American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Yeah, but I think the point is, how does one or two trans athletes in a field of 10s of thousands something to be concerned about is it? Maybe it’s competitive, but that’s just a couple of people that might or might not, move ahead of non-trans athletes. So in the totality of things, the bottom 2 athletes are squeezed out. How many trans athletes to date have had some advantage? I mean, I guess there was that one South Park episode…

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How much more competition?

Seriously, go take a look at how many trans women there are compared to cis women. After looking at those numbers and just taking a vague guess as to how many of each group go into athletics, if you think the concern you have is still valid and worth resources to address, justify why.

You do make good points and the information is too new to quantify. Plus, it's not easy for a transgender person to enter sports with it's culture, probably a ton of discrimination too.

So I don't know which way it will go. Could that number grow enough to make a difference? It could be a non issue I'm discussing. This started as hypothetical risks, not facts.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

How many people are going to do this? If its a real problem at some point deal with it then.

I think the issue with this is that at that point, "dealing with it" might mean changing the rules on an athlete that has played by them to that point with the expectation things would work a certain way - kind of pulling the rug out from under her. Like, in the tennis example I used earlier, suppose a trans woman battles for years to get into the top 30 of the WTA, and is en route to the top ten. Well, now there are millions of dollars at stake and her entire life and career hinges on what you do to "deal with it"... but the other WTA players will no doubt cry foul if nothing's done. My point is that it might actually be a more difficult thing to figure out if you wait until that scenario arises.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You do make good points and the information is too new to quantify. Plus, it's not easy for a transgender person to enter sports with it's culture, probably a ton of discrimination too.

So I don't know which way it will go. Could that number grow enough to make a difference? It could be a non issue I'm discussing. This started as hypothetical risks, not facts.

Sure, but you understand how using facts has value while bringing up easily dismissed “hypothetical risks” is actually what cues up and fuels transphobia, right?

I’m sorry, it’s not actually good enough to say “it could be a non issue, this is just hypothetical” because you’re calling trans girls a risk to the well-being of cis girls. If that’s what you want to do, you better be able to justify those statements with facts, not shrug them off. Because while it’s hunky dory for you to go “well, just asking questions!” for every one of you there are two people like you who aren’t “just asking questions” and want trans girls banned from participating in girls athletics and who encourage bullying of young trans girls.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think the issue with this is that at that point, "dealing with it" might mean changing the rules on an athlete that has played by them to that point with the expectation things would work a certain way - kind of pulling the rug out from under her. Like, in the tennis example I used earlier, suppose a trans woman battles for years to get into the top 30 of the WTA, and is en route to the top ten. Well, now there are millions of dollars at stake and her entire life and career hinges on what you do to "deal with it"... but the other WTA players will no doubt cry foul if nothing's done. My point is that it might actually be a more difficult thing to figure out if you wait until that scenario arises.

The UCI (cycling) has, well, not gotten ahead of it, because this just came out, but they have a plan now. Other sports should do the same.

A report on transgender women athletes in elite sport has found that if UCI rules are adhered to, there is currently no substantial evidence of any biological advantages for trans women competing in elite women’s sport.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/t...es-study-finds

The rules:

The UCI's policy on eligibility and regulations for transgender athletes, state that those who transition from male to female (MTF) are eligible to compete in the female category as long as:
- the athlete has declared their gender identity as female,
- the athlete can demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 2.5 nmol/L for a period of at least 24 months,
- and their total testosterone level in serum must remain below 2.5 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

The UCI has had over 20 years since I think they first faced this issue with this rider:

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...e-raises-hell/

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but you understand how using facts has value while bringing up easily dismissed “hypothetical risks” is actually what cues up and fuels transphobia, right?

I’m sorry, it’s not actually good enough to say “it could be a non issue, this is just hypothetical” because you’re calling trans girls a risk to the well-being of cis girls. If that’s what you want to do, you better be able to justify those statements with facts, not shrug them off. Because while it’s hunky dory for you to go “well, just asking questions!” for every one of you there are two people like you who aren’t “just asking questions” and want trans girls banned from participating in girls athletics and who encourage bullying of young trans girls.

