Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[PepsiFree]

It’s a wonder why trans women don’t hold every female category sporting record with how absolutely dominant even measly boys are against female olympic athletes.

The International Chess Federation also banned trans women from competing against women because… I don’t know… they can lift the pieces off the board easier with all their big muscles? I guess if governing bodies are doing it, it must be shrewd and based on science, says the board’s most outspoken critic of transgender people.

[The Fonz]

Genuine question for you Pepsi, would you be in favor of eliminating the male/female categories and moving toward 1 simplified category, "Open"?

[PsYcNeT]

I for one think it's extremely likely and common that someone would go through years of hormone therapy just to place 5th in a Women's competition.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I for one think it's extremely likely and common that someone would go through years of hormone therapy just to place 5th in a Women's competition.

I think that it is a pitfall to hyper focus on "elite" sports. To me the primary concern is with community level minor sports. I am not going to pretend that I have an answer or that I have a horse in the race, but I 100% think that people should be having these conversations.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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

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.

Question why I only picked non-physical sports? What's there to question? I picked those because women get creamed by men in physical ones

Yes, the focus on trans women in sports is microscopically small, we agree. That's why liberal-minded people are doing a disservice to the more important issues by pretending this isn't ridiculous to pretend there isn't an advantage for trans women. There just is.

And if we can't take drugs to improve our physicality, then I'm not sure de-tuning our bodies with hormones is any better. You can't de-tune an athletic man down to the maximum of a cis woman. Maybe performance-altering drugs in sports are just a don't go there?

To me this isn't about women in sports. I dgaf about any sports. I just like honesty and I think the arguments pretending trans women don't have an advantage in sports are ridiculous and a distraction. I don't like that the right wing is playing the left for fools by baiting them into defending an untenable position and the left is falling for it.

And yeah, we're tall. We'll never be horse jockeys. Not everyone can do everything. Sometimes if you were born a man you can't compete against women in weight lifting. I'm okay with that and I don't think it's anti-anything to hold that opinion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Genuine question for you Pepsi, would you be in favor of eliminating the male/female categories and moving toward 1 simplified category, "Open"?

I don’t see the value in any wide-scale, foundational changes at the professional/elite level.

As I said earlier, the issue isn’t so much a practical or rational one as it is a symbolic one. The prevalence of trans athletes when compared to cis athletes is so small that I believe it could far more easily be solved on a case by case and sport by sport basis. And, if we’re going to solve it on a case by case basis, whether certain sports set limits based on particular biological or physical characteristics, then it should apply equally to men, women, and trans folk.

There’s no science to back up blanket bans, and certainly none that justify bans in “sports” like chess and fishing.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t see the value in any wide-scale, foundational changes at the professional/elite level.

As I said earlier, the issue isn’t so much a practical or rational one as it is a symbolic one. The prevalence of trans athletes when compared to cis athletes is so small that I believe it could far more easily be solved on a case by case and sport by sport basis. And, if we’re going to solve it on a case by case basis, whether certain sports set limits based on particular biological or physical characteristics, then it should apply equally to men, women, and trans folk.

There’s no science to back up blanket bans, and certainly none that justify bans in “sports” like chess and fishing.

is there any instance of this?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

is there any instance of this?

Of what?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think that it is a pitfall to hyper focus on "elite" sports. To me the primary concern is with community level minor sports. I am not going to pretend that I have an answer or that I have a horse in the race, but I 100% think that people should be having these conversations.

Community level sports should all be co-ed imo, and if it's considered a "competitive" sport or a sport that leads to elite level competition then I'm fine with the authoritative body imposing some kind of hormone level requirements on transgender participants.

"Birthsex" categorization however is dumb, unless you want transmen competing in Women's competitions. Non-physical "sports" being segregated (for any reason) is also stupid.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Community level sports should all be co-ed imo, and if it's considered a "competitive" sport or a sport that leads to elite level competition then I'm fine with the authoritative body imposing some kind of hormone level requirements on transgender participants.

"Birthsex" categorization however is dumb, unless you want transmen competing in Women's competitions. Non-physical "sports" being segregated (for any reason) is also stupid.

I don't think grade 7 girls want to play volleyball against grade 7 boys. I don't think boys care if they play against grade 7 girls. *It goes without saying that some girls prefer to play against boys.*

There is a reason that there are women only leagues. They want to play with and against women. Co ed sports are tons of fun. I have played hockey, slowpitch, soccer, football with girls and women. Sometimes ( often), they are much better than me at that sport. No big deal. But sometimes, I am so much better than them that it ####ing sucks for them, and therefore, they don't want to play against me. These days womens leagues are made to exclude men, not because men are excluding women.

