Transgender athletes

[iNow]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That plays into the oft-unspoken exclusionary feminist trope of separate but equal. That didn't work very well dealing with racism in the 20th century... did it?

I referenced this to him earlier in the thread. It went right over his head. 
 

On 7/27/2023 at 9:03 AM, iNow said:

Separate but equal isn’t equal at all

On 7/27/2023 at 9:11 AM, mistermack said:

What does that mean?

On 7/27/2023 at 9:18 AM, iNow said:

Separate is, by definition, inherently unequal.

See also; Brown v Board of Education 

On 7/27/2023 at 9:22 AM, mistermack said:

That doesn't make any more sense than the original. And I shouldn't have to do research to find out what your post means. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure why you think I didn’t understand the context. On the contrary, I think perhaps you don’t understand the context of transgender bans occurring in the US. It’s not just telling kids they can’t compete. Almost a third of transgender youth live in states that have banned gender-affirming care.

Banned as in there are no legal options. An actual ban. In that context, men are not banned from competing. They are restricted, in some cases, in which leagues they might compete. But they are not banned from competing, which means they would not be allowed to compete at all.

The claim is BS. It relies on the fallacy of equivocation. Do you really want to defend it?

Transgender women have been participating in women’s sports for a number of years. Women’s sports exists. The claim is BS as well.

When you quote someone it is their intended context that matters. You don't get to twist it.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That plays into the oft-unspoken exclusionary feminist trope of separate but equal. That didn't work very well dealing with racism in the 20th century... did it?

It certainly did not.

The pursuit of separate but equal did work fairly well for women that wanted their own elite sports though.

Not perfect, but well enough that many feel it's worth protecting.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When you quote someone it is their intended context that matters. You don't get to twist it.

I didn’t twist anything. And the context was set by iNow’s post. If you think I’m guilty of twisting the context, you must also acknowledge the iNow’s context was twisted (and this is what I was attempting to show. How dare I do that!).

I have to assume someone meant what they said. If their words were incorrectly chosen, they should clarify. If they meant to use that phrasing, they would just respond with snark.

And we see what has transpired.

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The pursuit of separate but equal did work fairly well for women that wanted their own elite sports though.

You mean those that were judged to be women... and the natural outliers excluded, cue the present-day furore with Caster Semenya, their contemporaries and others preceding them throughout elite sport history.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, StringJunky said:

You mean those that were judged to be women... and the natural outliers excluded, cue the present-day furore with Caster Semenya, their contemporaries and others preceding them throughout elite sport history.

Exactly. Not perfect but worked fairly well.

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I have to assume someone meant what they said. If their words were incorrectly chosen, they should clarify.

My words were correctly chosen, and no clarification is needed, the meaning is perfectly clear. 

And it's hugely amusing, that the only way you can claim that men are NOT banned, is to agree that transgender women athletes are indeed men. You're tying yourself up in ridiculous knots. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by mistermack

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

My words were correctly chosen, and no clarification is needed, the meaning is perfectly clear. 

And it's hugely amusing, that the only way you can claim that men are NOT banned, is to agree that transgender athletes are indeed men. You're tying yourself up in ridiculous knots. 

When one argues that because the intersex exist then sex is non binary so the non intersex should be free to choose the binary division of their choice...one is already tied up in knots...

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly. Not perfect but worked fairly well.

Fuck the talented elites, like Semenya then.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Fuck the talented elites, like Semenya then.

No.

 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Edit: Though the onus of proof would be on the intersex athlete, in the grey area where possible they could still be accommodated as discussed much earlier in this thread...as I suggested Caster Semenya might share a podium spot if she was unable to prove no XY advantage, and no XY advantage could be reasonably proven.

 

 

Feel free to get my position straight at any time though.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No.

 

 

My point was, if you  sufficiently restrict your vision, put blinkers on, everything 'looks' hunky-dory.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

My point was, if you  sufficiently restrict your vision, put blinkers on, everything 'looks' hunky-dory.

So you believe my describing womens elite sports as having "worked fairly well" was too positive?

How would you prefer I describe it?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you believe my describing womens elite sports as having "worked fairly well" was too positive?

How would you prefer I describe it?

It worked fairly well until relatively recently. Much of this is political and an extension of feminist discontent with the direction these kinds of activities are taking, in contravention of their exclusionary aims. Feminists want to exclude, and LGBTQA+ just want to be included. Guess which side I'm on.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you believe my describing womens elite sports as having "worked fairly well" was too positive?

Fairly well for some, but not for all. Specifically, not for transgender women. 

Perspective matters here. Einstein knew it, too. It’s all relative. 

Yes, the status quo was easy to upkeep. Who cares? The entire point of this thread is how to update it. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

My words were correctly chosen, and no clarification is needed, the meaning is perfectly clear. 

And it's hugely amusing, that the only way you can claim that men are NOT banned, is to agree that transgender women athletes are indeed men. You're tying yourself up in ridiculous knots. 

What does “ban” mean?

[mistermack]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does “ban” mean?

In what context ?     🤔    🙂

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I referenced this to him earlier in the thread. It went right over his head.

Failure to communicate ?  Blame the audience. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When one argues that because the intersex exist then sex is non binary so the non intersex should be free to choose the binary division of their choice...one is already tied up in knots...

We’re arguing that gender is nonbinary and not determined by your chromosomes. Also that “choose” is perhaps not the right phrasing; does one choose to be right- or left-handed?