I started my first reply with, "I think the risks could be". If you're going to be a matter of fact with everything and accusatory, we can't have a discussion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I started my first reply with, "I think the risks could be". If you're going to be a matter of fact with everything and accusatory, we can't have a discussion.

No you didn’t. You stated what the risks were:

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think the risk of allowing trans into female sports is that

A. viewers will think it's unfair and not watch, unless all the athletes in the competition are trans.
B. girls will no longer enroll in sports with no chance to win.

We can always have a discussion. You made a claim, you were asked to back it up (you couldn’t, or never intended to), and then I gave you insight as to why making unsupported claims (even imagining loose hypotheticals) does more harm than good. What is confusing about this for you?

These are real people with real lives. I understand they are just conversation topics to you, but I also think it is not too much to ask to put in an absolute minimum amount of effort to learn about people or situations you want to discuss. If you don’t want to do that, also fine, but reacting with “I guess we can’t have a discussion” when education or insight is provided is juvenile.

[GirlySports]

They may be unsupported claims to you but do you talk to parents of elite sporting girls? It's a real struggle to succeed. And people don't make decisions on the 100% perfect information. Not everything is a study or a stat.

Using Wormius' example above, if 2 of the bottom girls get squeezed out and one of them is yours, you've got a decision to make, find another team or quit.

I understand the plight of the trans athlete and they are in a no win situation right now because the rules are not clear in some sports. In fact, the onus is on the sport to ensure that the competition remains fair like UCI. And that has to be done on entry, not later when the player is dominating, to use Corsi's WTA example.

So there is some risk that people will stop watching and girls will stop playing. And yes, womens sport is growing and this issue has to be addressed without calling people transphobes. You should talk to parents, do your own study.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

They may be unsupported claims to you but do you talk to parents of elite sporting girls? It's a real struggle to succeed. And people don't make decisions on the 100% perfect information. Not everything is a study or a stat.

Using Wormius' example above, if 2 of the bottom girls get squeezed out and one of them is yours, you've got a decision to make, find another team or quit.

I understand the plight of the trans athlete and they are in a no win situation right now because the rules are not clear in some sports. In fact, the onus is on the sport to ensure that the competition remains fair like UCI. And that has to be done on entry, not later when the player is dominating, to use Corsi's WTA example.

So there is some risk that people will stop watching and girls will stop playing. And yes, womens sport is growing and this issue has to be addressed without calling people transphobes. You should talk to parents, do your own study.

Now you’re back to saying it IS a risk that needs to be addressed, so which is it?

For it to be something that needs to be addressed, you need to be able to quantify it. So, go ahead. The onus is on you to show evidence of it happening at a significant enough rate that we need to do put effort into doing something about it. Seriously, how many is too many for you? If just one cis girl doesn’t make the team she wants to make, should we making sweeping changes to the entire system to protect that one girl’s feelings? If you want to argue that, fine, but vaguely saying “there is some risk” doesn’t cut it. There is some risk you’ll die if you leave your house any given day even with the protections and laws the world offers, yet you still do it, right? So “some risk” doesn’t mean anything. And talking to random parents who don’t know anything is probably convincing for someone who doesn’t think statistics and facts have an important role in shaping policy and decision making, but in the real world, that’s not how it works.

To your last point, we disagree. Calling out transphobia is necessary even if it makes you uncomfortable or you want to live in a world where you can pretend it only exists as some vile hatred of trans people.. Making up hypothetical risks that trans girls pose to cis girls, risks that you can’t even be bothered to quantify and would even go so far as to say don’t need to be quantified to be important enough to take action, is transphobic. It just is. This issue needs to be addressed with facts, statistics, and real information. Not the imagination of transphobic parents who have no idea what they’re talking about. Sorry if you don’t like when things are described as they are or when people want facts, life must be tough.

