• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, it's less fair. But that doesn't make mixed-sex competitions on the basis of weight alone actually fair. For consideration, 14 year old males - who are far from fully grown and developed - routinely demolish professional female athletes who have put years of effort into devoted training.

A male and a female of the same height and weight are still essentially unequal. Males have larger lung capacity, larger hearts, more fast-twitch muscle fibers, and denser muscles. A male of the same weight as a female will simply have more muscle than the female does. And depending on the sport in question, the different angle of the femur and the pelvic tilt make a difference too, as does the slightly different attachment points through the shoulders. Those affect running speed (and gait) as well as throwing and punching force.

Females aren't just "smaller males". We're built differently in a LOT of ways.



Honestly, the male/female divide in sports overshadows all of the other nuanced differences by so much that they almost disappear. For the sports where something other than sex is a material divider in performance, age or weight classes already exist.
Click to expand...


Emily's Cat said:
It's not arbitrary though. There are extremely good and well known reasons for it.

Partly it's so that female have an opportunity to play sports AT ALL. And it's also because females are not just "small males".

FFS, we're not just "males with an innie". We're not a deviation from the ideal of the male body! There are a LOT of differences in our bodies - and those differences directly affect athletic ability.
Click to expand...


No, I’m not actually suggesting pitting men against women! What I’m saying is that this issue about transwomen entering in women’s categories actually ends up shining the spotlight on an issue that has kind of been the accepted status quo: and that issue is, that the idea of sports categories is actually very nuanced, and that nuance isn’t really addressed adequately by merely having two categories based on sex. Yes, you’re right, in some sports that nuance is addressed by having weight categories, like I said myself. But I disagree that that is not a factor in all of those sports that don’t have these categories. Net games like tennis and badminton come to mind, for instance; and basketball, to take another very obvious example; running and swimming as well, jumps, …one can think of any number of sports where we don’t have weight/height categories, but where these attributes act as a very important differentiator.

I assume the whole point of keeping a whole different women’s category is to make for fairness, right? So that genetics does not eclipse other factors like talent, and discipline, and the rest of it? Well, what this whole issue highlights is how inadequately that issue is actually addressed by merely having two categories, and that more nuanced categories are probably called for, if the idea is to go for fairness. And if the idea is not to go for fairness, well then, why have even these categories, in that case why not just have a free-for-all, with the “worthiest” claiming the prize every time, by dint not just of training and discipline and talent but also sheer brawn and physical dimensions?

---

That said, you’ll note that I’ve already said, and said myself, unprompted, that while the question is nuanced; and while the nuanced nature of the question is spotlighted by this trans question; but that nuance isn’t actually addressed by simply having transwomen compete in these cateogories. What is required is a nuanced answer; but pending that nuanced answer, it serves nothing at all to obliterate what little fairness there already is, what un-nuanced fairness there already is, by letting these folks run and fight and cycle and lift with women. So that, should there be a vote on here on whether transwomen should compete in women’s categories, simply on that issue and with no space for further nuance, well then I guess I’d vote in with a No.

On the other hand, and like I’ve been at some pains to spell out, my full opinion --- which position seems obvious enough to me! --- is that the question is a nuanced one, and no, that nuanced question is NOT addressed adequately by simply preserving the status quo. What is actually called for is some more thinking on this by the professionals in individual sports, and answers tailored to individual sports. After all, and like I said, and like you did as well, we do have weight categories in so many sports, don’t we. Maybe we could have similar(ish) cateogories in at least some other sports as well, if not all of them.

