Continuation Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

And nobody in particular will be persuaded by that.

The NCAA has already been persuaded by that. They're not "nobody in particular", last time I checked.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I didn't say they were advocating it. They're enacting it.

No, they aren't.

Quote:

And I rather think the people who think there's a conspiracy to replace women with men, driven by the same extinction anxieties that serve as an organizing principle for other replacement theories, are a bit frothier than I am.

I don't think this description applies to anyone in this thread.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, they aren't.

They are.

Quote:

I don't think this description applies to anyone in this thread.

It's happened.

[mumblethrax]

Quote:

The NCAA has already been persuaded by that. They're not "nobody in particular", last time I checked.

You think she said "I'm a woman so I should compete as a woman" and the NCAA said "Ok?"

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

You think she said "I'm a woman so I should compete as a woman" and the NCAA said "Ok?"

Yes.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

No, they weren't.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-...toric-rcna9074

They were persuaded in large part by sympathy generated by transphobic attacks on her.

That narrative can always be played. It will always be possible to say "people said mean things". Mean things were said about the people who complained, does that mean that they were in the right and Lia Thompson should be dropped because of what people on her side did? This is a one way argument. It only works if you have already picked your side.

Second, it includes the equivocation of saying calling using her old name and implying that her performance may have been to do with being born male is transphobic. "phobic" is another thing where the definition has changed in a way that is remarkably convenient to the same people who want to change the meaning of "woman".

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Which is one reason why it's stupid and counter-productive to do this ****. Americans by and large are sympathetic to trans rights, but not terribly sympathetic to the idea of transwomen participating in women's athletics. But if you're an ******* about it....

To not be accused of being transphobic, one would have to not talk about how Lia Thomas was born male and complain about it. The only way to avoid claims of transphobia is to agree with transactivists.

What could one actually do to oppose Lia Thomas that would not get described as hateful transphobia and thereby lose in your analysis? Remember the sexist comments to the Ghostbusters 2016 trailer that was used to paint its critics as misogynists. Was that even a tenth of a percent of the comments? How is this a winnable standard? This is "heads I win, tails you lose" stuff.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

You think she said "I'm a woman so I should compete as a woman" and the NCAA said "Ok?"

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yes.

Certainly the NCAA didn't provide an alternative explanation here, we can safely assume the linguistic/cultural shift drove them to ignore the relevant sports science.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Certainly the NCAA didn't provide an alternative explanation here, we can safely assume the linguistic/cultural shift drove them to ignore the relevant sports science.

They established a trans-inclusive policy in 2010 and she transitioned in 2019 so it seems unlikely.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

They established a trans-inclusive policy in 2010 and she transitioned in 2019 so it seems unlikely.

Which is to say they were already swayed by that argument in 2010. Thus Thomas's successful application of it in 2019.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which is to say they were already swayed by that argument in 2010. Thus Thomas's successful application of it in 2019.

They were swayed which argument?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

They were swayed which argument?

Men who claim to identify as women should be allowed to compete as women in the NCAA.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Men who claim to identify as women should be allowed to compete as women in the NCAA.

...because identity > reality.

Once you've assented to the linguistic shift, you have to accept all the consequences thereof.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Men who claim to identify as women should be allowed to compete as women in the NCAA.

No, that's not the argument that swayed them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

No, that's not the argument that swayed them.

Oh? What was it then? I am sincerely hoping there is some other argument that makes sense and squares the circle of trans identity in sex-segregated contexts.

And phrasing aside, that was in fact the practical application and result: Thomas said she identified as a woman and wanted to compete as a woman, and the NCAA said "OK". Whatever it was they were swayed by, in practical terms it amounts to exactly that argument. Or something else entirely different that somehow arrives at the same practical result through a completely different line of reasoning that nobody has yet elucidated.

So. What argument to do you believe it was, that swayed the NCAA in Thomas's case?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh? What was it then? I am sincerely hoping there is some other argument that makes sense and squares the circle of trans identity in sex-segregated contexts.