The IAAF, for example, started using gender for their competition category designation in the 90’s (you said you read the article where this was pointed out). Part of the current controversy is their pivot to using testosterone levels. And part of this discussion’s difficulty is the confusion between sex and gender, despite protests from some that they aren’t confusing the two. You seem to have done so here.

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In what context ?     🤔    🙂

In the context of “what is the definition of ‘ban’ you’d find in a dictionary, that people use in discussions that are in good faith” rather than Humpty Dumpty’s “A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

But in the context of iNow’s post, which is what you quoted; that will do.

 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Much of this is political and an extension of feminist discontent with the direction these kinds of activities are taking, in contravention of their exclusionary aims. Feminists want to exclude, and LGBTQA+ just want to be included. Guess which side I'm on.

It would be a mistake to paint feminists as wanting to exclude. That’s a subset, the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs. There are plenty of feminists who are trans-inclusionary

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

It would be a mistake to paint feminists as wanting to exclude. That’s a subset, the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs. There are plenty of feminists who are trans-inclusionary

Yes, the vocal minority. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I will refer to TERFs in future.

Edited August 5, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Assuming I'm getting your context correctly:

Why do you feel the experiments with inclusion should be done at elite levels?

Well for one, the elite levels are pushing the envelope within the chosen field of play, so that's where the best data is; let's not forget that the elite level is, by definition, designed to route out the outlier's of human physiology. (edit, which we're happy to celebrate, as long as the women don't look like men) 

I hope you don't think this question in any way turns the tables, if anything it puts more pressure on you to come back with at least one reason why my reason/ing is wrong?

Besides, why is it only elite athlete's that 'deserves your' protection? 

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

In what context ?     🤔    🙂

 

Failure to communicate ?  Blame the audience. 

It's not our job to understand it for you, there's now 83 page's of very patient explanation's; not everyone gets it first time round, and we're not aloud to beat it into you, so I suggest you read it again, because some of the subtle stuff obviously did a fly-by... 🧐

Edited August 6, 2023 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not our job to understand it for you,

I know I'm not a genius, but I am well aware that my level is at least average or above, in both thinking and comprehension. That's nothing special, it's just a factual statement. Average is nothing great, but if you can't communicate to an average person, then you're failing, in the context of this kind of discussion. 

 

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides, why is it only elite athlete's that 'deserves your' protection?

At elite level, the costs in time, effort, sweat, toil, and pain are so much greater. That's why it's important that fairness is given a very high priority, and unfairness, like performance enhancing drugs or sexual ambiguity, or even drag-reducing clothing, are very closely scrutinised. Even the very tiniest advantage can mean gold instead of silver, or first instead of second. And if someone can bump themselves up from mediocre to first, then the rightful first gets second, second gets third, third gets fourth, and so on and on, all the way down. That's a lot of people losing out in a big way. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I know I'm not a genius, but I am well aware that my level is at least average or above, in both thinking and comprehension. That's nothing special, it's just a factual statement. Average is nothing great, but if you can't communicate to an average person, then you're failing, in the context of this kind of discussion. 

In the context of this thread, average isn't good enough to win, and that piss' off a lot of people; if you don't believe me just visit a pee-wee game, and check out who's going postal!!!

I can't show you something that your unwilling to see... 😣

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In the context of this thread, average isn't good enough to win, and that piss' off a lot of people; if you don't believe me just visit a pee-wee game, and check out who's going postal!!!

I can't show you something that your unwilling to see... 😣

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. And it doesn't appear to be worth any extra effort finding out.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. And it doesn't appear to be worth any extra effort finding out.

Knowledge is always worth the effort, but like I said "we can't beat it into you"; as tempting as that option may be...

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Knowledge is always worth the effort, but like I said "we can't beat it into you"

You need to have it, to pass it on. I think you do try, with the second bit, but you never got there with the first.

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You need to have it, to pass it on. I think you do try, with the second bit, but you never got there with the first.

 

[Intoscience]

On 8/5/2023 at 8:07 PM, swansont said:

We’re arguing that gender is nonbinary and not determined by your chromosomes.

We are arguing that biological sex is and that the differences between are distinctive, especially so when dealing with elite level sports. 

On 8/5/2023 at 6:47 PM, StringJunky said:

Feminists want to exclude, and LGBTQA+ just want to be included. Guess which side I'm on.

They are all included already,

L - women's categories

G - men's categories

B - category determined by their biological sex male/female

T - category determined by their biological sex male/female

Q - category determined by their biological sex male/female

A - category determined by their biological sex male/female

The only person's complaining are the ones who want to redefine what it means to be a biological female. 

The persons who are opposing it are the ones who want to protect the rights of their own group

The argument is all pretty straightforward, the solution to change the system for fair inclusion to accommodate the persons with gender biological sex dysmorphia appears more complex.

We are seeking a fair solution others are seeking false virtue 

On 8/5/2023 at 12:10 AM, CharonY said:

How would you know if someone was transgender, if they are not transitioning?

I don't think it makes much difference these days. Since anyone is free to identify with which gender they choose to and that the definition of the gender can be fluid then any person transitioning or not is free to choose which category they want to align with. Thus any male choosing to be female on any particular day can assume that group identity and in so, it seems, assume that group's rights. 

The sports and athletic committees are aware of this loophole and are trying to do something about it in a fair manner, which seems to be somewhat failing since the issue seems more complex than just binary biological sex definition. 

On 8/5/2023 at 2:41 PM, swansont said:

Women’s sports don’t exist? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

Men have been banned from sports? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

 

 

You know exactly what Mistermack was implying. 

There are categories based on physical advantages/disadvantages.

weight, age, sex etc...

Edited August 7, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling