IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 13th June 2022, 02:48 PM   #321
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Caster Semenya isn't relevant to my concerns or my arguments. Unless you're ready and willing to make a very detailed, very comprehensive argument for why her (his?) case informs my assessment of Lia Thomas, you're better off putting your effort into some other line of reasoning.
Caster Semenya is a male with the CCSD of 5-ARD. It's extremely likely that at birth and through childhood they had exterior genitals that appeared to be female. During puberty, they would have developed secondary features more commonly seen in males, as a result of the high testosterone levels. 5-ARD sometimes leads to the descent of the testes and elongation of the penis during puberty, although it is also common for genitals to remain ambiguous in look. But people with 5-ARD do not have uteruses or ovaries, and frequently don't have vaginal tracts.

That said, Semenya's GENUINE MEDICAL CONDITION is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Transgender is not a CCSD, and the use of people with CCSDs as pawns in this game is incredibly insulting and offensive.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 02:51 PM   #322
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Says a male who is not at all affected by this.

On the other hand... the females forced to share prison cells with males with fully functional penises seem to think it's a pretty real problem. So do the female athletes losing positions to males with male anatomy and male physical advantages. Not to mention the female patient on a female-only ward who was raped by a male patient, then gaslit for a YEAR by doctors who insisted that there were no "men" on the ward even though it was caught on tape. Or the entire female middle school swim team in Oregon who now take turns using the staff changing room because there's a physically intact male who uses the female showers at the same time as them. Or the female victim who was raped AT A RAPE SHELTER by a male who was allowed in because of their 'gender identity'.
This isn't being done as some kind of empirical process, or incremental attempt to increase the sum of human happiness. In utopia people will able to be, and be accepted as, what ever they want to be. If there are problems, it is because people are letting the utopia down. The problem is with the people, not the utopia. It is the people who must be changed, not utopia. All we need to do is teach men not to rape, and teach women to regard as women anybody who says they are a woman. That is the thought process. To view it otherwise is to accept that the utopia is impossible.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Somehow, when it really only affects females, it's always 'blown out of proportion' in the eyes of many males.
The commonality is that, when something stands in the way of some utopian dream of progress, complaints about downsides always fall on deaf ears. Did feminism or any other such movement listen to concerns about unintended consequences, or did it assume that everything could be worked out during implementation? Has any progressive movement ever taken concerns like yours seriously?

I was reading some Hobsbawm recently, so this quote about him is on my mind about his defence of Stalinism.

Quote:
“What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?” Without hesitation Hobsbawm replied, “Yes.”
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003...-the-credulous

The price you are being asked to pay is really very small compared to the price intellectuals and activists have been quite willing in the past for other people to pay to chase their utopia. It is in the nature of progressive movements that they will think such things are worthwhile.

Last edited by shuttlt; 13th June 2022 at 02:56 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 02:51 PM   #323
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Paternalism again.

I'm pretty sure women understand the implications of transwomen using the ladies' room, but there's a big gulf between men and women there, too.
Actually, no, a whole lot of females do NOT understand the implication. There's been research presented here multiple times that demonstrates that when it is made clear to females that the majority of transwomen still have a twig and giggle berries, they do NOT approve of males in their single-sex spaces, regardless of how they identify.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 02:53 PM   #324
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And so a Ricky Gervais joke turned into a prophecy.
It was never a prophecy, it was a pretty straightforward reporting of what activists had already been saying well before Gervais got on stage. Which is what made the outrage so spectacularly funny. Nothing Gervais said was made-up or even an exaggeration. It was literally the same things that activists had been saying on twitter for several years now.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 02:57 PM   #325
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Typically polling shows you a couple of things on these kinds of questions. First that women have more generically liberal/progressive view than men. Secondly you often see that women are the most strident at both ends of the debate. On this forum, for example... I'd say Rolfe and Emily's Cat are the two posters who are most invested in protecting women's spaces from trans-activist encroachment.
There are several other female posters who share our views. But at some point, we all get tired of having to constantly guard our rights and safety against people (in this case predominantly male) who seem to think it's an intellectual exercise as to whether or not females should be able to refuse consent to having naked males in their presence or not.

