Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by fotze2

....and definitely a contributing reason. That police tone sure made it sound like Suicide. It would be gross if they put out a not related press release if it was suicide.

That's what I'm saying and that was my read of the tea leaves as well. The reality that that is somehow a mitigating circumstance in some peoples' eyes is true "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" material.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the resistance to "giving in" on this is that's exactly what they are looking for. Slowly whittle away at it until you can make the big moves, like they did with Roe v Wade. That wasn't overturned in a day, it took decades of work.

Not sure I agree with that; the day in question was November 8, 2016.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I totally get what you are saying, and on the one hand the issue is actually more that kids are competing in hyper-competitive sports for no good healthy reason. Maybe backing off on that and just having fun sports leagues would go a lot further. But that's kinda tangential.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the resistance to "giving in" on this is that's exactly what they are looking for. Slowly whittle away at it until you can make the big moves, like they did with Roe v Wade. That wasn't overturned in a day, it took decades of work. So while you can reasonably argue some points, the big picture makes it a lot harder to say "let them have a small win." And you know damn well if the situation is reversed, their is not an inch being given, ever. They are bullies, and just like giving the bully your candy bar one time when they threatens you, it sure isn't going to stop at that.

I get that, but I think this one is different. I wouldn't give one single inch on any other part. I just happen to think they are being rational (busted clock and all) and it's the wrong take to pretend it's fair for transgender women to compete with CIS women.

It's also a rhetorical strategy to capitulate on a point you already agree with. It's the only good point they have on the whole issue, so give it to them and nothing more.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I totally get what you are saying, and on the one hand the issue is actually more that kids are competing in hyper-competitive sports for no good healthy reason. Maybe backing off on that and just having fun sports leagues would go a lot further. But that's kinda tangential.

I agree with a lot of things you say, but this is a terrible take. The problem is that some me kids try hard in sorts and take it seriously? You gotta be kidding me. All kids are different, mine are different from each other. To think that some kids are too driven in a sport is the problem in this scenario is wrong, in my opinion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Agreed.



I get that, but I think this one is different. I wouldn't give one single inch on any other part. I just happen to think they are being rational (busted clock and all) and it's the wrong take to pretend it's fair for transgender women to compete with CIS women.

It's also a rhetorical strategy to capitulate on a point you already agree with. It's the only good point they have on the whole issue, so give it to them and nothing more.

I guess that's the rub, though. I have no idea the stats, but you have to assume that the vast majority of transgender women have no advantage at all. The cases you hear about are held up as proof, but perhaps they aren't much more than the exception. Some sport bodies have deemed no need to change anything.


I guess what I'm saying is I don't have access to the type of information and expertise to make that statement or concession. Nor do I have the authority to decide such a thing, because it doesn't have anything to do with me, and could cause harm to others who are already dealing with so much. So you are asking to put that aside, and give the people who seem intent on attacking the vulnerable a win, in the hopes that they reciprocate or something? Or look worse on their other positions because they don't also have this one to fight?

[Doctorfever]

Kind of a silly take, but I’m gonna just add it here for discussion purposes.

What if there are two categories athletes compete in, biological women and “everyone else”.? There is probably a better way to make up those two categories…

Really hesitant to post this as I don’t want to seem opposed to trans people.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Kind of a silly take, but I’m gonna just add it here for discussion purposes.

What if there are two categories athletes compete in, biological women and “everyone else”.? There is probably a better way to make up those two categories…

Really hesitant to post this as I don’t want to seem opposed to trans people.

Do you accept that biological women undergoing hormone replacement therapy are allowed to compete while taking their required medication? Or would that eliminate them from both the open and female category?

I’d like to also add that the last discussion people should have around trans rights is atheletics. It’s just not a significant issue for the amount of text it consumes. The vast vast vast majority of people will never be affected. In general this is used as a wedge to justify discrimination. (I’m not saying you are doing that but that is how this discussion is used by politicians)

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you accept that biological women undergoing hormone replacement therapy are allowed to compete while taking their required medication? Or would that eliminate them from both the open and female category?