Basically "we don't have evidence that transwomen have a competitive advantage after one year of testosterone dissipation."

I guess they have pretty good evidence now.

Quote:

And phrasing aside, that was in fact the practical application and result: Thomas said she identified as a woman and wanted to compete as a woman, and the NCAA said "OK".

Well, no. She's participating under rules that were already established. That's not really on her.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

...because identity > reality.

Once you've assented to the linguistic shift, you have to accept all the consequences thereof.

It should probably be said that sex-segregated athletics aren't woven into the fabric of the universe. It's more like "social reality changing."

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Basically "we don't have evidence that transwomen have a competitive advantage after one year of testosterone dissipation."

I guess they have pretty good evidence now.


Well, no. She's participating under rules that were already established. That's not really on her.

Sophistry. On both your part and the NCAA's.

Of course Lia's choice to participate as a woman is on her. If she'd wanted to continue competing with the men the NCAA wouldn't have stopped her.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course Lia's choice to participate as a woman is on her. If she'd wanted to continue competing with the men the NCAA wouldn't have stopped her.

No, not sophistry. In general, it's a bad idea to punish people for following the established rules. It's not material that she had a choice.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Basically "we don't have evidence that transwomen have a competitive advantage after one year of testosterone dissipation."

Why one year instead of one day? They didn't have any evidence of how long it takes for hormone replacement to even the proverbial playing field, assuming it actually does at some point.

I think it's fair to assume the NCAA was allowing identity to override other considerations, such as fairness.

[theprestige]

Well I've written before about my total lack of respect for "athletes" who intentionally downgrade their bodies to compete at a level below their true physical ability. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas and her ilk are scumbags for doing it, and the NCAA is scumbags for allowing it instead of repudiating it.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why one year instead of one day? They didn't have any evidence of how long it takes for hormone replacement to even the proverbial playing field, assuming it actually does at some point.

They do. The one year recommendation came from the IAAF/WorldAthletics and the IOC and was evidence-based.

But this study suggests the one year period it too short:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/5...Hz&keytype=ref

Looks like the IOC just scrapped their policy, possibly in response to this research.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well I've written before about my total lack of respect for "athletes" who intentionally downgrade their bodies to compete at a level below their true physical ability. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas and her ilk are scumbags for doing it, and the NCAA is scumbags for allowing it instead of repudiating it.

That's an odd stance. Would you think a female athlete with PCOS who sought treatment that lowered her androgen levels (and subsequently her performance) was a scumbag?

[Aber]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

They do. The one year recommendation came from the IAAF/WorldAthletics and the IOC and was evidence-based.

Up to a point...

Quote:

In 2003, the published information available to the IOC was somewhat sparse. It consisted of just five studies on bone density covering around 120 transwomen up to 3 and a half years after gonadectomy. None detected any significant or enduring difference in bone density compared with reference males.

Further research shows



Most detailed assessment on transgender inclusion in sport is from UK Sports Councils

https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300...ort%202021.pdf

Supporting evidence is here

https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300...iew%202021.pdf

Conclusions

Quote:

Testosterone suppression has differing effects for different body systems, and this can be correlated with the factors of ‘gender-affected sport’; Strength, Stamina and Physique;
• Strength; Modest change within 12 months: Muscle mass (and perhaps cardiac size) and hence strength - appears retained at significantly higher levels than females.
• Stamina; Restoration of haemoglobin levels to female typical levels within 12 months: with relevant effect on oxygen carrying capacity as yet undefined.
• Physique; Minimal change: Structural features including the skeleton, bone density, height, lung and airway size, and tendon/ligament strength will remain, with modest loss of muscle mass.

This evidence suggests that parity in physical performance in relation to gender-affected sport cannot be achieved for transgender people in female sport through testosterone suppression.