Which makes me all the more appreciative of those tenacious male supporters in this thread.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 02:58 PM   #326
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
The ethical justification is that sex is a morally irrelevant characteristic in the first place, which is why we no longer tolerate sex discrimination.
We absolutely do tolerate sex discrimination. Women's restrooms. Women's sports. Women's shelters. Women's prisons. Women's representation in commerce and politics.

There are plenty of places where it absolutely makes sense to discriminate between men and women, and to segregate men from women.

Your claim is that it's ethically, morally necessary to allow Lia Thomas transcend sex segregation. Why? Do you believe that the two sexes are so similar that no segregation should ever be necessary in any circumstances?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 03:28 PM   #327
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There are several other female posters who share our views. But at some point, we all get tired of having to constantly guard our rights and safety against people (in this case predominantly male) who seem to think it's an intellectual exercise as to whether or not females should be able to refuse consent to having naked males in their presence or not.

Which makes me all the more appreciative of those tenacious male supporters in this thread.
I read something recently about women getting the vote. The claim was that that initially had very little impact. The reason was that since men and women spent most of their lives in families, they shared a common interest and hence mostly voted the same, and didn't really form separate interest groups. As marriage, children and so on has become less the norm, and pushed later into life, since the 60s, that common interest has been replaced by competing interests. For society to function, men and women need to have a common interest. What drives either sex away from that common interest hurts both sexes, and any attempt to deconstruct one sex can't but hurt the other.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 04:01 PM   #328
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Somehow, when it really only affects females, it's always 'blown out of proportion' in the eyes of many males.
Well, this is completely disingenuous, as you've taken a quote out of context and are now imagining that it means I'm unconcerned with rape.

The tactic here is similar to that employed by nationalists. If someone gets murdered, well that's just murder. But if someone gets murdered by an immigrant, that's a murder that happened due to immigration policy. Rape is epidemic in women's prisons, incarcerated women are 30 times more likely to be raped than incarcerated men. It gets the most attention when perpetrated by male guards, but inmate-on-inmate sexual assault is still three times more frequent than in male prisons. Your attention is focused in exactly the wrong place.

Originally Posted by theprestige
mumblethrax, remember when you wondered where on earth I got the idea you weren't particularly concerned about women and their interests?

Well...

Q.E.D.
I'm not sure how Emily's Cat's disingenuous nonsense Ds much of anything beyond her disingenuousness.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 13th June 2022 at 04:28 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 04:06 PM   #329
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Actually, no, a whole lot of females do NOT understand the implication. There's been research presented here multiple times that demonstrates that when it is made clear to females that the majority of transwomen still have a twig and giggle berries, they do NOT approve of males in their single-sex spaces, regardless of how they identify.
How does that drop in approval compare to the drop among male respondents when similar clarifications are made? Keep in mind that the claim here is that women are more supportive of trans rights then men, not that women are majority supportive in every category.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 13th June 2022 at 04:23 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 04:07 PM   #330
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We absolutely do tolerate sex discrimination. Women's restrooms. Women's sports. Women's shelters. Women's prisons. Women's representation in commerce and politics.
We make exceptions where there are good reason to do so, yes, but the neutral position is that sex discrimination is impermissible.

Quote:
Your claim is that it's ethically, morally necessary to allow Lia Thomas transcend sex segregation. Why? Do you believe that the two sexes are so similar that no segregation should ever be necessary in any circumstances?
That is not my claim. I've made that very, very clear.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 05:21 PM   #331
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We absolutely do tolerate sex discrimination. Women's restrooms. Women's sports. Women's shelters. Women's prisons. Women's representation in commerce and politics.
Trans activists don't want to eliminate sex discrimination. They just want trans people to be able to pick which side of the line they are on. But the whole point is to have that line, otherwise what's the point in crossing it?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 10:43 PM   #332
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Those advantages accrue as a result of having undergone male puberty, so this is the thing we should be discriminating on.
Given that it is impossible to go through the puberty of the opposite sex, are you advocating preventing puberty completely, as that has huge health and development issues?

