Quote:
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, been thinking about everything.
Couple things...I think you guys are right and I was wrong that government intervention is needed to solidify any rules, bans, etc.
I guess that leaves things up to individual sports bodies to evaluate and impose rules around. It's not like we need government to make rules around age groups allowed to participate in U8 soccer or something...we let the sports organizations do that. Let's see them approach this as well and it'll likely be fine.
Do I think a trans woman is a woman? No, I still don't, but I don't think what I think is particularly relevant on that. I certainly respect any person enough to treat them as a woman if they identify as a woman and I don't do that with a roll of the eyes or anything. I am genuinely supportive of somebody identifying as a woman being treated as a woman.
As for the advantage a person born as male may or may not have competing against biological females
..it seems like a giant pita to evaluate on a individual case-by-case basis and puts a lot of pressure on volunteers just trying to run sports leagues. I guess at the end of the day that's not my problem, but as somebody who runs an organization where you have to juggle multiple people with overlapping and conflicting interests, sure seems like a hassle I wouldn't want so I do empathize with the people tasked with sorting that out in their respective roles. Hopefully we end up with people running these sports that are equipped to be fair and understanding and it now appears that'll just be part of the role and if you can't manage it somebody else should take your place.
I've lost track if there was anything else on this I was supposed to be thinking about, but I do care enough to continue being mindful of best approaches.