I don't think that women are being bigots if they dont want to play against non gender conforming athletes or trans people. Thats a big if, because maybe they dont care. But if they do care, then they should be protected from criticism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Question why I only picked non-physical sports? What's there to question? I picked those because women get creamed by men in physical ones

Yes, the focus on trans women in sports is microscopically small, we agree. That's why liberal-minded people are doing a disservice to the more important issues by pretending this isn't ridiculous to pretend there isn't an advantage for trans women. There just is.

And if we can't take drugs to improve our physicality, then I'm not sure de-tuning our bodies with hormones is any better. You can't de-tune an athletic man down to the maximum of a cis woman. Maybe performance-altering drugs in sports are just a don't go there?

To me this isn't about women in sports. I dgaf about any sports. I just like honesty and I think the arguments pretending trans women don't have an advantage in sports are ridiculous and a distraction. I don't like that the right wing is playing the left for fools by baiting them into defending an untenable position and the left is falling for it.

And yeah, we're tall. We'll never be horse jockeys. Not everyone can do everything. Sometimes if you were born a man you can't compete against women in weight lifting. I'm okay with that and I don't think it's anti-anything to hold that opinion.

I’m a little disappointed that you don’t seem to actually be open to listening to and thinking about the issue, so I don’t see much value in continuing the conversation with you. Feel free to call me a dishonest, ridiculous fool all you want, I guess, but I don’t think advocating for specific, science-based approaches to fairness in sports instead of blanket bans on trans people is any of those things.

Limits on testosterone levels, which has a direct correlation with the physical advantages that men may have over women in certain sports, is an approach that actually attempts to draw a line on what is fair. Medical experts recognize that women (who were born women) that have exceedingly high testosterone levels may have the same physical advantages over women that fall in the normal range as men with average testosterone levels do. Setting a limit on those levels for elite competition excludes some trans women, sure, but it also excludes some cis women. If you want to talk about fair, that’s the kind of conversation you have. If you want to exclude trans women solely on the basis of them having transitioned and nothing else, then you’re not talking about “fair” or “honesty,” you’re taking an anti-trans position.

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I don't think that women are being bigots if they dont want to play against non gender conforming athletes or trans people. Thats a big if, because maybe they dont care. But if they do care, then they should be protected from criticism.

If women don’t want to compete against trans people then we should absolutely be critical of that desire.

The idea that both trans men and trans women, and those who are non gender conforming should be excluded based solely on those factors and not on any biological, chemical, or physical basis is ridiculous.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

You just wait until Men start dominating Bake Offs! Then we'll see the real outrage!

Funny you say that but in various target shooting disciplines women’s divisions were created when women started becoming competitive and winning.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

Funny you say that but in various target shooting disciplines women’s divisions were created when women started becoming competitive and winning.

Yeah, in some cases I agree with Sliver. I dont understand the segregation of certain 'non-strength-related' events.

Target shooting? I dont see why that needs to be split up.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If women don’t want to compete against trans people then we should absolutely be critical of that desire.

The idea that both trans men and trans women, and those who are non gender conforming should be excluded based solely on those factors and not on any biological, chemical, or physical basis is ridiculous.

I think you are correct with respect to other leagues, that said, some women's leagues already explicitly excludes an entire sex. It is a league built on the differences between men, and women in sports. I don't think that there is a problem with that. It isn't a trans, or LBGTQ thing in every instance( though everyone needs to admit that for some people it is 100% about that). Some women chose to make their own league because they didn't want to play co-ed. This is different than other instances of segregation in sports.

In all, I think that the issue is marginal, because any athlete who is good enough would want to compete against their peers. Still, in the rare circumstance that someone does play womens sports out of principal and ruins the spirit of competition, the league should be able to ask them to play in a different league without criticism.

I look at it like when I play seniors hockey, there is an implicate understanding that I will not skate as hard as I can ( would like to). If I did they would ask me not to come back until I am ready to play slow.

[photon]

To me a separate category just feels like a separate water fountain or seating area at a diner.

What makes the difference between the people at varying levels in their sports? Seems like it's the sum of genetics and training. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their genes. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their access to training (can do it full time, better coaches, better facilities, whatever). Isn't a trans woman just coming to their supposed advantage via a different route than what we're used to?