I’d like to also add that the last discussion people should have around trans rights is atheletics. It’s just not a significant issue for the amount of text it consumes. The vast vast vast majority of people will never be affected. In general this is used as a wedge to justify discrimination. (I’m not saying you are doing that but that is how this discussion is used by politicians)

Honestly, I don’t know how to answer that question. One thing is important though, nobody should be excluded (eliminated from both categories). Period.

[KelVarnsen]

Trans women are women. And they can compete as women.

Trans men are men. And they can compete as men.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you accept that biological women undergoing hormone replacement therapy are allowed to compete while taking their required medication? Or would that eliminate them from both the open and female category?

I’d like to also add that the last discussion people should have around trans rights is atheletics. It’s just not a significant issue for the amount of text it consumes. The vast vast vast majority of people will never be affected. In general this is used as a wedge to justify discrimination. (I’m not saying you are doing that but that is how this discussion is used by politicians)

This is actually my point as well. It's such a small issue, but the right wing makes it such a pillar of their arguments. I think they're right on that one small and insignificant point, so I have no problem granting them that for two reasons. One, it affects barely anybody. Two, it leaves them having to defend their bigoted views with other arguments...and there aren't any.

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Trans women are women. And they can compete as women.

Trans men are men. And they can compete as men.

Of course that's not true. That's not an argument you could never win and it diminishes all the important reasons why trans people deserve equality, respect and fair treatment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Honestly, I don’t know how to answer that question. One thing is important though, nobody should be excluded (eliminated from both categories). Period.

I think you start by thinking about what they should do on a tier 4 hockey team and don’t worry about the rest.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Agreed.



I get that, but I think this one is different. I wouldn't give one single inch on any other part. I just happen to think they are being rational (busted clock and all) and it's the wrong take to pretend it's fair for transgender women to compete with CIS women.

It's also a rhetorical strategy to capitulate on a point you already agree with. It's the only good point they have on the whole issue, so give it to them and nothing more.

You know I appreciate you, but we both know you’re being kind of disingenuous when you say “we” should give “them” this one, considering you’ve been against trans women participating in women’s sport for about as long as I can recall. Doesn’t mean I think you’re one of “them,” but on this issue you already side with them, it costs you nothing to say “we” should give it up.

The thing is, it’s not “rational.” It’s not about the sanctity of sport, fairness, or any other bull#### people are going to throw around about it. It’s symbolic. And that’s exactly why you can’t just “give it to them.”

There are a couple of points that make it very clearly symbolic and not rational or fact-based:

- the extremely low number of trans women competing in women’s sports to begin with and the complete inability to quantify the issue (most lawmakers and anti-trans activists struggle to come up with more than one anecdote, let alone a meaningful number)
- trans women, for all you know, have been competing in women’s sports for decades without anyone raising any issue, including other athletes or the governing bodies of those sports
- the objection is largely based on the sexist assumption that men are better at sports, as it is never about the specific advantages (which would apply to some women), specific sports (in which male biology would hold no advantage), nor about trans men. Instead, it comes back to basic, sexist nonsense like “it’s unfair for transgender women to compete with CIS women” based solely on the idea that when it comes to sport (any sport), any man > any woman.

So, no, nobody has to give anti-trans activists anything. Decisions around this should be rational and fact-based, like the majority already are, and not made based on the unsubstantiated and anecdotal nonsense trumpeted by anti-trans activists.

I mean, hey, someone here once suggested creating an entire prison system solely for trans women because they might be rapists. They didn’t actually care about the issue of rape in prisons, but they did care about the issue of trans women. And that’s the same here. It’s not about sport, it’s about trans women.

If you say you don’t care about sport and instead care about the LGBTQ community, your position on this is an entirely at-odds one to take.

[Slava]

^ I don’t know, I’m 100% in support of trans people, but I don’t think the issue boils down to people thinking males are better athletes. There’s a reason we have male and female categories in a lot of sports, and it’s not purely based on misogyny.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You know I appreciate you, but we both know you’re being kind of disingenuous when you say “we” should give “them” this one, considering you’ve been against trans women participating in women’s sport for about as long as I can recall. Doesn’t mean I think you’re one of “them,” but on this issue you already side with them, it costs you nothing to say “we” should give it up.

