Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?