Transgender athletes

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

Classic false dichotomy. And anyway, joining you would not alter the facts.

One more convert doesn't make Christianity right. There either was a son of god called Jesus, or there wasn't. Repeating it fervently over and over doesn't alter the facts in the slightest.

And the same applies to the transgender question. Constantly repeating that gender reassignment procedures turn men into real women is just like praying. It doesn't affect reality in the slightest. 

We should start calling you Reg, for comic affect...

 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Then why have categories?

Because most people fit neatly and trans people fit nearly...

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Then why do males who feel they have been born in the wrong body want so desperately to become women?

It's hypocritical and inconsistent. 

1. There is no such thing as binary sex just a spectrum
2. Some people born male want to become female 

Your going to have to explain this, you seem to be contradicting yourself; earlier you said you could empathise with them???

 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I oppose making sporting events unfair and boring

Be fair, most playing field's are meant to be level, it's not their fault they're boring...

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Funny how all of a sudden when suits a person's opinion, beliefs and feelings matter in science? Yet if I claimed that aliens are real, and that I was born a human but really I should have been an alien. You would then quickly dismiss this as nonsense, show us the evidence, you need therapy... 

Double standards.

No it's not!!! they're not asking you to believe them, they just ask that you accept them; and I'm struggling to understand why the defence, singularly refuse's to do so, it makes no sense, it's not rational... 😣

Page 68, "Is the parrot dead yet?"...

Edited July 19, 2023 by dimreepr

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Then why have categories? Then why do males who feel they have been born in the wrong body want so desperately to become women?

It's hypocritical and inconsistent. 

1. There is no such thing as binary sex just a spectrum
2. Some people born male want to become female 

What does this have to do with what I said?

 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

Yeah sure.

All the nonsense that is being shoved down peoples throats, that is nothing more than a cry for attention and getting rather tedious and boring and promotes nothing positive in society, but actually encourages more contempt and resentment.

This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps you could use another word, rather than appropriating it.

Personally I think eliminating prejudice and discrimination is a positive in society.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Lets focus on things that really matter like saving our planet, saving near on extinct species, famine, poverty, disease... sustainability for the human race. Kindness & harmony in society, real equality & inclusion...

Real equality and inclusion should include sex and gender.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Or shall we continue to pander to attention seeking people who have nothing else to worry about? Do you think the starving poverty stricken dying people in third world countries give a flying f about people who are complaining about wanting to be identified as "they"? 

Given that trans people are shunned, beaten and killed, I’d say they are not folks who have “nothing else to worry about”

Sports is just one area of inclusion that’s become a focus, and used by some as the scapegoat du jour; other minority groups used in the past have gained acceptance, so it’s not as effective in stirring up the emotions of the masses. 

But you could look at this from the other perspective - why are we paying attention to the folks who have nothing better to do than stirring up trouble for people who haven’t done them any harm?

 

 

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Lets focus on things that really matter like saving our planet, saving near on extinct species, famine, poverty, disease... sustainability for the human race. Kindness & harmony in society, real equality & inclusion...

I encounter this argument against a variety of reforms.  The underlying logic seems to be that only some kinds of problems are worth solving.  E.g. let's withdraw money for treating depression, because they're fine physically and other people are starving or sick.  They should just grow a pair and quit whining.  

You see the flaw there?  Just because you don't experience a certain category of suffering doesn't mean it's not a real problem for someone else.  Human life can't be reduced to one short menu of problems.  If I send money to the Nature Conservancy, it's because preserving wild lands is important to me and I believe it's critical to keeping the planet sustainable, it doesn't mean I don't care about discrimination or food insecurity or malaria.  

[iNow]

^ +1

Just logged in to say the same thing. Just bc something is not a problem for one of us personally does NOT mean it isn’t a problem for others who are being systematically targeted, excluded, and scapegoated across society merely for openly being the most authentic versions of themselves. 

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Funny how all of a sudden when suits a person's opinion, beliefs and feelings matter in science? Yet if I claimed that aliens are real, and that I was born a human but really I should have been an alien. You would then quickly dismiss this as nonsense, show us the evidence, you need therapy... 

Double standards.

Don't be ridiculous. If the target of the scientific observation is the person himself, then of course you can use all evidence about that person. You are essentially saying that if a person goes to a doctor complaining of depression or anxiety, the doctor should not consider the patient's feeling of depression and anxiety when making a diagnosis.

[Janus]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does this have to do with what I said?

 

This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination.

 

In fact, according to a recent poll, in the US, a solid majority of people see the term "woke" in a positive light.  It is only a vocal minority that tries to paint it as being negative. 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yet there is lots of media exposure & fuss on transgender rights, but we are to dismiss the rights of those affected by this.

