Trans Women in Sport

Could you say what your view is then? What opinion should we be giving more consideration?

caseinpoint wrote:Just a viewpoint from the sidelines;

1) The way you’re treating Mommy is pretty appalling. Even if you were all demonstrably correct, it would be no way to present the position and change someone’s mind.

2) You aren’t demonstrably correct. This subject is relatively new to society at large and we all have much to learn. Stop pretending to know that which you don’t, it makes you look arrogant and in combination with the lambasting Mommy is getting, is incredibly distasteful.

1) Mommy hasn’t been treated badly. He posted some ignorant views and some obvious trolling. He got some attitude back. If/when he comes back with more than just “at 5 I was told about boys and girls” then people will talk.

2) It’s not new. There are texts from thousands of years ago that talk about transgendered people. And it’s not arrogant to say we are correct, because treating other people equally is never the wrong thing to do.

It actually doesn’t really matter, though not a million miles off the consensus on most points.

My contention is sheer unwillingness of everyone to even consider that they may be wrong or that they might not be on the completely solid ground they think they are.

To me, the desire to attack rather than engage is likely a symptom of exactly this. Make your point as persuasively as you can, and if you can’t, you need to ask yourself why that is.

caseinpoint wrote:It actually doesn’t really matter, though not a million miles off the consensus on most points.

My contention is sheer unwillingness of everyone to even consider that they may be wrong or that they might not be on the completely solid ground they think they are.

To me, the desire to attack rather than engage is likely a symptom of exactly this. Make your point as persuasively as you can, and if you can’t, you need to ask yourself why that is.

When it comes to human rights, equality and the freedom for people to live the way they want to live then I’m confident that I’m on very solid ground.

Why not get off that fence and engage with the topic rather than berating people from the sidelines?

From the 1910s through to the 1930s, a researcher called Magnus Hirschfeld and his academic research group, the Institute for the Science of Sexuality in Berlin, conducted extensive sociological research on gay and trans people from a sympathetic, progressive perspective. They advocated for equal rights and pioneered the medicine of gender confirmation. As well as contemporary research, the Institute collected a large archive of historical works relevant to its studies, including to trans rights.

The Nazis burned it down. Pretty much all the research, contemporary and historical, on trans people was destroyed.

The reason there is a common perception that trans people are a modern (therefore unnatural?) phenomenon is directly because of Nazi bigotry. It's what the Nazis wanted everyone to think.

Moggy wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:Just a viewpoint from the sidelines;

1) The way you’re treating Mommy is pretty appalling. Even if you were all demonstrably correct, it would be no way to present the position and change someone’s mind.

2) You aren’t demonstrably correct. This subject is relatively new to society at large and we all have much to learn. Stop pretending to know that which you don’t, it makes you look arrogant and in combination with the lambasting Mommy is getting, is incredibly distasteful.

1) Mommy hasn’t been treated badly. He posted some ignorant views and some obvious trolling. He got some attitude back. If/when he comes back with more than just “at 5 I was told about boys and girls” then people will talk.

2) It’s not new. There are texts from thousands of years ago that talk about transgendered people. And it’s not arrogant to say we are correct, because treating other people equally is never the wrong thing to do.

1) It basically doesn’t matter what he says, you have a responsibility to treat everyone with a degree of respect and he’s not been given that. If you think he hasn’t done the research you have, share it with him and persuade.

2) Exactly why I qualified it as within society. As a result of its relative obscurity, we know so much less about this than we do about, for example, about homosexuality. Whilst we are working it out, have some damn humility. And yeah, treating other people equally is really not the question here, is it. Who isn’t for that?

It’s ultimately a question of competing virtues - accommodating the individual whilst ensuring society functions for the good of the whole. It’d be great if the two aligned (as, to use the same example, they largely do for homosexuality) but we don’t know what effect it will have yet because we are new to this.

caseinpoint wrote:

Moggy wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:Just a viewpoint from the sidelines;

1) The way you’re treating Mommy is pretty appalling. Even if you were all demonstrably correct, it would be no way to present the position and change someone’s mind.

2) You aren’t demonstrably correct. This subject is relatively new to society at large and we all have much to learn. Stop pretending to know that which you don’t, it makes you look arrogant and in combination with the lambasting Mommy is getting, is incredibly distasteful.

1) Mommy hasn’t been treated badly. He posted some ignorant views and some obvious trolling. He got some attitude back. If/when he comes back with more than just “at 5 I was told about boys and girls” then people will talk.

2) It’s not new. There are texts from thousands of years ago that talk about transgendered people. And it’s not arrogant to say we are correct, because treating other people equally is never the wrong thing to do.

1) It basically doesn’t matter what he says, you have a responsibility to treat everyone with a degree of respect and he’s not been given that. If you think he hasn’t done the research you have, share it with him and persuade.

2) Exactly why I qualified it as within society. As a result of its relative obscurity, we know so much less about this than we do about, for example, about homosexuality. Whilst we are working it out, have some damn humility. And yeah, treating other people equally is really not the question here, is it. Who isn’t for that?

It’s ultimately a question of competing virtues - accommodating the individual whilst ensuring society functions for the good of the whole. It’d be great if the two aligned (as, to use the same example, they largely do for homosexuality) but we don’t know what effect it will have yet because we are new to this.

1) Of course it matters what he says. You’re telling us off for what we said, we’re telling him off for what he said. He’s been given things to watch/read, it’s up to him if he takes it on board and up to us whether we tell him he’s an idiot for continuing to post ignorant views.

2) It’s not exactly obscure and has been known about for a long time. The difference is we are now trying to treat people like people and not like degenerate freaks. Because they are not, they are people and they deserve respect. And plenty of people are not for equality.

I’ve no desire to accommodate the individual if the individual is spouting bigoted views.

Moggy wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:It actually doesn’t really matter, though not a million miles off the consensus on most points.

My contention is sheer unwillingness of everyone to even consider that they may be wrong or that they might not be on the completely solid ground they think they are.

To me, the desire to attack rather than engage is likely a symptom of exactly this. Make your point as persuasively as you can, and if you can’t, you need to ask yourself why that is.

When it comes to human rights, equality and the freedom for people to live the way they want to live then I’m confident that I’m on very solid ground.

Why not get off that fence and engage with the topic rather than berating people from the sidelines?

My own view is that it’s an impossible situation.

Either you grant that anyone who identifies as a woman can compete in women’s sport, and have it dominated by trans athletes, or categorise based on some biological marker (whatever that would be, itself an impossible task) and have no trans representation in elite sport. On the sporting front, there is no clean way out of this.

Karl_ wrote:From the 1910s through to the 1930s, a researcher called Magnus Hirschfeld and his academic research group, the Institute for the Science of Sexuality in Berlin, conducted extensive sociological research on gay and trans people from a sympathetic, progressive perspective. They advocated for equal rights and pioneered the medicine of gender confirmation. As well as contemporary research, the Institute collected a large archive of historical works relevant to its studies, including to trans rights.

The Nazis burned it down. Pretty much all the research, contemporary and historical, on trans people was destroyed.

The reason there is a common perception that trans people are a modern (therefore unnatural?) phenomenon is directly because of Nazi bigotry. It's what the Nazis wanted everyone to think.

They really were proper evil banana splits.

caseinpoint wrote:

Moggy wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:Just a viewpoint from the sidelines;

1) The way you’re treating Mommy is pretty appalling. Even if you were all demonstrably correct, it would be no way to present the position and change someone’s mind.

2) You aren’t demonstrably correct. This subject is relatively new to society at large and we all have much to learn. Stop pretending to know that which you don’t, it makes you look arrogant and in combination with the lambasting Mommy is getting, is incredibly distasteful.

1) Mommy hasn’t been treated badly. He posted some ignorant views and some obvious trolling. He got some attitude back. If/when he comes back with more than just “at 5 I was told about boys and girls” then people will talk.

2) It’s not new. There are texts from thousands of years ago that talk about transgendered people. And it’s not arrogant to say we are correct, because treating other people equally is never the wrong thing to do.

1) It basically doesn’t matter what he says, you have a responsibility to treat everyone with a degree of respect and he’s not been given that. If you think he hasn’t done the research you have, share it with him and persuade.

