roger Federer identified as a woman and stepped on the court as Serena Williams, he'd win. That's where the illusion breaks down.
Well again there isn't an illusion to break. But this is exactly what I was getting at, the assumption that transwomen are or will be acting in bad faith.

A question, what of Roger Federer actually was trans? And decided at age 16 he wanted to compete in women's tennis. And went on to win just as many titles as Serena Williams has won. Would that be a terrible thing?

JoeMorgue 6th March 2019 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623484)
I haven't seen this at all. She wouldn't. Nobody has claimed that.

Because we're completely in "Nobody's saying... they're just saying" territory.

No nobody's actual gonna say that because it's... provably and demonstrably wrong but all the places we are being told we have to end up require it to be true.

It's not about what you or I think about where the male/female line is exactly drawn. It's, yet again, about understanding that if we accept we can't please everyone you HAVE to give me a reason why (g)you should be the one I choose to please.

We let biological men who identify as women into women's sports and they are going to dominate them. Again I can't say words that will make that not true by adjusting the labeling of the parts or by rearranging how we organize the pieces.

Your version of how we should do things would result in a Biological Men who Identify as Men League and a Biological Men who Identify as Women League. I don't care if YOU aren't bothered by that, hell I'm really not either. Just nod your head if you understand that SOME people will be. It will be seen by SOME people has men taking over women's sports and leaving the "real women" nowhere to go. And I have no reason to make you happy over them since both arguments are based on some variation of "you're being unfair / you're being a bigot" so I'm the bad guy either way.

Belz... 6th March 2019 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623473)
No, I understand.

So I gathered, but it does raise the issue of why you pretended not to.

Quote:

But the question is how to facilitate the participation of other groups of women - namely transwomen
Here's the thing: sports aren't segregated by gender, but by biological sex. Trans women are not a group of female.

Quote:

People care about all sorts of things. Some people care(d) about keeping black people away from their drinking fountains for example. That's not really an argument for anything.
It is because it drives the market. There is a demand for women's sports, and reorganising it would drive them out of competitions.

Quote:

I think my argument is quite clear - a system which excludes transwomen from competing is not in my opinion justifiable. A different system should be found and in order to achieve that we need to look at things differently and stop relying on the old paradigm as a given.
The system in place excludes 0.3% of women, in addition to those who don't qualify. The system proposed would exclude a much larger percentage, at the benefit of a larger percentage of those 0.3% than that of those women who don't qualify. Is that supposed to be a win?

Quote:

If it's unfair that the majority of women can't compete with a transwoman in sport then it's just as unfair that they can't compete with Serena Williams.
See, that's what I mean when I say you don't understand the basics. The reason why most women can't compete with Williams is a matter of skill. The reason why almost no woman can compete with a trans woman is because the latter is male, and has an unfair biological advantage before you even take skill into consideration.

But go ahead, exclude women in sports and see what happens. You think most women can't compete with Williams? NO woman can compete with Roger Federer. None.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623383)
I am not following.

There already is the picking and watching of worse players - it's women's sports.

And no, most sport is not about making money. That's the 1% of professional elite athletes.

Here is an example of a transwoman playing competitive sport with women at a very non-elite level... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47438175

Do you think they should be stopped? Do you feel they are muscling in on a woman's space?

Very much so, competition is about competing, not making everyone feel good. These people have a distinct advantage within the female class.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623389)
Not necessarily and even if that is the case then I don't think the solution is simply to cling to the way things have always been done in the past by excluding transwomen and branding them 'not women'.

Sports point is not to decide who is what sex, it is fair competition. You might as well say tampons should change design because they remind trans people they are different.

sadhatter 6th March 2019 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12623456)
And you can't just exclude one group of women from competing in sport to pretend that the status quo is fine. So if that's your answer then you have to go back to the drawing board.

Nobody seems to care that Serena Williams has completed dominated women's tennis for years but if she had been identified male at birth it would have no doubt been a travesty of fairness.

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

(Sorry if he actually sucks but it's the only tennis guy I've heard of. Not a big sports fan. Replace him with the best gutyif the analogy makes no sense. )


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:30 PM.

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