iNow

Not really, or at least it shouldn’t be. These have only been mentioned to show in simplest terms the rather remedial flaws in the position of those here falsely arguing that XX and XY are all there is and that “science says there’s only TWO sexes!!!1!12!one!!” If fairness is the goal, why not rid ourselves of gender distinctions entirely and set our class systems in the various strength-based sports based on measurable things like testosterone levels and amount of weight that can be lifted/pushed/pulled as appropriate for the sport? Then qualification is based on something more fair for everyone, and not the mere absence of testicles or chest hair. Any person can compete in any division of their choosing. They self select where to compete and in which class, and they just need to meet the requirements of that class. We can no longer care about which plumbing they happen to have in the nether regions or whether they can pee standing up. Instead, we could look at threshold skill levels and other things like hormone concentrations. After that, doesn’t matter if we call the athlete male or female or other. They’re simply “qualified for this class / division” or they are not. Done! I don’t understand why people think this has to be so hard or intractable.

I wasn’t exactly fishing for compliments, but there’s no need to cast me aside like that

Tying all this talk back to the thread, I feel that issues like transgendered athletes are lures cast into social media by bad actors and bottom feeders to bait us all into choppy waters. They’re basically chumming and dredging with small insignificant issues so we become distracted and don’t focus on more important things or focus on their wrongdoings and the way they rig the system. Too often we oblige and get reeled in and fall for it hook, line, and sinker. I don’t think it needs to be this hard, though. Letting the trans athletes compete may feel like swimming against the current, but the tributaries are likely to be fertile and the lakes well stocked if we allow it.

Maybe not where YOU live 🙄

Which, as you may understand, makes dialog with you on possible paths forward rather challenging and frustrating. Some of us would like a better solution than “let them have their own separate water fountains.”

Thank you. I did see that. It was interesting, but I struggled to accept it as a non biased source when they did things like calling the existing rules delusional and unfair. They even mentioned the “parade of horribles” which would likely ensue as nations would begin “coercing” their male athletes to falsely declare themselves as female before competitions in order to secure trophies, etc. I was reminded of comments in gay marriage threads where people would ask, “what’s next, letting humans marry their dogs?” It strongly implied to me that the author had an agenda and needed to be read with a grain of salt. Yes, I would prefer an actual study with actual evidence that’s been peer-reviewed… something that goes beyond an anecdote from an opinion writer. Note: They do reference testosterone levels. As I think has already been mentioned here, we could eliminate differentiation by gender/sex altogether and class groups by serum testosterone amounts regardless of the XX XY etc makeup. There are better paths available.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you’d like to share some peer reviewed articles about the scope and scale of the problem… real-world examples of the disadvantages cisgendered female athletes are facing in athletics due specifically to the six (tee hee ) trans athletes competing against them, then I’d be happy to review it and possibly reconsider my stance... Ideally something more than the fictional examples of Mike Tyson putting on a dress or people with robotic arms in the Olympics as have thus far been provided. Until then, I’ll simply need to accept your disapproval of me and perhaps comfort myself in the recognition that I’m almost certainly once again on the right side of history with my current stance on this topic (much like I was on the right side with gay marriage, civil rights, universal healthcare, climate change, evolution, and other similar topics where one side is very clearly right and the other side is very clearly wrong).

QFT Repeating an invalid claim doesn’t magically make it true.

Since February

No. That is rather obviously not the proposal to which I was responding.

My focus was on the separate but equal treatment being suggested. MtF and FtM as separate categories was the part to which I was responding. I’m saying the responses are similar not that the topics are the same. “You want to compete? Okay, but you can’t join any of the others and you must wear this yellow star on your armband.” “You want to marry? Okay, but it can’t be called a marriage. It must be a civil union.”

That is not what I said. Not at all. I’ve already clarified this for you more than once, yet you persist in your misrepresentation. It’s as if I’d said, “This is a lovely home. It reminds me of my grandmothers house,” and you replied, “I’ve never lived with your grandmother. I don’t even know her. Why are you lying? What’s wrong with you?” Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

This is an extremely common talking point shared by the misinformed, but it’s wrong. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ I’ve done both. Thx coach

Thanks for sharing that lovely insight. That remains irrelevant to my point and it seems clear you’re refusing to argue in good faith.

It’s called a comparison. A suggestion of similarity. This isn’t exactly rocket science.

I have no idea and it’s irrelevant to my point

Yes. Accept them as women, because they are. Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal.

So you see? The suggestion that reading comprehension challenges might be at play is an observation, and a well founded one at that. It’s also giving you the benefit of the doubt since the only other explanation is that you are PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the views of other. No, I don’t think that’s what you’re doing. I think you’re misunderstanding what others are saying. I’m suggesting this based on a consistent pattern throughout. Not an attack. Not an ad hom. An observation based on a consistent pattern of evidence. I hope this helps. That’s fine and I accept your concession. It’s really a shame though as I’d much rather we find common ground and help each other improve our stances and sharpen our viewpoints. On another note, I do love how you accuse me of condescension then in the next sentence suggest I’m immature (as a debater or otherwise). Fun times

It’s really not. You continue misusing that term. It is not an ad hom no matter how many times you repeat yourself claiming otherwise. How about this… Consider my mention of “comprehension challenges” as an observation based on the evidence available; a sincere attempt to better understand why this discussion with you feels so consistently full of friction. Please try not to consider it as an attack on you because it simply is not, nor is it an attempt to bolster my own position with fallacious logic. It’s simply the only way we can reasonably explain why so very many interactions with you here seem to go so unnecessarily and so consistently sideways (that and your needlessly combative nature), and I’m hardly the only one who’s noticed: EDIT: Continued below. My intent to merge posts failed when x-posting with our good man, joigus

Enjoy the show when all 2 of them ultimately decide to compete? 😂

I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected. I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless.

I think the better question perhaps is why can’t you see that gender divisions / classes and how trans humans interact with those is equally arbitrary… just like ALL rules in ALL sports which are arbitrary, too.

I hear ya, but this stance reminds me of folks asking why there’s no White History Month, or able-bodied folks moaning about lots having handicapped parking spaces, or people being confused about why we celebrate Jackie Robinson. As I said before, trans athletes are already competing. They have been for decades too, even if the issue “feels” new to many folks today. That fact alone should change the framing in peoples minds about this. If, however, it doesn’t then the core issue now IMO becomes whether we’re going to continue forcing them to hide and pretend and be inauthentic with themselves and with us as passive spectators when they do, or whether we’re going to keep treating “them” as separate and different.

Remind me never to buy a cliffs notes summary that you’ve authored. That’s a bit like saying Huckleberry Finn is a book mostly about boats. 😂

Unless you’re intentionally misreading me, then this suggests likely challenges with reading comprehension. I do not think that word means what you think it means. The assertion about that being an ad hom is about as valid as when you claimed this was your thread.