Again, that media exposure on transgender rights is driven by the fact that there are group and political bodies that are working to take those rights away.

For example, I am of Finnish decent. As such, I am part of a small minority in the US (~0.2% of the population). Yet you don't hear about a push for "Finnish rights" in the media, for the very basic reason that there is no major attempt right now to take rights away from Finnish-Americans. ( Though this was not always the case)

[mistermack]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You’ve yet to comprehensively define what a real man or woman is (and good luck with that - talk about a false dichotomy!)

Clever use of the word "comprehensively". ( I would say devious ). I have covered that. Have you? Where is your "comprehensive definition" ? 

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

This is a straw man argument - nobody has asserted this -  there is no such insistence on “real” men and women supported by science. To cast the argument this way misses the whole point, starting with the confusing of sex and gender.

Where have I done that? Citation please. It's you who've missed the point. Confusing sex and gender is what I'm arguing against, you appear to have missed that. 

I've made the point that sex is a characteristic indicated by scientific analysis of physical facts. ie genes. Whereas gender is what you choose to present as, and what you feel you are. What's wrong with that? 

And here's what Richard Dawkins said on the subject : " In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”"

My point has always been that "real woman" is not a matter of self-identification, it's a matter of chromosomes, but I'm happy to call my trans friend "she" for the same reason as Dawkins. 

And I stated earlier, if trans women are real women, then they have every right to compete against other women without any hormone, chemical or physical treatments. Of course they are, as real women.

But of course, that opens the door for ANY MAN to declare himself a woman, and take the top womens prizes. 

So let's hear an actual position from you. (For a change)  If there is no such thing as a real woman, support that with argument, rather than just your vague and evasive "nobody has asserted this" because it's the essence of the differences on this subject.

Edited July 19, 2023 by mistermack

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Clever use of the word "comprehensively". ( I would say devious ). I have covered that. Have you? Where is your "comprehensive definition" ? 

You’ve covered the fact that you have no definition, and I’m not claiming there is one.

Without a definition, any assertion about “real” men or women is a bad-faith argument

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Where have I done that? Citation please. It's you who've missed the point. Confusing sex and gender is what I'm arguing against, you appear to have missed that. 

I've made the point that sex is a characteristic indicated by scientific analysis of physical facts. ie genes. Whereas gender is what you choose to present as, and what you feel you are. What's wrong with that? 

Because the thread is about gender (specifically, transgender), so sex is moot, and yet you keep referring to it.

 

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And here's what Richard Dawkins said on the subject : " In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”"

My point has always been that "real woman" is not a matter of self-identification, it's a matter of chromosomes, but I'm happy to call my trans friend "she" for the same reason as Dawkins. 

And I stated earlier, if trans women are real women, then they have every right to compete against other women without any hormone, chemical or physical treatments. Of course they are, as real women.

But of course, that opens the door for ANY MAN to declare himself a woman, and take the top womens prizes. 

Which is a slippery-slope argument. It’s not like cheating and/or subterfuge is a new thing. No matter what set of rules are adopted, there will be people who try to cheat, so potential cheating isn’t a legitimate reason for not adopting a rule.

 

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So let's hear an actual position from you. (For a change)

Any attempt to divide sex or gender into two categories will fail, because there will always be exceptions. It is, as I already stayed, a false dichotomy. The evidence for this has been presented in the thread more than once.

Beyond that, my position is that your claims are largely unsupported.

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 If there is no such thing as a real woman, support that with argument, rather than just your vague and evasive "nobody has asserted this" because it's the essence of the differences on this subject.

If someone other than you has asserted this, feel free to point out where. 

I think one of the differences here are things that some people want to be true, but can’t actually support with science or evidence, and the people asking for that evidence. 

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Janus said:

In fact, according to a recent poll, in the US, a solid majority of people see the term "woke" in a positive light.  It is only a vocal minority that tries to paint it as being negative. 

I'm glad to hear this. I don't understand those who view waking up to social injustices as a bad thing, but I've never been in the "ignorance is bliss" camp either. 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

My point has always been that "real woman" is not a matter of self-identification, it's a matter of chromosomes,

So a person with gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrome, fully developed female genitalia but XY karyotype) a real woman? Or a real man? Or do you consider them fake somehow? 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's you who've missed the point. Confusing sex and gender is what I'm arguing against, you appear to have missed that.

No it's not, you're arguing for the status quo to be kept sacred; the one where society determines your gender, or sex if you prefer, with a quick glance between the leg's of a newborn baby, even the doc's that need glasses are believed, almost, without exception.