---

One additional thought that comes to mind as I type this: This thing about transwomen wanting to compete in women’s categories, I’d imagine they’d probably want to present it in terms of inclusion, rather than necessarily in terms of “fairness” --- because then they’d be hard pressed to make a plausible argument. Well then, as far as “inclusion” in sports, is the opposite also happening? Are transmen queueing up to compete in men’s categories? Even if in lesser numbers, but are they at least turning up to compete in some numbers? That’s a question that should admit of a clear objective answer. If the answer’s a Yes, if indeed transmen do turn up to play in men’s categories, then that would be a strong argument for inclusion being a real thing. On the other hand, if we find, on looking, that zero transmen are turning up to compete with cis-men, well then that to my mind would suggest that the inclusion argument is not sound, not honest; and that would weaken considerably the inclusion argument as used by transwomen to seek entry in women’s categories.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're proving her point.
Click to expand...

perhaps to some, but who cares about them?

Not really interested in the opinion of the "you have to respect the opinions of vile bigots" crowd, no matter how popular that view might be in the braindead media pundit circles.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
---

One additional thought that comes to mind as I type this: This thing about transwomen wanting to compete in women’s categories, I’d imagine they’d probably want to present it in terms of inclusion, rather than necessarily in terms of “fairness” --- because then they’d be hard pressed to make a plausible argument. Well then, as far as “inclusion” in sports, is the opposite also happening? Are transmen queueing up to compete in men’s categories? Even if in lesser numbers, but are they at least turning up to compete in some numbers? That’s a question that should admit of a clear objective answer. If the answer’s a Yes, if indeed transmen do turn up to play in men’s categories, then that would be a strong argument for inclusion being a real thing. On the other hand, if we find, on looking, that zero transmen are turning up to compete with cis-men, well then that to my mind would suggest that the inclusion argument is not sound, not honest; and that would weaken considerably the inclusion argument as used by transwomen to seek entry in women’s categories.
Click to expand...

Well, we know the answer to that. No trans-identified women has broken any men's records. None. (The reverse is very much not true.) But I'd point out that the male category was always the open category. From time to time there's a story about a girl or women who plays on the football team, or whatever. Men don't usually oppose that because they're no threat.
 
Chanakya said:
No, I’m not actually suggesting pitting men against women! What I’m saying is that this issue about transwomen entering in women’s categories actually ends up shining the spotlight on an issue that has kind of been the accepted status quo: and that issue is, that the idea of sports categories is actually very nuanced, and that nuance isn’t really addressed adequately by merely having two categories based on sex. Yes, you’re right, in some sports that nuance is addressed by having weight categories, like I said myself. But I disagree that that is not a factor in all of those sports that don’t have these categories. Net games like tennis and badminton come to mind, for instance; and basketball, to take another very obvious example; running and swimming as well, jumps, …one can think of any number of sports where we don’t have weight/height categories, but where these attributes act as a very important differentiator.

I assume the whole point of keeping a whole different women’s category is to make for fairness, right? So that genetics does not eclipse other factors like talent, and discipline, and the rest of it? Well, what this whole issue highlights is how inadequately that issue is actually addressed by merely having two categories, and that more nuanced categories are probably called for, if the idea is to go for fairness. And if the idea is not to go for fairness, well then, why have even these categories, in that case why not just have a free-for-all, with the “worthiest” claiming the prize every time, by dint not just of training and discipline and talent but also sheer brawn and physical dimensions?
Click to expand...

A ton of this is quite simply solved by... let the market decide. That there are considerable amount of people that WANT women's soccer in the USA is very clear. The US Womens team is popular, and the NWSL exists! That people are interested in watching boxers of various weights compete is evidenced that the WBA has weight classes. That no one gives a **** who the best basketball team made of men under 5'6" is clear. Because such a league doesn't exist.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
perhaps to some, but who cares about them?

Not really interested in the opinion of the "you have to respect the opinions of vile bigots" crowd, no matter how popular that view might be in the braindead media pundit circles.
Click to expand...

Your presumption that people who disagree with you are vile bigots isn't actually supported by evidence. You aren't morally superior, you're just a sore loser.
 
mumblethrax said:
There is no such thing as an immutable scientific fact, and saying as much reveals a dogmatic, rather than scientific worldview.
Click to expand...