Theoretical estimation in contact and collision sport indicate injury risk is likely to be increased for female competitors.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well I've written before about my total lack of respect for "athletes" who intentionally downgrade their bodies to compete at a level below their true physical ability. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas and her ilk are scumbags for doing it, and the NCAA is scumbags for allowing it instead of repudiating it.

I wonder if that is a fair characterization at all. And as a blanket statement describing all the transitioned people who engage in competitions it certainly must be incorrect and unfair. Of course, it might be that you really just meant only those nefarious people who "intentionally downgrade their bodies" just in order to compete in female sports - but how many there really can be? Seems rather weird that one would undergo such a change in order to do sports in female categories.

And this comment by someone who really sees sports as a genuinely problematic area and where many trans activists actuallly are clearly in the wrong. I don't much like the general (under)tone on these threads about trans people. At times language is really rather aggressive and hostile here.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The one year recommendation came from the IAAF/WorldAthletics and the IOC and was evidence-based.

I will accept this claim if you can show me that the IAAF or IOC referenced a study which used any reasonably methodology to come to the conclusion that one year was sufficient to bring about parity, on average, for any well-known predictor of athletic performance.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by llwyd

I wonder if that is a fair characterization at all. And as a blanket statement describing all the transitioned people who engage in competitions it certainly must be incorrect and unfair. Of course, it might be that you really just meant only those nefarious people who "intentionally downgrade their bodies" just in order to compete in female sports - but how many there really can be? Seems rather weird that one would undergo such a change in order to do sports in female categories.

And this comment by someone who really sees sports as a genuinely problematic area and where many trans activists actuallly are clearly in the wrong. I don't much like the general (under)tone on these threads about trans people. At times language is really rather aggressive and hostile here.

It goes against the spirit of professional sport. Female athletes are trying to reach their limits, while transwomen athletes are trying to limit themselves until they are somewhere in the ballpark of "fair".

[theprestige]

Even golfers don't literally handicap themselves. They play to the very utmost of their ability, and use a heuristic to adjust their scores. And of course at the highest levels of the sport, there's no handicap at all. Just men's and women's divisions, and everybody going all-out to see who is the best of the best on that day. Meanwhile Lia Thomas is over here saying, I could swim way faster than this if I wanted, but I'd rather swim as a woman*.

---
*For some weird-ass, semantically obfuscatory, biologically counterfactual, psychologically absurd definition of "woman".

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

It goes against the spirit of professional sport. Female athletes are trying to reach their limits, while transwomen athletes are trying to limit themselves until they are somewhere in the ballpark of "fair".

Has there ever been an athlete who has transitioned from men's to women's sports and ranked lower as a woman than they did as a man? Maybe it happens every day, and we don't hear about it?

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

It goes against the spirit of professional sport. Female athletes are trying to reach their limits, while transwomen athletes are trying to limit themselves until they are somewhere in the ballpark of "fair".

Yes, but in this question it is absolutely a very marginal matter and to use it to enable outright hostility against the whole of the trans community (as the American conservatives are systematically and knowingly doing) is simply not acceptable. It won't wash.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Yes, but in this question it is absolutely a very marginal matter and to use it to enable outright hostility against the whole of the trans community (as the American conservatives are systematically and knowingly doing) is simply not acceptable. It won't wash.

I'm not sure how one gets from singling out very a very marginal scenario featuring a small number of edge-case scumbags to "enable outright hostility" against a much larger community, but go off I guess.

Actually I'm quite sure about how one gets there: Projection.

There is a bit of irony here, since aside from the very small but slowly growing number of edge-case scumbags, the general view of the trans community - or at least the trans-activists in the community - is that sports (like women) don't really matter and won't be missed once they've been plowed under by trans-inclusionism.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not sure how one gets from singling out very a very marginal scenario featuring a small number of edge-case scumbags to "enable outright hostility" against a much larger community, but go off I guess.

Actually I'm quite sure about how one gets there: Projection.