Quote:
And I see no reason at all not to allow anyone who wants to to compete in the higher performance division.
And do you see a reason to ban individuals from the female performance division?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2022, 11:46 PM   #333
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Given that it is impossible to go through the puberty of the opposite sex, are you advocating preventing puberty completely, as that has huge health and development issues?
No. What?

Quote:
And do you see a reason to ban individuals from the female performance division?
Obviously.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 01:26 AM   #334
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No. What?

Obviously.
So we get back to the position that it is reasonable to ban males from female sports.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 04:17 AM   #335
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
So we get back to the position that it is reasonable to ban males from female sports.
No. We get back to the claim that itís reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 04:33 AM   #336
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No. We get back to the claim that itís reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.
This is the reasoning equivalent of a caged bird plucking out it's own feathers. No category system can exist that isn't unfair to somebody. Some people will have been through male puberty, but it will have had relatively little impact on them... why must such people be excluded? If we change the criteria so that those people can be counted as women then, if we choose, we'll be able to come up with another group whose inclusion, or exclusion, we can view as unfair.

The search for "fairness" is like the search for "equality". It is unending. The purpose of sport is not to achieve some level of cosmic fairness.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 05:50 AM   #337
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Some people will have been through male puberty, but it will have had relatively little impact on them... why must such people be excluded?
Fundamentally, because once someone has gone through male puberty it is typically impossible to answer questions like "How much of this competitive advantage is due to having gone through male puberty, and how much is due to individual variation?" I can't tell you how much of my height is due to being male, either.

Quote:
The search for "fairness" is like the search for "equality". It is unending. The purpose of sport is not to achieve some level of cosmic fairness.
The epistemic limits on fairness are not a reason not to improve matters when we can do so relatively easily, particularly when there are other principles/legal obligations at play. Grumble about the unending nature of such work all you want, it will still need to be done.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 07:12 AM   #338
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Fundamentally, because once someone has gone through male puberty it is typically impossible to answer questions like "How much of this competitive advantage is due to having gone through male puberty, and how much is due to individual variation?" I can't tell you how much of my height is due to being male, either.
Sure, but lots of things give competitive advantage. Good genes give competitive advantage. The hormone levels you are exposed to in the womb gives competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, in and of itself isn't a problem. Competitive advantage is what sport celebrates. The category of women's sports exists because, culturally, "women's sports" is meaningful, and "women and eunuchs sports" is not.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
The epistemic limits on fairness are not a reason not to improve matters when we can do so relatively easily, particularly when there are other principles/legal obligations at play. Grumble about the unending nature of such work all you want, it will still need to be done.
Sport is not about "fairness" in the way that you are using the word. Sport is a celebration of cosmic unfairness. Kenyans and Ethiopians have huge advantages in marathon running, for example. Different people have different advantages. Women's sports exists because "women" is a culturally meaningful category, not because we are trying to erase the unfairness of some people having no chance of winning.

Including non-women in women's sports is undermining of the category "women" regardless of who wins.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 08:58 AM   #339
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The category of women's sports exists because, culturally, "women's sports" is meaningful, and "women and eunuchs sports" is not.
I don't see any problem with drafting inclusion criteria around male puberty, though.

ETA: It's already been done by World Rugby.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th June 2022 at 09:03 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:05 AM   #340
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
I can see a wiggle of a couple of problems. How far into puberty before a boy started puberty blockers would count? Although I think this is probably hypothetical as a boy who has taken puberty blockers ain't likely to be competitive even in women's events.