[PepsiFree]

To put a point on it, one of the biggest reasons you need to quantify the risk is because the exact same risk (of not making a team or being able to compete, not enrolling in sports, not “watching” the sport which is a dumb risk anyway as it is not the point) exists for trans girls and their parents as it does for cis girls and their parents. So unless you are going to declare that cis girls are more important than trans girls, you better have more info than “I dunno, ask a parent.”

[afc wimbledon]

On the one hand I tend to think transgendered athletes probably do have an advantage competing against women in most sports on the other hand I don't think anyone is getting their ###### cut off just so they can win the tiny prize money and complete lack of fame that women athletes receive in virtually all sports but tennis

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Now you’re back to saying it IS a risk that needs to be addressed, so which is it?

For it to be something that needs to be addressed, you need to be able to quantify it. So, go ahead. The onus is on you to show evidence of it happening at a significant enough rate that we need to do put effort into doing something about it. Seriously, how many is too many for you? If just one cis girl doesn’t make the team she wants to make, should we making sweeping changes to the entire system to protect that one girl’s feelings? If you want to argue that, fine, but vaguely saying “there is some risk” doesn’t cut it. There is some risk you’ll die if you leave your house any given day even with the protections and laws the world offers, yet you still do it, right? So “some risk” doesn’t mean anything. And talking to random parents who don’t know anything is probably convincing for someone who doesn’t think statistics and facts have an important role in shaping policy and decision making, but in the real world, that’s not how it works.

To your last point, we disagree. Calling out transphobia is necessary even if it makes you uncomfortable or you want to live in a world where you can pretend it only exists as some vile hatred of trans people.. Making up hypothetical risks that trans girls pose to cis girls, risks that you can’t even be bothered to quantify and would even go so far as to say don’t need to be quantified to be important enough to take action, is transphobic. It just is. This issue needs to be addressed with facts, statistics, and real information. Not the imagination of transphobic parents who have no idea what they’re talking about. Sorry if you don’t like when things are described as they are or when people want facts, life must be tough.

I don't think GirlySports is being transphobic at all. I think it is a nuanced conversation that should be had without calling people names.

I'm not even sure where you are going with this. Women fought hard in the US for title ix and it has been a mostly positive thing. To my understanding, I think NCAA has rules in place that are adequate, and I think they follow along with the cycling example earlier. I think GirlySports would likely agree with that last statement as well.

So, what is your stance on this?

1. Anyone should be able to identify as the gender they identify with, and be able to play with that gender at any level.

2. Guidelines should be clear and in place for elite women sports and late teen girl sports that quantify hormone levels to be eligible.

3. Female sports are regressive and sexist, and women and men are equal and they should all play on the same field based on merit.

4. Have no rules on this at any age or level as it is too rare to be a problem and if it becomes a problem down the line, deal with it then.

[PsYcNeT]

Frankly, the Trans Women In Sports "problem" is so far down list of trans issues it shouldn't even register until, y'know, there isn't a significant segment of the population not trying to legislate them out of the public eye and another segment trying to actively drive them to suicide.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Lewis Hamilton came from a poor family. Albon's family didn't have much money, either. Alonso is from a working class family. That's 3 of 20 off the top of my head. It's generally true, yes, but any more so than, say, hockey?

Hamilton wasn’t poor growing up at least in any conventional sense of the word. His dad mortgaged his house to pay for go carting. He owned property in the UK. That immediately puts him middle class. His dad was an IT contractor. You here he worked 3 jobs and you think of this person working all night.

Essentially the poorest you can be to get into F1 is like the top end of hockey.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't think GirlySports is being transphobic at all. I think it is a nuanced conversation that should be had without calling people names.

I'm not even sure where you are going with this. Women fought hard in the US for title ix and it has been a mostly positive thing. To my understanding, I think NCAA has rules in place that are adequate, and I think they follow along with the cycling example earlier. I think GirlySports would likely agree with that last statement as well.

So, what is your stance on this?

1. Anyone should be able to identify as the gender they identify with, and be able to play with that gender at any level.