The biological nature of the human animal is pretty darned immutable, however much you may wish it were not.
 
lobosrul5 said:
A ton of this is quite simply solved by... let the market decide. That there are considerable amount of people that WANT women's soccer in the USA is very clear. The US Womens team is popular, and the NWSL exists! That people are interested in watching boxers of various weights compete is evidenced that the WBA has weight classes. That no one gives a **** who the best basketball team made of men under 5'6" is clear. Because such a league doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Sure, letting markets decide is one way to go, absolutely. But that is a different argument than the argument for fairness, right? Because the case for not letting transwomen into women's categories was being made on the basis of fairness --- and, incidentally, I agree with that argument, framed in those terms. If we're to frame it in terms of "let the markets decide", then, while the answer may possibly still be the same, but the question then won't be resolved basis fairness, but basis whether people are willing to pay to see transwomen compete with ciswomen. Is that the argument you actually want to make? If so, fair enough, it is a valid enough argument --- although we can't tell, beforehand, other than empirically, which way it'll be resolved.
 
Ziggurat said:
you're just a sore loser.
Click to expand...

A little premature to call this one, don't ya think?

I will admit things aren't going great for those opposed to the rise of reactionary right wing politics. TERF island may well be a total loss for the foreseeable future, and anti-trans politics is likely only going to be one small part of a larger right wing lurch for the nation. The UK is likely going to be a poorer, nastier place and has no indication of pulling out of the spiral.

That said, I still have some hope for the US.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Nope. You've already conceded defeat in this thread. That's why you've devolved into insults.
Click to expand...

Is this thread a contest? It certainly isn't a reflection of anything larger than the small group of participants, so if it is the stakes could not be lower.

You may have a point though. Others have wisely decided to avoid this thread, or the forum, altogether to avoid getting any of the bigotry filth on their digital shoes. Perhaps they chose the smarter path than endlessly rehashing the same old arguments.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Righteous anger is a useful social force.
Click to expand...
Only if it's righteously deployed. Just about any mass casualty incident I can think of was powered by righteous anger to some significant degree, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, various pogroms against ethnic minorities (including the Tulsa Race Riots), firebombing entire cities to the ground in Germany and Japan, both sides of the Northern Irish Troubles, etc. Even when the mass graves are the result of cold calculation of a few cynical men at the top of a rigid hierarchy, they typically feel the need to deploy righteous anger to motivate the people who have to actually get blood on their hands.

You're really playing with fire here.
 
Trausti said:
Well, we know the answer to that. No trans-identified women has broken any men's records. None. (The reverse is very much not true.) But I'd point out that the male category was always the open category. From time to time there's a story about a girl or women who plays on the football team, or whatever. Men don't usually oppose that because they're no threat.
Click to expand...


It isn't about whether they end up winning or not.

I think ---- I only think that, and am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong! ---- I was saying, I think transwomen are asking for inclusion into women's categories by arguing for inclusion, right? If that is an honest argument, then it ought to swing both ways: transmen also should then asking for inclusion, by competing with men.

If that latter is actually happening, then I'd say the argument for inclusion is at least one that is being made honestly. If that latter isn't actually happening, then clearly the inclusion argument is merely a sham, merely subterfuge, to somehow end up winning medals and prize money and what-have-you. Is all I was saying.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Only if it's righteously deployed. Just about any mass casualty incident I can think of was powered by righteous anger to some significant degree, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, various pogroms against ethnic minorities (including the Tulsa Race Riots), firebombing entire cities to the ground in Germany and Japan, both sides of the Northern Irish Troubles, etc. Even when the mass graves are the result of cold calculation of a few cynical men at the top of a rigid hierarchy, they typically feel the need to deploy righteous anger to motivate the people who have to actually get blood on their hands.

You're really playing with fire here.
Click to expand...

Fortunately spineless squishes who allow the status quo to continue on because causing a fuss would be unseemly have never caused any ill results.