The thing is, it’s not “rational.” It’s not about the sanctity of sport, fairness, or any other bull#### people are going to throw around about it. It’s symbolic. And that’s exactly why you can’t just “give it to them.”

I mean 'we' as in a liberal minded person with a track record of advocating for equality, fairness, compassion, etc.

Yes, I do side with the right wing position of believing trans women shouldn't compete against cis women. I sincerely believe that's not transphobic and not unreasonable.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There are a couple of points that make it very clearly symbolic and not rational or fact-based:

- the extremely low number of trans women competing in women’s sports to begin with and the complete inability to quantify the issue (most lawmakers and anti-trans activists struggle to come up with more than one anecdote, let alone a meaningful number)
- trans women, for all you know, have been competing in women’s sports for decades without anyone raising any issue, including other athletes or the governing bodies of those sports
- the objection is largely based on the sexist assumption that men are better at sports, as it is never about the specific advantages (which would apply to some women), specific sports (in which male biology would hold no advantage), nor about trans men. Instead, it comes back to basic, sexist nonsense like “it’s unfair for transgender women to compete with CIS women” based solely on the idea that when it comes to sport (any sport), any man > any woman.

That's not an accurate representation of my position at all. Of course I don't have a problem with transgender women competing against cis women in sports/activities where male physiology wouldn't give an advantage. That's crazy. That would be transphobic. I'm surprised you would think I would think that.

Take bowling, darts, maybe curling, idk, things like that don't give a transgender woman an advantage over cis women. Who could possibly be against that?

My only issue is believing it is unfair for trans women to compete against cis women in circumstances where the physiology of the trans athlete provides an advantage (unsurmountable at that) over the cis woman.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, no, nobody has to give anti-trans activists anything. Decisions around this should be rational and fact-based, like the majority already are, and not made based on the unsubstantiated and anecdotal nonsense trumpeted by anti-trans activists.

I mean, hey, someone here once suggested creating an entire prison system solely for trans women because they might be rapists. They didn’t actually care about the issue of rape in prisons, but they did care about the issue of trans women. And that’s the same here. It’s not about sport, it’s about trans women.

If you say you don’t care about sport and instead care about the LGBTQ community, your position on this is an entirely at-odds one to take.

I don't have to give anti trans advocates anything, of course. But I don't have to agree with everything said by the side I generally ally with, either.

I happen to agree on this one singular point out of the thousands I disagree with. And because of that I feel like I have a little clarity on this. I believe when trans activists - who, let me be clear, are correct on 99.9% of their takes versus the bigots being correct on 0.1% of their takes - pretend there isn't a physiological advantage in sport they do a disproportionate amount of damage to their cause.

Take statements like this:

Trans women are women. And they can compete as women.

Trans men are men. And they can compete as men.

It is obtuse to pretend this is so black and white when you know the dangerous other side will eviscerate that argument, which will distract from actually pushing trans rights and acceptance forward. It's disengenous to make such a claim - unless kel wants to qualify it somehow, it's just an untrue statement. Or maybe I just don't get what it means?

Like, how can an open minded guy like me not see your perspective? Are you really saying there is no physiological difference between trans women and cis women? What? Genuinely...can somebody help me grasp that? I don't love that I'm on the side of the people I generally loath (and keep in mind, I agree with 0.1% of their position on this), but when I hear the counters to that perspective it is totally unbelievable to me.

BTW, if I'm not being sensitive enough on this please let me know and I'm perfectly willing to just read the thread.

[Icantwhisper]

Cycling has already taken a stance.
Any transgender male to female who transitioned after puberty cannot race in the biological female category.
Good news is they have changed the men's category to men/open, anyone is welcome as long as you can post race results that qualify you.

"has taken note of the state of scientific knowledge, which does not confirm that at least two years of gender-affirming hormone therapy with a target plasma testosterone concentration of 2.5 nmol/L is sufficient to completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men."