Second, taking testosterone doesn't put a girl through male puberty, she remains an androgenised female. She will continue to take exogenous testosterone. (She will not be competitive against males either.) But if they decide to call this "male puberty", that would let people taking a banned substance compete in the men's events. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid that isn't allowed in the men's events either. If they start letting women who are taking it compete in the men's events, why should the men be forbidden from taking it?

Fun arguments all round.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:06 AM   #341
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't see any problem with drafting inclusion criteria around male puberty, though.
I do. I think it provides an artificial incentive to transition early, when we should generally be discouraging that. It may push some kids into making a decision too early.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:13 AM   #342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
We make exceptions where there are good reason to do so, yes, but the neutral position is that sex discrimination is impermissible.
I think you have it backwards. The baseline is that sex segregation (discrimination) is necessary and appropriate. What we have done in recent decades is not make exceptions. Rather, we have been dismissing gender-based discrimination that is insufficiently rooted in the physical disparity between the sexes.

You have, like many people (including, I suspect, a lot of women who support transsexual privilege), fallen into the trap of thinking that dismissing sexist cases of gender discrimination is the same as abolishing good and proper sex discrimination.

Quote:
That is not my claim. I've made that very, very clear.
Still trying to thread that needle?

So. We know you don't have a psychological or medical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

We know you don't have a moral or ethical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

Do you have any claim at all, for why she should be entitled to compete as a woman?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:21 AM   #343
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't see any problem with drafting inclusion criteria around male puberty, though.

ETA: It's already been done by World Rugby.
One can, sure.... but you are no longer talking about women's sports, you are talking about some other grouping. Any criteria excludes people for whom a case can be made that "more inclusive" criteria could have included them.

People are being included based on some universal principle of fairness. Salami style, we apply our universal principle to one case at a time and claim that each step will make little difference. Rather than reducing this to infinitesimals and pretending that the beginning and end of all objections is over whether this next infinitesimal will cause the world to end, why not look at the implications of these principles?

By restricting the discussion of the implication of these principles to the next step in the journey, the radical nature of the principles is hidden. Sport is not, and never has been, about cosmic fairness.

I know you know about the ratchet nature of these things, d4m10n. The more non-women you include in women's sports the less not being a woman becomes a bar to inclusion. The more people who aren't women get called women, the more the category of "woman" will be undermined. You are just making the typical call to conservatives that they should meet progressives half way, only for the game to begin again with yet more ground conceded.

The call for reasonableness, is a call to eternal surrender. Why not make this call to the other side? What is the problem with letting women keep women's sports as exclusive to women?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:26 AM   #344
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No. We get back to the claim that itís reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty.
Where do you think the line should be drawn?

Quote:
Tanner stages in males Age at the start Noticeable changes
Stage 1 After the 9th or 10th birthday None
Stage 2 Around age 11 Pubic hair starts to form
Stage 3 Around age 13 Voice begins to change or ďcrackĒ; muscles get larger
Stage 4 Around age 14 Acne may appear; armpit hair forms
Stage 5 Around age 15 Facial hair comes in
https://www.healthline.com/health/pa...uberty#summary
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 09:28 AM   #345
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No. We get back to the claim that itís reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.
We already have a word for that. If we're going back to where we started, we end up back at that word.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 10:31 AM   #346
crazycat
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: between the cat and the chair
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There are several other female posters who share our views. But at some point, we all get tired of having to constantly guard our rights and safety against people (in this case predominantly male) who seem to think it's an intellectual exercise as to whether or not females should be able to refuse consent to having naked males in their presence or not.

Which makes me all the more appreciative of those tenacious male supporters in this thread.

Count me as one of the "other female posters" who agree with you. And I second the thanks to the male posters who support that position.

Trans-inclusivity, as it is now, can be incredibly damaging to cis-women. It doesn't have to be that way. If laws about transpeople were written more sensibly, there would be few problems.