There is a bit of irony here, since aside from the very small but slowly growing number of edge-case scumbags, the general view of the trans community - or at least the trans-activists in the community - is that sports (like women) don't really matter and won't be missed once they've been plowed under by trans-inclusionism.

This is one of the reasons why compromise and understanding isn't possible. Motivations are read between the lines and then used to dismiss objections without having to address them. Everybody who disagrees is just suffering from sluggish schizophrenia.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Aber

Up to a point...

Yes. And I hope I've made it clear that I don't think males should be competing against females without first assessing their performance as individuals and ensuring it's within the range of female performance. Looking at Lia Thomas' physique, I find it fairly implausible that she will ever not have an unfair advantage.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

No, not sophistry. In general, it's a bad idea to punish people for following the established rules. It's not material that she had a choice.

Who said anything about punishing Lia? We don’t have to punish Lia to assign some blame.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who said anything about punishing Lia? We don’t have to punish Lia to assign some blame.

One of the definitions of "punish" is to treat someone in an unfairly harsh way, and this is the sense I meant.

She's getting death threats (of course), and theprestige thinks she's a scumbag, not because he thinks she's cheating, but because she degraded her performance (?).

I'm comfortable with calling that unfairly harsh. I also just find it weird. And theprestige hasn't answered my hypothetical above, suggesting he can't answer it in a way that doesn't sound insane.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who said anything about punishing Lia? We don’t have to punish Lia to assign some blame.

Major sporting organizations like the IOC & NCAA have access to the resources to hire sports scientists, endocrinologists, and others with the subject matter expertise to put together studies like this one. Individual athletes don't.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

One of the definitions of "punish" is to treat someone in an unfairly harsh way, and this is the sense I meant.

She's getting death threats (of course), and theprestige thinks she's a scumbag, not because he thinks she's cheating, but because she degraded her performance (?).

I'm comfortable with calling that unfairly harsh. I also just find it weird. And theprestige hasn't answered my hypothetical above, suggesting he can't answer it in a way that doesn't sound insane.

The two are not analogous. Not unless Thomas has been diagnosed with a medical condition and competing in sports as a woman is widely recognized by the medical community as the best course of treatment.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

One of the definitions of "punish" is to treat someone in an unfairly harsh way, and this is the sense I meant.

She's getting death threats (of course), and theprestige thinks she's a scumbag, not because he thinks she's cheating, but because she degraded her performance (?).

I'm comfortable with calling that unfairly harsh. I also just find it weird. And theprestige hasn't answered my hypothetical above, suggesting he can't answer it in a way that doesn't sound insane.

Do you think the top NCAA ciswomen swimmers who are now literally in the wake of Thomas are being punished? That those who have devoted a good proportion of their lives to training and who dreamt of victory are being treated unfairly? I certainly do, and that trumps Thomas’ feelings (even if genuinely held, which is far from certain).

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The two are not analogous. Not unless Thomas has been diagnosed with a medical condition and competing in sports as a woman is widely recognized by the medical community as the best course of treatment.

How do you expect to know that, other than to take her word for it? You don't have access to her medical history, and you shouldn't.

In any case, the idea that you, rather than she, should be caretaker of her well-being is incredibly paternalistic.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you think the top NCAA ciswomen swimmers who are now literally in the wake of Thomas are being punished? That those who have devoted a good proportion of their lives to training and who dreamt of victory are being treated unfairly? I certainly do, and that trumps Thomas’ feelings (even if genuinely held, which is far from certain).

I think it's unfair to expect them to compete against Thomas. I don't think they're being treated harshly. I don't think anybody is sending death threats to them.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I think it's unfair to expect them to compete against Thomas. I don't think they're being treated harshly.

We we have different definitions of harsh then. Depriving these swimmers of victory and denying them a place in a team (and if they make the Olympic team, even a livelihood) to make Thomas feel better is harsh in my view.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I don't think anybody is sending death threats to them.

Have you looked into this?