Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

To me a separate category just feels like a separate water fountain or seating area at a diner.

What makes the difference between the people at varying levels in their sports? Seems like it's the sum of genetics and training. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their genes. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their access to training (can do it full time, better coaches, better facilities, whatever). Isn't a trans woman just coming to their supposed advantage via a different route than what we're used to?

Was there ever a time when there was a desire to have different categories based on race because people of one race had an advantage?

A separate category for transpeople does nothing except remove any opportunity for transpeople to participate in sport.

That absolutely cannot be the solution.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by photon

To me a separate category just feels like a separate water fountain or seating area at a diner.

I understand where you're coming from, and race based leagues is a good counterexample.

That said, I think it's important for young girls to be able to look up to people "like them" to enable them to participate in sports.

It would be kind of a bummer if the Olympics was almost entirely men competing, and the signal was sent to all girls that sports aren't for them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not sure I understand your position here.

I don't really know either, I just know what I feel I don't like.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It would be kind of a bummer if the Olympics was almost entirely men competing, and the signal was sent to all girls that sports aren't for them.

But that's just saying trans women aren't women. Probably less harmful from a sum total point of view since there's fewer trans people but still I don't like the message telling trans women they aren't really women.

Would the girls see it the way you describe if there were many trans women in the medals? Or would they just see them as women?

[GGG]

I think part of the challange comes from an egalitarian belief that sports are fare.

The reason that none of us are 100m champions is not because we didn’t work as hard it’s because we are genetically inferior. We accept that genetic difference between an elite male and the average male

So perhaps the answer we should be comfortable with is that it doesn’t matter if a trans women or cis women wins the Olympics. Both are genetically gifted well beyond the average individual.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think part of the challange comes from an egalitarian belief that sports are fare.

The reason that none of us are 100m champions is not because we didn’t work as hard it’s because we are genetically inferior. We accept that genetic difference between an elite male and the average male

So perhaps the answer we should be comfortable with is that it doesn’t matter if a trans women or cis women wins the Olympics. Both are genetically gifted well beyond the average individual.

They can never be perfectly fair, but they should aspire to be.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

They can never be perfectly fair, but they should aspire to be.

F that S

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/enhan...crisy-olympics

The Enhanced Games are set to debut in 2025, and since its inception, they've been dubbed the "Olympics on Steroids" – and that's because performance-enhancing drugs will be 100% allowed.

Dr. Aron D'Souza founded the event last year, and the immediate backlash has been strong. He has been told his idea is unsafe, unfair and a mockery of the real Olympics, but disagrees with those assessments.

In fact, D'Souza calls his Enhanced Games "the future of sports" because his event epitomizes the safety and fairness of sports, not sports as we know them today.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by photon

But that's just saying trans women aren't women. Probably less harmful from a sum total point of view since there's fewer trans people but still I don't like the message telling trans women they aren't really women.

Would the girls see it the way you describe if there were many trans women in the medals? Or would they just see them as women?

I think I misunderstood. I thought you were saying having men separated from women in sport was the same as separating by race etc.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think I misunderstood. I thought you were saying having men separated from women in sport was the same as separating by race etc.

I wasn't saying that, I was asking the question if there had ever been a desire to separate based on race.

Separating by race because one race dominates the podium in a sport seems to be the same as separating by gender if looking at it simply from a making different groupings based on genetic advantages point of view. Not saying that that's a meaningful point of view, just trying to put things in a perspective that make sense to me. So tried to back up to what the basic differences in ability derive from.

I don't have a position I can strongly understand or defend so I'm trying to find one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

They can never be perfectly fair, but they should aspire to be.

Then we should prioritize fixing the economic and calendar based discrimination as a first priority

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't really know either, I just know what I feel I don't like.



But that's just saying trans women aren't women. Probably less harmful from a sum total point of view since there's fewer trans people but still I don't like the message telling trans women they aren't really women.

Would the girls see it the way you describe if there were many trans women in the medals? Or would they just see them as women?

biologically they are not, unfortunately endurance and strength sports are going to favour the person who went through puberty as a male. Being predisposed to genetically have 30% more muscle mass is an insurmountable obstacle for females to overcome.
Allowing trans women to compete against women is the end of womens sports

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

biologically they are not, unfortunately endurance and strength sports are going to favour the person who went through puberty as a male. Being predisposed to genetically have 30% more muscle mass is an insurmountable obstacle for females to overcome.
Allowing trans women to compete against women is the end of womens sports

Interesting that women’s sports isn’t already over then, given that trans women competing in women’s sports and women who are genetically predisposed to much higher levels of testosterone (and the accompanying muscle mass potential) competing in women’s sports isn’t new.