And common sense prevails (🙏), I understand that it's hard to 'imagine'... the possibility that some sense is uncommon, some people are just not suitable for the Olympics, I guess... 😉

 

 

 

[Intoscience]

On 7/19/2023 at 1:53 PM, swansont said:

This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps you could use another word, rather than appropriating it.

Personally I think eliminating prejudice and discrimination is a positive in society

I know what woke means and you know exactly what I was pointing to wards but as usual just like many other posters on this thread you skirt around, ignore the point i allude to and throw it back at me to make me look like some bigot, or ignoramus.

 

On 7/19/2023 at 1:53 PM, swansont said:

Real equality and inclusion should include sex and gender.

No one is arguing this, the argument is about how we should consolidate sex and gender when they are conflicting. And how we can accommodate this in society, in a fair and inclusive manner. 

On 7/19/2023 at 11:46 AM, dimreepr said:

No it's not!!! they're not asking you to believe them, they just ask that you accept them; and I'm struggling to understand why the defence, singularly refuse's to do so, it makes no sense, it's not rational

Yes it is, I'm happy to respect their choice of identity, but why should i accept something that is non factual? If I want to identify as a dog then i would hope people would respect this and identify me as such. This doesn't change the fact that I'm a human not a dog. 

On 7/19/2023 at 1:53 PM, swansont said:

Given that trans people are shunned, beaten and killed, I’d say they are not folks who have “nothing else to worry about”

citation please. 

Show me some factual evidence that trans people are targeted above any other.  People are beaten and killed al over the world for all sorts of reasons. Maybe in the US trans murder is rife? 

On 7/19/2023 at 2:57 PM, TheVat said:

I encounter this argument against a variety of reforms.  The underlying logic seems to be that only some kinds of problems are worth solving.  E.g. let's withdraw money for treating depression, because they're fine physically and other people are starving or sick.  They should just grow a pair and quit whining.  

You see the flaw there?  Just because you don't experience a certain category of suffering doesn't mean it's not a real problem for someone else.  Human life can't be reduced to one short menu of problems.  If I send money to the Nature Conservancy, it's because preserving wild lands is important to me and I believe it's critical to keeping the planet sustainable, it doesn't mean I don't care about discrimination or food insecurity or malaria.  

What are you talking about?? 

I was pointing out that some problems are far more pressing than others and if aren't dealt with sooner rather than later there won't be anyone around to complain anyhow.  I'm talking about focus and appropriately actioning by priority. 

This doesn't mean other issue should be ignored it just means some are greater than others and more of a threat to the planet and society in general.  

On 7/19/2023 at 2:59 PM, iNow said:

Just logged in to say the same thing. Just bc something is not a problem for one of us personally does NOT mean it isn’t a problem for others who are being systematically targeted, excluded, and scapegoated across society merely for openly being the most authentic versions of themselves

No one is talking about exclusion in the way you are referring. As you well know!!!

Yet another example of missing the point and twisting to make those who disagree with you look bad! 

Some very sly and devious posting going on now. 

On 7/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, zapatos said:

Don't be ridiculous. If the target of the scientific observation is the person himself, then of course you can use all evidence about that person. You are essentially saying that if a person goes to a doctor complaining of depression or anxiety, the doctor should not consider the patient's feeling of depression and anxiety when making a diagnosis.

Nope I'm saying that person has a mental health issue and they should be treated and cared for accordingly. That was my whole point. You have totally missed it. 

If I believe I was born in the wrong body and I want to be my authentic self then we all agree that we should respect my identity choice. But should this automatically qualify me for the rights of my identity choice if those rights affect other's? 

It's double standards and inconsistent. 

• If I'm a man who believes and identifies as a woman I'm free to enter any women's category
• If I'm a man who believes and identifies as a child I'm not free to enter any child's category

In fact I'll take it one step further and say that most psychological experts would regard my choice of identity as a child to be a mental health issue. 

I have a condition called body dysmorphia where I see myself differently than others and what I actually am. Many people suffer from this and similar. These conditions are regarded as mental health issues. 

On 7/19/2023 at 7:29 AM, Intoscience said:

• Define the difference between male & female
• If there is no difference explain to me why the term male & female exist
• Define the difference between man & woman
• If there is no difference then explain to me what the term man & woman represent
• Assuming the above answers are satisfied, when a man wants to be identified as a woman what does this mean?
• What if my definition of a man or a woman doesn't match another person's definition of a man or a woman , how do we categorise such?
• If a person born male claims they are really female what do they mean by this? 
• Would you say that if a person believes they are something that they are physically not, this would be regarded (scientifically) as a mental issue?