King's rebuke of the white moderate remains as cutting now as ever.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Fortunately spineless squishes who allow the status quo to continue on because causing a fuss would be unseemly have never caused any ill results.
Click to expand...
Debating policy changes to the status quo can be done without the need to deploy either courage or anger, although empathy will prove indispensable.
 
Chanakya said:
Sure, letting markets decide is one way to go, absolutely. But that is a different argument than the argument for fairness, right? Because the case for not letting transwomen into women's categories was being made on the basis of fairness --- and, incidentally, I agree with that argument, framed in those terms. If we're to frame it in terms of "let the markets decide", then, while the answer may possibly still be the same, but the question then won't be resolved basis fairness, but basis whether people are willing to pay to see transwomen compete with ciswomen. Is that the argument you actually want to make? If so, fair enough, it is a valid enough argument --- although we can't tell, beforehand, other than empirically, which way it'll be resolved.
Click to expand...

There is no practicable way to make all sports fair for everyone, with regards to genetics. I will never be, and never was going to be, good enough to play in the NBA. It wouldn't matter if I practiced 16 hours a day and lived and breathed basketball. That holds true for the vast majority of people.

Its not fair to ciswomen to allow transwomen to compete is exactly as true as the statement: its not fair to transwomen to only allow them to compete with cismen* OR its not fair to expect men with a total lack of coordination who can't dribble a ball to save their life to compete with men who can.

Now, what I say about "let the market decide" only applies to self funded private organizations. When you get into collegiate sports in the USA, we have title 9. That says women get equal access to sports as men (I'm greatly simplifying and paraphrasing). Then its well, we must have a legal and succinct definition for women and who is allowed to compete in the women's category.

*This is even further complicated by the fact that if self-id is just a pure 100% thing that there would be men, not trans, just men, who would decide to compete with women for notoriety or greed.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Debating policy changes to the status quo can be done without the need to deploy either courage or anger, although empathy will prove indispensable.
Click to expand...

Dispassion seems to be a luxury for those who don't stand to lose anything or those that lack basic empathy.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Dispassion seems to be a luxury for those who don't stand to lose anything or those that lack basic empathy.
Click to expand...

I have no empathy, none at all, for a guy who wants access to watch girls undressing in the changing room. Not the slightest empathy.
 
theprestige said:
I think you're trying to manufacture an arbitrary nuance of the gaps, hoping to find a gap into which you can wedge some idea of transwomen competing with women that is safe, fair, and interesting. But you're not there yet. And even if you do think you've got there, you're still not able to force women's prisons and women's shelters into whatever gap you imagine must exist for sports.

The fact is that transwomen are not women. There are some really important contexts in which this truth really matters. Sports is one of them. It's useful to our discussion because of the abundance of statistical data supporting sex segregation. Trying to devise some arbitrarily nuanced system whereby each transwoman is matched with the female athlete who most closely matches their arbitrarily decided athletic potential is not the answer.

Your real problem is that you cannot come up with an arbitrary system of weight classes and handicaps for putting a rapist in a women's prison, just because he says he'd prefer to be locked in a room with a woman.
Click to expand...


Haha, this is completely hilarious! I tell you in so many words that I don’t think that letting loose transwomen onto women’s categories makes for a fair resolution of the nuanced question of fairness in sports; and you end up telling me, with a straight face, that you “think” I’m doing this, that and the other to “wedge in some idea of transwomen competing with women”. I tell you, again in so many words, that I’m speaking only and specifically of sports, and not of prisons at all: and there you go, solemnly mindreading away, and telling me, again with an apparently straight face, that I'm trying but failing to "force women's prisons and women's shelters into whatever gap you imagine must exist for sports", and that I “cannot come up with (some system) for putting a rapist in women’s prison”, et cetera.

Do you see it, now that I’ve pointed it out clearly for you, how completely weird and how utterly divorced from reality your “thinking” is? You’ll have to figure out for yourself why that is, and what “your real problem” might be!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom