Alberta students to define their own gender

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Top-down policies aren't created ex nihilo, this is an evolutionary idea born of a revolution that has been happening over the last 40-odd years. Like any other set of rules created by humanity, it is flawed, but arguing against it on the basis that it is social engineering of a totalitarian nature is no more than a blindness to ALL law and regulation being social engineering of one sort or another, and that the lack of law or regulation in certain areas can be equally significant in shaping behaviour.

Just for example, laws around maternity leave have been created and have changed over time, and the lack of laws in this area in the past was a definite disincentive to complete female emancipation. There is a cost and a cultural effect in continuing to do nothing different for the transgendered, just like there would have been a cost and cultural effect in never implementing mat leave laws. Keeping the status quo is a choice with consequences, and feels like oppression to someone marginalized by it, so it is, like most things, an argument between what path does the most good and least harm.

I actually expected more from you than this historicist pablum.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by johnnyrocket03

While I am totally for this and am glad that as a society, we are moving closer all the time to inclusion. I am not sure how I feel about the adult sports side of this and the effects it will have. Fans of MMA have seen the full effect of what can happen when things like this come into place. Look up Fallon Fox on YouTube and you'll see what I mean.

Fallon was a fully developed man who made the transition to a woman and I am not ashamed to admit it was a little hard to watch her last fight and how badly her opponent was beaten and hurt. I think it would be tough to watch the video and not assume there was some level of physical advantage, no?

I think this is a valid concern when you're talking about sports where there's a potential for someone to get hurt. Someone mentioned a few posts back that said fighter had doctors who would validate the claims that the hormone therapy she was receiving nullified any physical advantage.

The other side of the sports argument that I have a tough time with is the so called "sanctity" of sport and the record books and whatnot. Does it not diminish the accomplishments of athletes like Hayley Wickenheiser, Mia Hamm and Serena Williams to know that in the future its possible for someone who is transgender and could have the full frame and build of a male athlete to crush their records and achievements?

This argument doesn't really resonate with me for a couple of reasons:

A) I don't think breaking records nullifies the accomplishments of the previous record holders
B) At the end of the day, it's still just sports. I get that there's money involved, but it's still just a form of entertainment.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually expected more from you than this historicist pablum.

I don't know man, calling it a "top-down approach" was pretty disrespectful to the LGBTQ advocates who've been working their asses off to get these things on the political agenda for years, whether you agree with them or not.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually expected more from you than this historicist pablum.

I have a theory called "Peter's Razor" where the more dismissive you are of an idea, the more likely it is to be correct.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't know man, calling it a "top-down approach" was pretty disrespectful to the LGBTQ advocates who've been working their asses off to get these things on the political agenda for years, whether you agree with them or not.

I think this is where we have to draw a line. Obviously, conscientious advocates have to engineer certain top-down solutions that end up being just. Moreover, conservative moderates like me - who sometimes value order over justice - have to be reminded as to what is the right thing to do.

See MLK, suffragettes, and all that. See the gay rights movement.

These groups all argued for equality under a specific legal umbrella, and didn't want special accommodations.

I don't want to deny trans-kids anything that would help them get through their difficult life journey. I also don't want to stigmatize them unnecessarily. What is fairly clear to me is that the NDP's initiative will probably do the latter, and not the former.

A lot of what we know about the transgendered comes down to the fact that our society (whatever that is) tends to almost unilaterally - and probably unconsciously - stigmatize them. We also know that this phenomenon may be getting worse.

We don't know nearly enough to make grand, sweeping psychological or biological statements about sexuality and gender to come up with anything more than ideologically-motivated justifications for these kind of overt interventions - especially, when some ancillary evidence shows more harm than good.

As Cliff said, this really boils down to a pious gesture from our government, and its supporters. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that anyone who supports this policy does so on any basis of justice, except that their hearts are in the right place.

In the larger picture, what would help? Well, I don't know.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

I have a theory called "Peter's Razor" where the more dismissive you are of an idea, the more likely it is to be correct.

That's more like it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

As Cliff said, this really boils down to a pious gesture from our government, and its supporters. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that anyone who supports this policy does so on any basis of justice, except that their hearts are in the right place.

To be fair, a pious gesture is a lot more than what transpeople have been given historically, or would have been given by the PCs or WRP. At least they're being acknowledged in a way that isn't dismissive or demeaning. I think what ultimately needs to happen is cultural shift, similar to what is happening towards homosexuality, where it's seen as unacceptable to treat these people any differently than those who are cisgendered.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

To be fair, a pious gesture is a lot more than what transpeople have been given historically, or would have been given by the PCs or WRP. At least they're being acknowledged in a way that isn't dismissive or demeaning. I think what ultimately needs to happen is cultural shift, similar to what is happening towards homosexuality, where it's seen as unacceptable to treat these people any differently than those who are cisgendered.

Yeah, but can you imagine if there was a law demanding specific treatment for every race? It would be outrageous.

Most people want to be treated as everyone else - so while I have no problem with some mild admonishments in support of children who want to play for the other team, I think these policies go far beyond that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, but can you imagine if there was a law demanding specific treatment for every race? It would be insane.

But that's not really what this is. It's a law advocating for the removal of barriers. It may primarily benefit one group of people, but it's hardly something you could call special treatment.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But that's not really what this is. It's a law advocating for the removal of barriers. It may primarily benefit one group of people, but it's hardly something you could call special treatment.

I said specific treatment, which is different.

To go back to what a few of the skeptics have been saying, treating sexuality and gender as either separate or apart misses how incredibly complex the issue is. We don't have enough information to make these kinds of statements, and we don't know what the impact of our policies will be.

Ultimately, what is justice in this situation? That bullying against trans kids is harshly punished, that students have access to private counseling, and ... what else? This stuff seems to already exist.