Is anyone going to answer my questions? I'm constantly being preached to insinuating I'm ignorant and a bigot. I've asked to be educated using facts and definitions.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes it is, I'm happy to respect their choice of identity, but why should i accept something that is non factual? If I want to identify as a dog then i would hope people would respect this and identify me as such. This doesn't change the fact that I'm a human not a dog. 

NO IT'S NOT!!! 😣 This argument is commonly known as reductio ad absurdum 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Is anyone going to answer my questions? I'm constantly being preached to insinuating I'm ignorant and a bigot. I've asked to be educated using facts and definitions.

See above...

My turn, I'll ask you the same basic question that I ask @J.C.MacSwell.

Why draw this line in this sand?

Besides I'm insinuating nothing, I'm outright saying that you're succumbing to 'our' insidious bias; for instance, world cup football: in the male version the English team is called England, but the Ladies are called the lionesses, in Australia it's even more pronounced misogyny, they're called the matildas. 

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I know what woke means and you know exactly what I was pointing to wards but as usual just like many other posters on this thread you skirt around, ignore the point i allude to and throw it back at me to make me look like some bigot, or ignoramus.

I wasn’t sure what you were pointing towards. It’s why I asked for clarification. 

All I did was give a definition. If anyone made you look like a bigot, it’s you, with what you wrote. 

 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

citation please. 

Show me some factual evidence that trans people are targeted above any other.  People are beaten and killed al over the world for all sorts of reasons. Maybe in the US trans murder is rife? 

Well, “targeted above any other” isn’t what I claimed; that’s your strawman. I claimed they were targeted for who they are. Brown and black people have been targeted for the color of their skin. Jews have been targeted because they are Jews.  This issue isn’t that trans people are targeted more, it’s that they are targeted at all. It’s not like there is some (non-zero) acceptable level of such behavior, IMO.

It’s hard to imagine that one could participate in this discussion and need such a citation.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022

“In 2021, the Human Rights Campaign tracked a record number of violent fatal incidents against transgender and gender non-conforming people — with 50 fatalities tracked.”

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Is anyone going to answer my questions? I'm constantly being preached to insinuating I'm ignorant and a bigot. I've asked to be educated using facts and definitions.

One can’t answer them without having defined the categories. And a definition that covers most but not all people does us no good, because the discussion is about the people that fall into the grey area.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is talking about exclusion in the way you are referring.

Actually, many are. No need to lambaste me on a personal level for stating it clearly and openly. 
 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yet another example of missing the point and twisting to make those who disagree with you look bad! 

Some very sly and devious posting going on now. 

I’m not trying to misrepresent you. I’m not being devious. I’m not out to get you. I’m not a bogeyman. 

[mistermack]

On 7/19/2023 at 9:41 PM, CharonY said:

So a person with gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrome, fully developed female genitalia but XY karyotype) a real woman? Or a real man? Or do you consider them fake somehow? 

According to the Wikipedia page on intersex, the occurrence of all intersex conditions is roughly one in 6,000. So this is just a distraction tactic on your and others part, and is a bad faith argument. This thread is about transgender athletes, not the very rare intersex cases, which would not necessarily be classed as transgender. 

In other words, it's about the 5,999 cases out of the 6,000. Not the 1 exception. Men who elect for gender reassignment treatment are of course men, and are from the 5,999. 

And anyway, I did post about Swyer syndrome earlier in the thread. You weren't paying attention.

[iNow]

The point is that those who insist there are “ONLY TWO GENDERS!!1!!2!one!1!” are wrong and simply ignoring the natural reality that humans exist more along a spectrum than some outdated, arbitrary, unrepresentative binary. 

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

The point is that those who insist there are “ONLY TWO GENDERS!!1!!2!one!1!” are wrong and simply ignoring the natural reality that humans exist more along a spectrum than some outdated, arbitrary, unrepresentative binary. 

Well not me. I've made a clear distinction from the start. Gender being self identified, your gender can be whatever you like. My one transgender friend varies from day to day, from male through indeterminate to female. It really depends on who he expects to meet that day. 

On sex, I would say that as above, that there are only two sexes, apart from very rare 1 in 6,000 intersex cases. 

In other words, if you are not one of the 1 in 6,000 intersex, then your sex is either male or female, as defined by your sex chromosome configuration.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

According to the Wikipedia page on intersex, the occurrence of all intersex conditions is roughly one in 6,000. So this is just a distraction tactic on your and others part, and is a bad faith argument. This thread is about transgender athletes, not the very rare intersex cases, which would not necessarily be classed as transgender. 