It’s going to be especially difficult when you force trans men to compete in women’s sports and they also dominate, as has already happened.

[Slava]

I know what you're trying to argue here, but look at an athlete like Caster Semenya. She ran the 800m in something like 1:54, which for women is great. The men are running that around 1:45 (with the record being another 4-5 seconds faster still). Like it's not even close. And someone mentioned a similar discrepancy with regard to the 100m earlier as well. I read the piece you posted earlier that suggests there is no reason and maybe theoretically men and women are the same and should compete. But in reality there is there actual evidence of this being the case?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know what you're trying to argue here, but look at an athlete like Caster Semenya. She ran the 800m in something like 1:54, which for women is great. The men are running that around 1:45 (with the record being another 4-5 seconds faster still). Like it's not even close. And someone mentioned a similar discrepancy with regard to the 100m earlier as well. I read the piece you posted earlier that suggests there is no reason and maybe theoretically men and women are the same and should compete. But in reality there is there actual evidence of this being the case?

That’s not the conclusion the piece I posted earlier makes, so I can’t really provide any evidence of it being true. From the article:

There are true differences, though a great deal of variation, between women and men. These may, on average, give men an advantage in strength and power-based activities, and women an advantage in endurance sports.

Many of the differences we have learned are wrong, while the biologically meaningful differences are often understudied or ignored. That needs to change if we are to banish sexism in sport and take seriously the training and nutrition of female athletes the world over.

It goes into a decent amount of detail on what those differences actually are and how they apply/give advantages in specific activities. The important part of that there is a ton of variation, so it’s not nearly as simple as men > women in sport, and simply classifying trans women as men and excluding them from women’s sport on that basis alone isn’t an evidence-based approach.

Semenya is an interesting example. What made you bring her up?

[MRCboicgy]

I watch the British show QI and in its recent Ultras episode they said that by the time you get to the ultra marathon distances in running, that men and women perform the same with women being able to surpass men's performance the longer the race.

Reinforced my stance that blanket legislation is the last thing needed here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s not the conclusion the piece I posted earlier makes, so I can’t really provide any evidence of it being true. From the article:



It goes into a decent amount of detail on what those differences actually are and how they apply/give advantages in specific activities. The important part of that there is a ton of variation, so it’s not nearly as simple as men > women in sport, and simply classifying trans women as men and excluding them from women’s sport on that basis alone isn’t an evidence-based approach.

Semenya is an interesting example. What made you bring her up?

Well they made her take testosterone inhibitors in order to run at the Olympics, so it's an interesting comparison in that sense.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m a little disappointed that you don’t seem to actually be open to listening to and thinking about the issue, so I don’t see much value in continuing the conversation with you. Feel free to call me a dishonest, ridiculous fool all you want, I guess, but I don’t think advocating for specific, science-based approaches to fairness in sports instead of blanket bans on trans people is any of those things.

Well, I am listening, but I have not been persuaded. I don't think you're assessing what I'm saying objectively, either, so I guess we're at an impasse.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Limits on testosterone levels, which has a direct correlation with the physical advantages that men may have over women in certain sports, is an approach that actually attempts to draw a line on what is fair. Medical experts recognize that women (who were born women) that have exceedingly high testosterone levels may have the same physical advantages over women that fall in the normal range as men with average testosterone levels do. Setting a limit on those levels for elite competition excludes some trans women, sure, but it also excludes some cis women. If you want to talk about fair, that’s the kind of conversation you have. If you want to exclude trans women solely on the basis of them having transitioned and nothing else, then you’re not talking about “fair” or “honesty,” you’re taking an anti-trans position.

If women don’t want to compete against trans people then we should absolutely be critical of that desire.

The idea that both trans men and trans women, and those who are non gender conforming should be excluded based solely on those factors and not on any biological, chemical, or physical basis is ridiculous.

I understand the bolded, but only if you discount the argument that the bigots (and me, apparently) are making that biological men do have a biological, chemical and physical difference from biological females. It's not like I'm out to punish trans people for...reasons?

Anyway, I've made my point and I know you are a part of a community to which this is a closer topic than it is for me. I don't want to jeopardize our Internet friendship over this and I'm still listening with an attempt at an open mind. I would like to be wrong and just hear something that clicks into place what you guys are seeing/saying. I'm not ignorant to the "thankses" people are getting from the posters I typically share perspectives with. I'm not sure why I'm unable to see things from that perspective on this one.

[fotze2]

Ace Rothstein : No matter how big a guy might be, Pepsifree would take him on. You beat Pepsifree with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And if you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well they made her take testosterone inhibitors in order to run at the Olympics, so it's an interesting comparison in that sense.