The biggest single problem (as has been stated thousands of times) is self-id. At the very least a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be required where there are safety, legal, or sporting concerns.

Last edited by crazycat; 14th June 2022 at 10:36 AM. Reason: to include the post I was replying to
crazycat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 11:12 AM   #347
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think you have it backwards. The baseline is that sex segregation (discrimination) is necessary and appropriate. What we have done in recent decades is not make exceptions. Rather, we have been dismissing gender-based discrimination that is insufficiently rooted in the physical disparity between the sexes.
No, that's not correct. Moral reasoning is not contingent upon current practice at all, and as a matter of law (in the US) sex discrimination is constitutionally impermissible unless it can survive "intermediate scrutiny".

Quote:
You have, like many people (including, I suspect, a lot of women who support transsexual privilege), fallen into the trap of thinking that dismissing sexist cases of gender discrimination is the same as abolishing good and proper sex discrimination.
Is "transsexual privilege" like "special rights" were for gay people? Anyway, I'm afraid I don't have any clue what you're trying to say here.

Quote:
Still trying to thread that needle?

So. We know you don't have a psychological or medical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

We know you don't have a moral or ethical claim for why Lia Thomas should be entitled to compete as a woman.

Do you have any claim at all, for why she should be entitled to compete as a woman?
I don't see why this is so difficult for you. I have not, at any point, argued that Lia Thomas should be competing against (non-trans) women. I've said she shouldn't be. The only needle I'm trying to thread is the one where you finally understand that.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 14th June 2022 at 12:00 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 11:55 AM   #348
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but lots of things give competitive advantage. Good genes give competitive advantage. The hormone levels you are exposed to in the womb gives competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, in and of itself isn't a problem. Competitive advantage is what sport celebrates.
There are lots of unearned advantages in sport, sure. But there are also impermissible advantages. As Bill Burr put it, we make fake legs so good now that it's better to have no legs if you're an Olympic runner (well, it was). Doping gives an advantage, but it's notionally banned. The distinction, as one paper I read put it, is between tolerable and intolerable unfairness. Sports does not celebrate competitive advantage, but competition--the problem with intolerable unfairness is that it ruins the competition by creating advantages that crater the sense that there's a real chance of a game, or it creates harmful incentives. If China created an army of genetically engineered athletes that performed 10% better than everyone else, the Olympics would be even more boring than they already are.

Quote:
The category of women's sports exists because, culturally, "women's sports" is meaningful, and "women and eunuchs sports" is not.
You're so close to a crucial realization here.

Quote:
Sport is not about "fairness" in the way that you are using the word. Sport is a celebration of cosmic unfairness. Kenyans and Ethiopians have huge advantages in marathon running, for example. Different people have different advantages. Women's sports exists because "women" is a culturally meaningful category, not because we are trying to erase the unfairness of some people having no chance of winning.
It's odd that it took so long for people to realize that "women" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of women's sports. (Strangely, we in the US figured out much earlier that "race" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of negro leagues.) Women's sports exist for the same reason that men's sports do--because sport is just one of those things that human beings do, in every culture. Women's teams/leagues/competitions/divisions exist for a variety of reasons, but are justified today because women can't hope to compete with men in most sports. It's about including people, and ensuring they get similar resources (a different sense of "fairness"--distributive justice).

Last edited by mumblethrax; 14th June 2022 at 01:01 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 12:05 PM   #349
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The call for reasonableness, is a call to eternal surrender. Why not make this call to the other side? What is the problem with letting women keep women's sports as exclusive to women?
This is the maximalist conservative outcome, keeping the sexes completely separate.

The maximalist progressive outcome is self-i.d. for everyone, in all situations.