2) Exactly why I qualified it as within society. As a result of its relative obscurity, we know so much less about this than we do about, for example, about homosexuality. Whilst we are working it out, have some damn humility. And yeah, treating other people equally is really not the question here, is it. Who isn’t for that?

It’s ultimately a question of competing virtues - accommodating the individual whilst ensuring society functions for the good of the whole. It’d be great if the two aligned (as, to use the same example, they largely do for homosexuality) but we don’t know what effect it will have yet because we are new to this.

This is the way Mommy entered this thread:

If you were born a man, thats it, you are a man.
"Oh but Im a woman now" - Bullshit. Youre a man who has had his pecker removed and has a mental health issue.
What about some pre-op shim? Is it okay for them to race against women? The only difference is that they still have male genitalia but think that they are women.
Its all beyond my poor little bigotted mind. These strawberry floaters want their cake and to eat it.

The first 50% of this post is just straight up bigotry towards trans people without any kind of engagement with the actual subject. The 3rd line is an ignorant and clearly wrong dismissal of any possible discussion on the subject. To finish off, we have some sarcasm and an abusive term.

This isn't someone looking to engage in any form of debate. If you act like a dick, you should expect to be treated like one. There are plenty of well thought out and thoughtful posts in the thread, all of which were ignored.

I thought the issue here was transwomen in sport.
It seems to me like certain people are using it as a different platform.
I dont think my opinions (based on the things Im reading tonight) will be seen as genuine if I post them. I expect Ill get shouted down again.

caseinpoint wrote:

Moggy wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:It actually doesn’t really matter, though not a million miles off the consensus on most points.

My contention is sheer unwillingness of everyone to even consider that they may be wrong or that they might not be on the completely solid ground they think they are.

To me, the desire to attack rather than engage is likely a symptom of exactly this. Make your point as persuasively as you can, and if you can’t, you need to ask yourself why that is.

When it comes to human rights, equality and the freedom for people to live the way they want to live then I’m confident that I’m on very solid ground.

Why not get off that fence and engage with the topic rather than berating people from the sidelines?

My own view is that it’s an impossible situation.

Either you grant that anyone who identifies as a woman can compete in women’s sport, and have it dominated by trans athletes, or categorise based on some biological marker (whatever that would be, itself an impossible task) and have no trans representation in elite sport. On the sporting front, there is no clean way out of this.

Trans athletes have been able to compete since 2003. How come they are not dominating women’s sport?

@caseinpoint: The Athletics Association already polices the category based on a biological marker in middle-distance running - a blood testosterone level of under 5 nmol/L (which is very easy to measure with a simple blood test). Trans women typically achieve this via hormone replacement therapy, but do not dominate the sport. A cis woman was banned under that rule though, because she had a natural genetic variation that gave her high testosterone. So it would have been better for cis women to not have the rule at all.

Mommy wrote:I thought the issue here was transwomen in sport.
It seems to me like certain people are using it as a different platform.
I dont think my opinions (based on the things Im reading tonight) will be seen as genuine if I post them. I expect Ill get shouted down again.

Nobody is shouting you down. You posted like a dick and people responded in kind.

If you post sensibly then we’ll all take you seriously. You might not get us to agree of course, but you’ll get honest feedback and debate.

Moggy wrote:Trans athletes have been able to compete since 2003. How come they are not dominating women’s sport?

Because, as you no doubt know, it came with strict conditions. It required surgery, and hormone replacement, and legal registration. On an already small slice of the population, these have effectively heavily restricted the pool. In many countries, such registration is not possible. Then, to a large extent the former two conditions negate some of the advantage. The top elite sportswomen are already the very upper tail of the normal distribution, so it hardly surprising that of a tiny eligible population, which itself has restricted advantage, there’s been no domination.

However, even with this rule, as women’s sport grows in profile and the legal situation changes, this is bound to change. Regardless, these criteria put us in the bizarre situation of defining at what point a m2f athlete is really a female. Any relaxation on that criteria would again change that situation. All of that is, as I said, a pretty recent phenomenon, and we don’t and can’t know where it will end up, but I’d submit we need to tread with more care than most seem to recognise.