I agree. I think she’s an example of the outlier and good evidence of why blanket legislation doesn’t make any sense. Assigned female at birth, identifies as a woman, but has certain conditions that would (in theory) make her the exact type of “unfair” competition the “no trans women” argument is trying to exclude, but would not be excluded based solely on the fact that she was born as and still identifies as a woman. It’s an example that makes it extremely arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well, I am listening, but I have not been persuaded. I don't think you're assessing what I'm saying objectively, either, so I guess we're at an impasse.

I understand the bolded, but only if you discount the argument that the bigots (and me, apparently) are making that biological men do have a biological, chemical and physical difference from biological females. It's not like I'm out to punish trans people for...reasons?

Anyway, I've made my point and I know you are a part of a community to which this is a closer topic than it is for me. I don't want to jeopardize our Internet friendship over this and I'm still listening with an attempt at an open mind. I would like to be wrong and just hear something that clicks into place what you guys are seeing/saying. I'm not ignorant to the "thankses" people are getting from the posters I typically share perspectives with. I'm not sure why I'm unable to see things from that perspective on this one.

Don’t be silly, we’re not internet friends off (or even in danger of it) just because I’m frustrated with your perspective on this. I do want to change your mind because I think you are able to see things from another perspective, I’m just frustrated as to why you aren’t.

I don’t even think we’re far apart, I guess I’m just asking you to consider a more nuanced or case by case outlook on this?

Let’s put it this way, using your terms, considering the article I shared. There are differences between men and women. Biological males, on average, have an advantage in some athletic activities because of those differences. Biological women, on average, have an advantage in different athletic activities because of those differences. Within that, there is a great deal of variation. Some people who were born and still identify as women have conditions that make them more similar in their physiological makeup to what we would traditionally associate with biological men, and vice versa.

The argument isn’t that there aren’t differences. It’s that some of those same differences, especially the ones that confer an advantage in different sports, also exist within the spectrum of those assigned the same sex at birth.

Given those variations and conditions, do you think excluding “trans women” based solely on the fact that they’re trans (while not excluding trans men, I guess, who also have those advantages), makes sense? Or would you agree that taking a more nuanced approach that actually evaluates whether specific trans athletes (and cis athletes for that matter) have those “unfair” biological advantages and make individual decisions based on those evaluations makes more sense?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree. I think she’s an example of the outlier and good evidence of why blanket legislation doesn’t make any sense. Assigned female at birth, identifies as a woman, but has certain conditions that would (in theory) make her the exact type of “unfair” competition the “no trans women” argument is trying to exclude, but would not be excluded based solely on the fact that she was born as and still identifies as a woman. It’s an example that makes it extremely arbitrary.

Don’t be silly, we’re not internet friends off (or even in danger of it) just because I’m frustrated with your perspective on this. I do want to change your mind because I think you are able to see things from another perspective, I’m just frustrated as to why you aren’t.

I don’t even think we’re far apart, I guess I’m just asking you to consider a more nuanced or case by case outlook on this?

Let’s put it this way, using your terms, considering the article I shared. There are differences between men and women. Biological males, on average, have an advantage in some athletic activities because of those differences. Biological women, on average, have an advantage in different athletic activities because of those differences. Within that, there is a great deal of variation. Some people who were born and still identify as women have conditions that make them more similar in their physiological makeup to what we would traditionally associate with biological men, and vice versa.

The argument isn’t that there aren’t differences. It’s that some of those same differences, especially the ones that confer an advantage in different sports, also exist within the spectrum of those assigned the same sex at birth.

Given those variations and conditions, do you think excluding “trans women” based solely on the fact that they’re trans (while not excluding trans men, I guess, who also have those advantages), makes sense? Or would you agree that taking a more nuanced approach that actually evaluates whether specific trans athletes (and cis athletes for that matter) have those “unfair” biological advantages and make individual decisions based on those evaluations makes more sense?

Okay. Leave this with me to consider. I don't want to dig in and I really want to make sure I'm not 90s-braining this topic. Especially want to be cautious that I'm not cruising around hurting people with my opinions. I appreciate the patience you have with me on these topics.

[Doctorfever]

I was talking to one of my kids the other day about trans people. I said to him how I understand certain age restrictions and things like that, but how every single case can be different and should be evaluated differently.

I wish some people weren’t terrible people and society didn’t need blanket laws for things. But like most scenarios, it’s a few outliers (or in some cases, bad apples) that ruin things for the majority.

Note: not saying this about trans people specifically, when it comes to “bad apples”.

My post may not read as intended, so I apologize if it comes off as negative to trans people, that is not my intention.