The "call for reasonableness," (IMO) is somewhere in the middle, around where World Rugby spotted the ball.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 12:27 PM   #350
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Oh, let's say stage 2. As I understand it, boys and girls don't attain physical fitness attributes in the same order, so it might be a bit different in any given sport. I assume that Rolfe is right and this would be more of an "in principle" olive branch.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 12:47 PM   #351
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I think it provides an artificial incentive to transition early, when we should generally be discouraging that.
I suppose that might be a legit concern, but I wouldn't concede that the sports associations need to concern themselves with shaping broader cultural trends. If young males are transitioning prior to the virilization phase of puberty, I don't think the usual concerns of safeguarding and fairness will apply when considering whether they should be allowed to play with other people who never experienced those physiological advantages.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th June 2022 at 12:48 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 12:50 PM   #352
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
I think if they damage themselves by blocking puberty early enough then going on wrong-sex hormones, they won't have a hope in hell in any competitive sport and may do themselves serious injury.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 01:11 PM   #353
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,332
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No. We get back to the claim that itís reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.
Distinction without a difference. Hear me out....

Those born female...whose birth certificates say female...can present that or other commonly held ID as evidence of eligibility. Those born male would not.

We do not get "puberty" certificates.

A person who was born male who has not gone through male puberty would need to provide medical evidence to that effect to be eligible for the female...excuse me...non male pubescent division. This evidence would have to be evaluated as several factors, such as when suppression began relative to the individual's development and how it was maintained would need to be considered.

This is really not significantly different than making an individual determination for a trans athlete in general. Lack of male puberty is stronger evidence than, say, length of time on hormone therapy, but is not necessarily a given.

Similarly, other edge cases, such as those with DSDs merit individual consideration.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 01:18 PM   #354
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
A person who was born male who has not gone through male puberty would need to provide medical evidence to that effect to be eligible for the female...excuse me...non male pubescent division. This evidence would have to be evaluated as several factors, such as when suppression began relative to the individual's development and how it was maintained would need to be considered.
Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.

Quote:
This is really not significantly different than making an individual determination for a trans athlete in general. Lack of male puberty is stronger evidence than, say, length of time on hormone therapy, but is not necessarily a given.
I'm just not sure how you would make such an individual determination, particularly if there's no record of performance in the men's division.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:04 PM   #355
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,332
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.


I'm just not sure how you would make such an individual determination, particularly if there's no record of performance in the men's division.
And therein lies the question.

I don't think there is one answer. Certainly not for all sports.

My answer is to let sports leagues sort it out for themselves. That is to say, no laws either way. Let the people who run the leagues make judgment calls on individual cases.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:07 PM   #356
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
There are lots of unearned advantages in sport, sure. But there are also impermissible advantages. As Bill Burr put it, we make fake legs so good now that it's better to have no legs if you're an Olympic runner (well, it was). Doping gives an advantage, but it's notionally banned. The distinction, as one paper I read put it, is between tolerable and intolerable unfairness. Sports does not celebrate competitive advantage, but competition--the problem with intolerable unfairness is that it ruins the competition by creating advantages that crater the sense that there's a real chance of a game, or if it creates harmful incentives. If China created an army of genetically engineered athletes that performed 10% better than everyone else, the Olympics would be even more boring than they already are.
Surely if this was true, when there is a truly dominant performer like Usain Bolt interest in their sport would wane, only to return when nobody stood out? Have you seen the dominance of Kenyans and Ethiopians in distance running? A white man hasn't held the record since the 80s. Would people rather see a nail bitingly close little league game, or a historically talented MLB team destroy the opposition?