I should also mention that we forget that parents and families - not bureaucrats - are the best way to shore up a trans kid's confidence, and are the only effective means to help them transition effectively into adult life. The hubris behind these policies completely assumes that families aren't doing this job, and shouldn't be doing it anyway.

[rubecube]

I think I kind of got thrown off course by the suicide talk. Of course this isn't going to directly reduce suicides, but we have to understand that discrimination and marginalization to the point where it becomes traumatic can often be cumulative, so eliminating some of the elements that are part of that isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ultimately, what is justice in this situation? That bullying against trans kids is harshly punished, that students have access to private counseling, and ... what else? This stuff seems to already exist.

Yeah but these are reactionary measures. I'm much more in favour of things that are proactively designed to change the cultural attitudes towards trans people than trying to fix the harm done after it has already occurred.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by johnnyrocket03

The one against Tamikka Brents is what I was talking about.

That was a brutal beatdown on Brents

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I should also mention that we forget that parents and families - not bureaucrats - are the best way to shore up a trans kid's confidence, and are the only effective means to help them transition effectively into adult life. The hubris behind these policies completely assumes that families aren't doing this job, and shouldn't be doing it anyway.

I think it's terrific if you had a wholesome family upbringing with supportive parents, who have inspired your confidence in the abilities of families to do this job. A lot of us didn't have that experience, which plays into why we would like to see alternative avenues added to the mix.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Polak, men do not have an advantage in sport. They have an advantage in select sports where upper body strength is a primary tool but otherwise men and women can physically compete at the same level.

I await the day when the champion of the Men's World Cup of football plays the champion of the Women's World Cup of football. I expect it will be a gripping sporting contest.

Originally Posted by ernie

Why? I suppose I give people far too much credit. It's a topic that has been explored in a significant way over all forms of media. And I'm not talking about whether you accept such rule changes or even the person themselves but people should know by now that gender and sexual orientation are not the same.

Sex, gender, and sexual orientation are all different things.

Expecting anything that has only been on the public radar for a few years to be common knowledge is expecting too much. Especially when that subject:

A) Is unintuitive and complex (and yes, this stuff is unintuitive and complex).

B) Affects only a very small number of people.

Quantitative easing has been prominently in the news for several years now. President Obama mentions it in speeches. It affects us all. And yet I'd guess a great many decent, intelligent people don't understand what it really is, or how it differs from qualitative easing. Personally, I'm not going to hold it against them, or assume they're being disingenuous and harbouring some kind of agenda if they profess to being a bit fuzzy on the subject.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Expecting anything that has only been on the public radar for a few years to be common knowledge is expecting too much. Especially when that subject:

A) Is unintuitive and complex (and yes, this stuff is unintuitive and complex).

B) Affects only a very small number of people.

I would add, "has not been adequately addressed by biologists, neurologists, and other experts" so that we even know what the heck we're talking about. Like I said earlier, the notion that gender identity and sexual orientation are entirely non-overlapping and independent aspects of a person's identity strikes me as probably false; the human brain simply does not compartmentalize that well and I would imagine that, to varying degrees, there's some interrelation there. But that's just intuition. I'm not qualified to draw that conclusion by any stretch. This warrants further thought by people who are best situated to perform it.

In any case, though, can we all just agree to tone down the hysteria and not go looking for secret Nazis on this issue? I think it's highly encouraging that there is basically no resistance to the idea that people should be supported and accepted regardless of their gender identity. There are of course going to be some backwards-thinking people who still consider trans people unnatural, in the same way there always have been in re: homosexuality, but that isn't the prevailing sentiment. That sort of thinking doesn't appear to me to be the hurdle that it was for gay rights.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i can just see what will happen when these little snowflakes start working - they be given a desk and some work and within 10 minutes they will be sitting in the CEO's office, working on coloring books becasue they did not like thier desk or the work they were given......

Are you seriously suggesting that preferences for type of work and office furniture is weighted the same as being comfortable in one's own skin? Because it kinda seems that way...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Wading into this a little late after missing a bunch but I have a question.

Why do we need to identify sports by gender in the first place? Why do we need a women's champion and a men's champion? Does this not further force people to conform to the gender roles that we are trying to get rid of in schools?

Any man, woman or transgender person can compete in any sport. All sports will be segregated according only by skill level (or whatever other arbitrary category is used be it height, weight, hair color etc.).

Perhaps this will only lead to sports being categorized by biological definitions and the same argument will take place, I don't know. What I do know is that when we are talking about competitive sports with money and prestige on the line any and all advantages will be exploited. I very much doubt some rec league boy will join the girls team to crush spikes down on his female opponent but an athlete who is dealing with 10s of thousands or even 100s of thousands or millions will take that advantage no doubt.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Wading into this a little late after missing a bunch but I have a question.

Why do we need to identify sports by gender in the first place? Why do we need a women's champion and a men's champion? Does this not further force people to conform to the gender roles that we are trying to get rid of in schools?

Wouldn't this just result in the "Senior Basketball Team" being filled with boys, and lead to girls not playing sports at all?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wouldn't this just result in the "Senior Basketball Team" being filled with boys, and lead to girls not playing sports at all?

No, there might be a larger mix of guys but in most cases the best girls would be able to outplay mid-range guys easily, and likely some of the best guys.

Take your top five guys and top five girls for a high school sport, rank them 1 to 10 and it'd be extremely rare for the top five to be all men and the bottom five to be all women.

In fact, teams would actually likely be a lot better taking the best of both sexes on one team.

You could also tier it, so instead of men's and women's there is tier 1 and 2, and the players would be ranked for placement. You might get more girls in tier 2, but you'd definitely have a good number of girls in tier 1.