2. Guidelines should be clear and in place for elite women sports and late teen girl sports that quantify hormone levels to be eligible.

3. Female sports are regressive and sexist, and women and men are equal and they should all play on the same field based on merit.

4. Have no rules on this at any age or level as it is too rare to be a problem and if it becomes a problem down the line, deal with it then.

Part of a nuanced conversation is recognizing and correctly describing transphobia as transphobia, instead of blowing it off as “name calling” or assuming it is an insult instead of an accurate description of particular views or motivations?

You want to have a conversation where certain words or descriptions are off limits solely because you don’t like them, not because they’re offensive or hurtful or taboo. That’s different than wanting a nuanced conversation.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Part of a nuanced conversation is recognizing and correctly describing transphobia as transphobia, instead of blowing it off as “name calling” or assuming it is an insult instead of an accurate description of particular views or motivations?

You want to have a conversation where certain words or descriptions are off limits solely because you don’t like them, not because they’re offensive or hurtful or taboo. That’s different than wanting a nuanced conversation.

Have you demonstrated an ability for a nuanced conversation? You just go immediately to labels and name calling. Do you have an actual position on this? Is it one of the options I gave, or can you articulate an alternative opinion?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Frankly, the Trans Women In Sports "problem" is so far down list of trans issues it shouldn't even register until, y'know, there isn't a significant segment of the population not trying to legislate them out of the public eye and another segment trying to actively drive them to suicide.

Then shut anybody up who asks about it with a reasonable response instead of just telling them to stop asking the question.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Frankly, the Trans Women In Sports "problem" is so far down list of trans issues it shouldn't even register until, y'know, there isn't a significant segment of the population not trying to legislate them out of the public eye and another segment trying to actively drive them to suicide.

Fair enough.

But if a poster named "GirlySports" who has posted a lot on this forum over the years about female sports, and obviously has a genuine interest in them raises it as a topic that probably should have some clarity at an elite level, who does it help to call her out as transphobic?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Have you demonstrated an ability for a nuanced conversation? You just go immediately to labels and name calling. Do you have an actual position on this? Is it one of the options I gave, or can you articulate an alternative opinion?

Yeah, I have. Have you added anything of value or are you just complaining about words you don’t like? Because I’m not sure what I’m supposed to owe you or why I should entertain you. I haven’t called anyone a name or given them a label, I’ve described transphobic views and positions as transphobic. As a fan of nuance, I would’ve thought you’d appreciate the difference there, but apparently the nuance thing is just for show, right? I’m sure it’ll fool someone.

My position is incredibly simple, and it’s that policies and decisions regarding trans girls in sport should be fact-based from both a medical standpoint and the spirit of the sports themselves, not based on imagined risks and anecdotes about viewship or one girl having to move down to the B team. And further, that relying on made up risks and anecdotes that describe the danger trans girls pose to the wellness of cis girls (instead of facts and quantifiable data) is transphobic, whether you want to bitch about that word or not.

[GGG]

The important thing to remember is that this is entirely designed to make objections to trans people acceptable.

It’s very similar to how pro choice people would say you wouldn’t make a women carry a child that was the product of rape would you? The goal is to normalize that their are acceptable cases for abortion to get agreeable common ground which leads to the expansion of pro choice beliefs.

The Trans women in sports os the same. You wouldn’t want some to be disadvantaged by having to compete against trans women without any rules. Which then normalizes the discussion about the regulation of trans people. This is intentional. While at the highest levels there should be some guidelines on who is eligible (and there are) the presence of trans women in sports is not a societal crisis. So when this topic is brought up and discussed keep in mind the motivations behind people making it an issue. I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that but the reasons bathrooms, change rooms and womens athletics come up is because they are designed to make discrimination acceptable to the population.

[Wormius]

These are all hypothetical risks. There’s a non-zero risk inherent to everything, so saying there is a risk to this or a risk to that because of trans people is so incredibly disingenuous and kind of along that whole line of “just asking questions” and trying to skirt around outright bigotry.