The critical thing is that the story playing out be meaningful. Usain Bolt was meaningful, because he was the fastest human who ever lived. If Lia Thomas was an actual woman, then we would be watching a stunningly good female swimmer. Even the Battle of the Sexes tennis matches had some type of meaning. I'm not sure many people feel that much meaning in a competition between a man on female hormones, competing against women. Maybe as a one off, but it's just not a generically meaningful category to people.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
You're so close to a crucial realization here.
You are wrong about what is interesting in sports.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It's odd that it took so long for people to realize that "women" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of women's sports. (Strangely, we in the US figured out much earlier than "race" being a "culturally meaningful" category implied the existence of negro leagues.) Women's sports exist for the same reason that men's sports do--because sport is just one of those things that human beings do, in every culture. Women's teams/leagues/competitions/divisions exist for a variety of reasons, but are justified today because women can't hope to compete with men in most sports. It's about including people, and ensuring they get similar resources (a different sense of "fairness"--distributive justice).
Part of the reason women's sports exist is because they can't compete with men, but also because "women" is a meaningful category. Short men can't compete in men's basketball much better than women (I know there was Muggsy Bogues). Short men's basketball is not a thing because who the best basketball player, if you exclude everybody over 2m, is not interesting to people. Women's sports as a whole kind of suffers from this problem because people would rather watch the best human, than the best woman.

It isn't about inclusion and certainly not "distributive justice". The same people who want trans-women swimmers are trying to make it about inclusion and "distributive justice". All these sports systematically exclude classes of people. What we do is pick the new progressive pet victim class and myopically focus on them. Sport isn't, and can't be made, cosmically fair. Cosmic fairness is antithetical to the nature of sport.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:13 PM   #357
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I suppose that might be a legit concern, but I wouldn't concede that the sports associations need to concern themselves with shaping broader cultural trends. If young males are transitioning prior to the virilization phase of puberty, I don't think the usual concerns of safeguarding and fairness will apply when considering whether they should be allowed to play with other people who never experienced those physiological advantages.
Back in the days of the castrati, deliberately castrating your kids was banned, but supposedly people did it anyway because of how lucrative it was. They would claim bizarre accidents had taken place.

It is being claimed that trans-women should be included in women's sports to achieve social goals. If we accept that argument, I think impact on other cultural trends should be in scope.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:25 PM   #358
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is the maximalist conservative outcome, keeping the sexes completely separate.

The maximalist progressive outcome is self-i.d. for everyone, in all situations.

The "call for reasonableness," (IMO) is somewhere in the middle, around where World Rugby spotted the ball.
The eternal struggle. Conservatives say, "let's keep the ball where it is"... progressives say "let's kick the ball a mile down the road"... centrists say "the reasonable position is in the middle"... so the ball is kicked half mile down the road. We catch up with the ball and the conversation begins again with the ball moving down the road in half mile steps.

Haggling over this step, or the next step is a distraction that will keep us marching onwards. Where does this road actually lead? What are the implications of these arguments if we follow them to their conclusions? These changes are always far harder to unwind once they are implemented.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:27 PM   #359
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
My answer is to let sports leagues sort it out for themselves. That is to say, no laws either way. Let the people who run the leagues make judgment calls on individual cases.
Yeah, I don't see the need for laws, either. But if the Equality Act, if it passes, might force the issue.

Originally Posted by shuttlt
It isn't about inclusion and certainly not "distributive justice". The same people who want trans-women swimmers are trying to make it about inclusion and "distributive justice". All these sports systematically exclude classes of people. What we do is pick the new progressive pet victim class and myopically focus on them. Sport isn't, and can't be made, cosmically fair. Cosmic fairness is antithetical to the nature of sport.
Just about any category you could name is "meaningful", I suppose you mean something like a natural category? I'll just say again that there wasn't much interest in this a century ago, until women started agitating for their own interests, and that prior to that, "natural" categories were used to exclude people. I'm unconcerned with "cosmic fairness", just dealing with the ordinary kind. And it is about distributive justice (no need for the quotative distance). Women's sports were chronically underfunded in the US prior to Title IX.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 14th June 2022 at 02:48 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2022, 02:35 PM   #360
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yes, I'm taking it for granted that they'd need to show a medical history.
Just a moment ago* you were taking me to task for pointing out that Lia Thomas has shown no medical history, and that the NCAA doesn't require any medical history.

But at least we're moving away from the idea that fiat self-ID should carry any weight at all, for any practical matter.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.