[Icantwhisper]

Nm

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Kind of a silly take, but I’m gonna just add it here for discussion purposes.

What if there are two categories athletes compete in, biological women and “everyone else”.? There is probably a better way to make up those two categories…

Really hesitant to post this as I don’t want to seem opposed to trans people.

Too late cycling already adopted that and swimming I believe is close. Other athletics will follow soon.

[Derek Sutton]

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2024/0...davidson-lpga/

This was just a few weeks ago, involving someone who transitioned later in life and played male the collegiate level. It’s not like she is taking a job or any sort of significant pay check away from other women but would be interesting not see how it plays out should she qualify for an LPGA tournament.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I don’t know, I’m 100% in support of trans people, but I don’t think the issue boils down to people thinking males are better athletes. There’s a reason we have male and female categories in a lot of sports, and it’s not purely based on misogyny.

The reason actually is based purely on misogyny. Look up the origins of why separate leagues were created and the history of womens’ sport.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Like, how can an open minded guy like me not see your perspective? Are you really saying there is no physiological difference between trans women and cis women? What? Genuinely...can somebody help me grasp that? I don't love that I'm on the side of the people I generally loath (and keep in mind, I agree with 0.1% of their position on this), but when I hear the counters to that perspective it is totally unbelievable to me.

BTW, if I'm not being sensitive enough on this please let me know and I'm perfectly willing to just read the thread.

It’s not that there is no difference, but that the differences between men and women generally (especially when you factor in different things like hormone therapy) are exaggerated compared to the differences that also exist between different men (for example).

Men don’t have a blanket advantage in sport. And I’m not just talking about non-physical sports like darts (though you should probably question why you only named completely non-physical sports). Read through this: [ur]https://www.sapiens.org/biology/female-male-athletes-differences/[/url]

Again, I just think it’s a load of crap to paint this as anything but targeted against trans women. Same with the bathroom stuff. Same with prison stuff. People don’t care about cis women or sports. In fact, people will rely on antiquated, misogynistic beliefs about women and men to create these generalities that just don’t hold up, or worse, think saying “it’s not just misogyny” makes it better. I mean wow, it’s better because it’s misogyny AND something else? Nice!

Trans people existed and played sports long before anyone cared what sport they played and with who. And the people crying about fairness don’t seem to care about creating basketball leagues for short people, right? Should the NBA ban men over a certain height? Shouldn’t it be fair?

If the goal is to unearth and remove any unfair physical advantages in sport, it seems extremely bizarre to focus on trans women, a microscopically small source of any even potential physical advantages that could exist.

[Doctorfever]

Nm

[CliffFletcher]

It’s cynical of politicians to call for legislation banning transgendered women from competing with natal women when sporting bodies themselves are already doing so on their own. Cynical, but also shrewd politics, as a recent poll shows fewer than 20 per cent of Canadians feel transgendered women should be allowed to compete in sports and athletics against natal women.

World Athletics (track and field), World Aquatics, and the International Cycling Union have already banned trangendered women who underwent puberty as boys from competing against natal women. Other sporting bodies are likely to follow suit. They reached their decisions after not only examining the scientific literature, but after consulting with the key stakeholders - natal women in competitive sport.

As for the idea that the difference in athletic capability between boys and girls is exaggerated, it’s more the case that our ideals lead us to underestimate them.

My daughter has been playing competitive basketball since she was 10. In community leagues, summer camps, and junior high and high school teams. In spite of her experience, fitness, and skill, she can’t compete at basketball against guys who play at the local courts for fun, let alone boys who play on teams. Last semester, her high school phys-ed class was coed, and the students were free to choose between several concurrent options during class. Despite being on the girls’ basketball team, she did not ever choose basketball as her class activity. Not a single girl did. Because it would not have been at all fun for them to play against boys.

That’s an anecdote. Here’s a stat. In 1988, Florence Griffith-Joyner set a world record in the women’s 100m. Her 10.49 is one of the great and enduring records in athletics. No woman has come close to beating it since. Every year, dozens of teenage boys in the U.S. beat that time at high school track meets. In some state high school meets, every boy in the final beats 10.49.