Was there ever a time when there was a desire to have different categories based on race because people of one race had an advantage?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think you are correct with respect to other leagues, that said, some women's leagues already explicitly excludes an entire sex. It is a league built on the differences between men, and women in sports. I don't think that there is a problem with that. It isn't a trans, or LBGTQ thing in every instance( though everyone needs to admit that for some people it is 100% about that). Some women chose to make their own league because they didn't want to play co-ed. This is different than other instances of segregation in sports.

In all, I think that the issue is marginal, because any athlete who is good enough would want to compete against their peers. Still, in the rare circumstance that someone does play womens sports out of principal and ruins the spirit of competition, the league should be able to ask them to play in a different league without criticism.

I look at it like when I play seniors hockey, there is an implicate understanding that I will not skate as hard as I can ( would like to). If I did they would ask me not to come back until I am ready to play slow.

I think this is totally fair, so long as trans people are not singled out. And I like your analogy to the seniors league.

I’m not arguing for dismantling women’s sport or ignoring all biological differences between competitors. If an athlete in a women’s competition, trans or cis, has an observable and significant advantage over their competitors due to something like significantly higher testosterone levels, I think removing them from competition is fair, and I think elite athletes would agree.

Just make it a case by case basis, and if limits are required to ensure fairness, make them apply to cis women and trans women equally. That’s at least an attempt at fairness, to me.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by photon

To me a separate category just feels like a separate water fountain or seating area at a diner.

What makes the difference between the people at varying levels in their sports? Seems like it's the sum of genetics and training. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their genes. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their access to training (can do it full time, better coaches, better facilities, whatever). Isn't a trans woman just coming to their supposed advantage via a different route than what we're used to?

Was there ever a time when there was a desire to have different categories based on race because people of one race had an advantage?

I think its more like dividing people by age, which sports already does. If you're 16 you can't play against people who are 12, but a 12 year old if they were good enough might want to play against 16 year olds.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think this is totally fair, so long as trans people are not singled out. And I like your analogy to the seniors league.

I’m not arguing for dismantling women’s sport or ignoring all biological differences between competitors. If an athlete in a women’s competition, trans or cis, has an observable and significant advantage over their competitors due to something like significantly higher testosterone levels, I think removing them from competition is fair, and I think elite athletes would agree.

Just make it a case by case basis, and if limits are required to ensure fairness, make them apply to cis women and trans women equally. That’s at least an attempt at fairness, to me.

Yeah case by case is the only solution. Trouble is parents of children in sports are CRAZY. like insane, almost bad people they care so much. So yeah, its going to be a horrible #### show. You already hear about parents questioning girls who are reallly good at sports gender.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The International Chess Federation also banned trans women from competing against women because… I don’t know… they can lift the pieces off the board easier with all their big muscles?

Oddly, it is actually the reality that men are better than women at chess on average, with no woman ever being remotely competitive at the highest level. There has been a long debate that as far as I know remains unresolved about where there are biological / neurological reasons for that, in addition to the obvious "larger pool of players to draw from" factor.

Honestly, this competitive imbalance issue only seems to me to matter when we're talking about the top echelons of women's sports (at whatever age bracket). And hilariously, this is the only context in which the vast majority of the people who are really, really upset about this care in any way about women's sports.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by photon

To me a separate category just feels like a separate water fountain or seating area at a diner.

What makes the difference between the people at varying levels in their sports? Seems like it's the sum of genetics and training. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their genes. There's always been people who can achieve more because of their access to training (can do it full time, better coaches, better facilities, whatever). Isn't a trans woman just coming to their supposed advantage via a different route than what we're used to?

Was there ever a time when there was a desire to have different categories based on race because people of one race had an advantage?

I'm not sure I understand your position here.

I am 100% in favour of segregated sports where it involves strength and certain conditions.

I've played enough Co-Ed sports to know...its not always great to mix the genders.

Take Soccer, which I'm most familiar with. I've played with a handful of women whom I wouldnt hesitate to say were far more skilled than I was. But if it wasn't Rec you'd never get a chance to use that skill because I'm faster and stronger and I'd run you down in no time and tackle you.

You going to stand in front of the net and block my shot? I sincerely doubt it.

The US Women's National Soccer team lost to a group of retired players. The Canadian National Hockey team loses to 15-year olds.

In some cases there is a reason for the split, and in others I dont think there should be.