Karl_ wrote:@caseinpoint: The Athletics Association already polices the category based on a biological marker in middle-distance running - a blood testosterone level of under 5 nmol/L (which is very easy to measure with a simple blood test). Trans women typically achieve this via hormone replacement therapy, but do not dominate the sport. A cis woman was banned under that rule though, because she had a natural genetic variation that gave her high testosterone. So it would have been better for cis women to not have the rule at all.

Yes I know, as it is also trying to do for sprint distances now too. Don’t you find this uneasy? It’s not possible to set these levels fairly, and the testosterone approach in particular is such a blunt tool to a complex range of markers. The other issue is, of course, legacy advantages.

To a large extent the very existence of a women’s category presents these problems in one form or another. To produce what is effectively a sub category requires a qualifier. That by it’s very nature is problematic.

caseinpoint wrote:To a large extent the very existence of a women’s category presents these problems in one form or another. To produce what is effectively a sub category requires a qualifier. That by it’s very nature is problematic.

Sure, I don't think it's ideal. Maybe we should think of a better way to divide up our sports into competition categories - after all, the idea of men and women's sports excludes nonbinary people and, in practice, binary gender but intersex people too whether they happen to be cis or trans.

If we stick with a binary gender divide in sports (I don't necessarily think we should), and trans women one day do dominate (it's possible, but it seems unlikely when much of the advantage is nullified by HRT, and when the population pool is so small) maybe we would just accept a hypothetically high proportion of women athletes will be trans (again, no evidence this will happen, I'm just playing along) in the same way we accept that a high number of sprinters will have variant ACE and ACTN3 genes because those genes just make you sprint faster and that's that.

Karl_ wrote:

caseinpoint wrote:To a large extent the very existence of a women’s category presents these problems in one form or another. To produce what is effectively a sub category requires a qualifier. That by it’s very nature is problematic.

Sure, I don't think it's ideal. Maybe we should think of a better way to divide up our sports into competition categories - after all, the idea of men and women's sports excludes nonbinary people and, in practice, binary gender but intersex people too whether they happen to be cis or trans.

If we stick with a binary gender divide in sports (I don't necessarily think we should), and trans women one day do dominate (it's possible, but it seems unlikely when much of the advantage is nullified by HRT, and when the population pool is so small) maybe we would just accept a hypothetically high proportion of women athletes will be trans (again, no evidence this will happen, I'm just playing along) in the same way we accept that a high number of sprinters will have variant ACE and ACTN3 genes because those genes just make you sprint faster and that's that.

Bang on. Though, I think by far the cleanest way is to revisit the categorisation.

Karl_ wrote:Mommy if you genuinely want to start this conversation with a clean slate, then go away and do whatever research you need to, digest it, and come back and ask any genuine questions you have. At the moment this 100% reads like trolling, you're not convincing anyone you're genuinely sorry for your ignorance or making any effort to learn more, you're just coming across as a dickhead.

Log off and do your "research" and maybe with a bit of reflection you'll understand why you've been reacted to so badly.

twitter.com/dril/status/247222360309121024

Ironhide wrote:

Karl_ wrote:From the 1910s through to the 1930s, a researcher called Magnus Hirschfeld and his academic research group, the Institute for the Science of Sexuality in Berlin, conducted extensive sociological research on gay and trans people from a sympathetic, progressive perspective. They advocated for equal rights and pioneered the medicine of gender confirmation. As well as contemporary research, the Institute collected a large archive of historical works relevant to its studies, including to trans rights.

The Nazis burned it down. Pretty much all the research, contemporary and historical, on trans people was destroyed.

The reason there is a common perception that trans people are a modern (therefore unnatural?) phenomenon is directly because of Nazi bigotry. It's what the Nazis wanted everyone to think.

They really were proper evil banana splits.

Yes they were. Truly awful in every way.

In my experience, particularly in todays climate, most people who bandy around 'Nazi' like it's some cool buzzword haven't any real clue of who and what the Nazis were or have any real grasp on the many atrocities they committed.