In other words, it's about the 5,999 cases out of the 6,000. Not the 1 exception. Men who elect for gender reassignment treatment are of course men, and are from the 5,999. 

You haven’t shown that this isn’t about some other rare case, so this claim isn’t true. You’ve just asserted that it’s true. You continue to avoid the fact that you haven’t defined what makes one to be a man (or woman). 

It’s a problem of trying to treat a complex issue as if it were a simple issue. iNow has highlighted one manifestation of this.

 

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

On sex, I would say that as above, that there are only two sexes, apart from very rare 1 in 6,000 intersex cases. 

In other words, if you are not one of the 1 in 6,000 intersex, then your sex is either male or female, as defined by your sex chromosome configuration.

Swyer syndrome is one example of being intersex, not the only one.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You continue to avoid the fact that you haven’t defined what makes one to be a man (or woman). 

You define what you mean by man and woman, and I'll define what makes you that. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You define what you mean by man and woman, and I'll define what makes you that. 

We’ve been over this. Did you not understand my response, did you forget, or is there some third option?

[TheVat]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I was pointing out that some problems are far more pressing than others and if aren't dealt with sooner rather than later there won't be anyone around to complain anyhow.  I'm talking about focus and appropriately actioning by priority. 

This doesn't mean other issue should be ignored it just means some are greater than others and more of a threat to the planet and society in general.  

Well that all makes sense, but then why are you participating in this thread?  Clearly the fate of the biosphere is not critically dependent on inclusion rules in sports.  It feels like you want to have the discussion but want to dismiss the issues.

This thread is located in Biology, so I took it to be about the physiology of trangender folks and how that interacts with their engaging in sports.  I was not weighing its importance relative to the issues of human survival and sustainable society.  I was just curious about people who have made choices of self-identification that are quite different from mine.  (mine can be accessed via Eric Idle's The Penis Song)

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You define what you mean by man and woman, and I'll define what makes you that. 

You should re-read StringJunky's excellent response. We define things based on context, adding the moniker "true" does not make them more specific. Karyotype-based definitions are fine in many, if not most contexts, so do phenotypic definitions (e.g. based on presence of genitalia). The fact that one needs to add a "besides" in a categorization clearly shows the lack of rigidity as an universal system. This is something to keep in mind (i.e. don't confuse the model with the reality).

 

For sports, the phenotype is going to be more important (as the karyotype alone does not define physicality) but there focusing on genitalia alone is a bit weird, as I do not know of any official sports where these are used. As mentioned before, other sex-associated attributes (hormonal levels, muscle mass etc.) are under investigation to figure out suitable categories, which in my mind seems to be more geared to solving the issue than trying to figure out what a "true" man or woman is. 

If there is a person with a XY karyotype (or has a penis) but is lightly built and with a low muscle to fat ratio then they probably should not be put into the same category as wherever Mike Tyson-type athletes would be put in. 

While this would eliminate most, if not all folks with an XX karyotype it is at least not based a priori on aspects unrelated to the issue themselves.

 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We’ve been over this. Did you not understand my response, did you forget, or is there some third option?

I'll take that as a no, then.  

As far as I'm concerned, a "woman" is an adult human of the female sex. 
Other people seem to be arguing that a woman is an adult human of the female gender. 
I don't agree with that, because it means I can change from man to woman, just by self-identifying as a woman. 
That doesn't match the reality that I observe. 

I have one friend who had gender reassignment surgery, and the rest of the treatment. What was the purpose of all of those drastic steps? To enable him to present as a woman. 
What steps were taken to do that? They were surgery on the genitalia and various hormone treatment, all designed to match the traits that a 'typical woman' is born with. So transgender women themselves have a very clear idea of what constitutes a "woman" and they go to pretty extreme lengths to match it. 

The main bone of contention is whether the resulting individual IS a woman, or is more LIKE a woman. 
Just as Richard Dawkins said, it's a question of semantics. 
That's why I asked you what you mean by "woman".

[iNow]

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If I want to identify as a dog then i would hope people would respect this and identify me as such. This doesn't change the fact that I'm a human not a dog. 

We’re not talking about people identifying as dogs. We’re not talking about people who identify as dogs then trying to be accepted in the sports division that aligns with that.

We’re also not talking about doctors assigning people as dogs at birth and those same people then trying to be acknowledged as human later in life, despite them knowing that the dog label doesn’t accurately reflect who they are  

The argument you’re making here is strangely reminiscent of gay marriage threads 10+ years ago where people would repeatedly and without hesitation say, “what’s next, allowing someone to marry their dog?!” Slips and slopes and dismissive nopes have no place in this. 

But again… this topic does that. It’s precisely why that troll came and bumped it several weeks ago then left.