[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.