Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As already explained, transgender women and transgender men do not categorically have advantage over cisgender women. It is variable based on steps taken to medically transition. Furthermore, transgender people do not have the same degree of advantage compared to one another.

You wrote it, therefore it has been explained and everyone must agree from your words from on high.'

I've not said anything of the sort.

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: Therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

Ah, so I see. Fairness, solutions and advantage considerations are solely the entitlement of cisgender people. As long as they aren't disadvantaged or excluded (at least not on the basis of being cisgender), it's all good.

As already explained it isn't about cisgender. It is about making rules around the norm and dealing with exceptions as exceptions. You are dealing with exceptions as the norm.

You are honestly talking about bringing in ringers for an employee ballgame as f that is somehow relevant or analogous?

You think it isn't analogous? That's your problem.

It seems you think this case is perfectly fine. And this. There's absolutely nothing to see there.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You wrote it, therefore it has been explained and everyone must agree from your words from on high.'

It's biological fact. If a transgender girl blocks testosterone from the onset of puberty, she doesn't get the benefits of development under male levels of testosterone exposure.

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: Therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

This doesn't describe anything I have said, so no.

As already explained it isn't about cisgender. It is about making rules around the norm and dealing with exceptions as exceptions. You are dealing with exceptions as the norm.

No, I am not treating exceptions as the norm. I am saying if the concern is a particular form of advantage, then regulate based on the actual presence of that advantage. That's something your 'solution' doesn't do.

You think it isn't analogous? That's your problem.

It seems you think this case is perfectly fine. And this. There's absolutely nothing to see there.

It seems you are incapable of addressing what is said to you and instead assign positions to me which I have neither stated nor implied.

Truth be told, your proposal is more likely to create the scenario for which you are concerned. I don't know how Fox should have been categorized, but I am not closed to the idea that suppressing testosterone was an adequate equalizer in her case. Then again, at least one cisgender woman killed another cisgender woman in an mma fight not too long ago, so the mere existence of injuries isn't adequate to come to a judgment. The woman who was injured made statements that Fox's power was unlike any other competitor she had faced, so it seems like there was a measurable variable which could be accounted for.

But if we take a transgender woman who never had the benefits of male puberty would be stuck competing against men or be wholly excluded from competition. She would likely face a greater disparity against a cis male competitor than Fox presents to cisgender women.

I am saying only what I have said before. Where advantage is the concern, sort by that advantage rather than using sex or gender as a proxy. Under that scheme, transgender women and transgender men would vary based on what categorization is most suitable.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Ah, so I see. Fairness, solutions and advantage considerations are solely the entitlement of cisgender people. As long as they aren't disadvantaged or excluded (at least not on the basis of being cisgender), it's all good.

Not at all. It doesn't consider gender. Sports are segregated based on sex not on gender. So how is it unfair to transgender people?

This sorting unnecessarily excludes transgender people who don't have advantage along with those that do. It is a clumsy approach, which is probably why many sporting authorities are moving away from it. Likely they haven't landed where they need to with regard to restrictions, but it's evolving.

 

[Metaphor]

It's pretty telling that it is insulting to call males by feminine names or to say things such as "you throw like a girl." Or " don't be such a girl about it" and so on. As a general insult. It seems that the worst thing that a male can be called is female. Try imagining it from the female side and you might get my point.

Of what is it telling? When people say "you throw like a girl", yes it's an insult, but it's based on the fact that boys throw better than girls. Boys bodies are different (and probably visual-spatial skills) and better at the kind of throwing used in sports.

It seems to me that when I say transwomen are men (therefore refusing to call a man 'female'), I get a lot of hate.

 

[Metaphor]

Right, but of transgender competitors, biological advantage is highly variable. If a transgender female blocks testosterone from the onset of puberty, there isn't really a medical case to be made for advantage.

First, how do you know this? Do you think a woman's menstrual cycle has no effect on performance?

Second, trans activists want the norm to be no measuring of testosterone.

If she underwent male puberty and subsequently suppressed testosterone levels, she may have some degree of advantage (though it may depend on the sport and the particulars of her case), but she would have a reduced level of advantage against cisgender men, and possibly transgender men who use testosterone for transition. If a transgender woman undergoes no medical aspects of transition, then her level of advantage is consistent with cisgender men, barring perhaps some sort of disorder of sexual development.

So in this 'obvious solution' we have a scenario where transgender women must 'compete upwards' or forego medical transition if they choose to compete, but cisgender women are not comparably required to 'compete upwards' or even on equal footing against the segment of transgender women who wouldn't have particular advantage. What is the rationale for who must compete upwards and who must not?

You've not demonstrated that transwomen have no advantage. You've speculated on it only.

For the record, I would hope someday we can reach a level of scientific understanding where no one needs to compete upwards against inherent biological advantages. Currently, we may not have that level of understanding, which effectively means many transgender woman may not be able to meet reasonable criteria for competition with women, and yet may be similarly disadvantaged competing against cisgender and some transgender men.

Yes, transwomen are unlikely to be able to compete 'fairly' against men. But that's because they're taking hormones to be more like women. It's like a man smoking weed every day and then complaining they can't compete against the best.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

First, how do you know this? Do you think a woman's menstrual cycle has no effect on performance?

Lots of things have an impact on performance. It doesn't mean it creates enough of a competetive gap to be of concern. Or are you under the impression that perhaps competitions and training wait for cycles to line up amongst all athletes? Or that women who don't menstruate are prohibited from competing?

Second, trans activists want the norm to be no measuring of testosterone.

Some do. Some don't.

You've not demonstrated that transwomen have no advantage. You've speculated on it only.

The primary mechanic resulting in advantage is completely absent in some cases. To say I've 'speculated on it only' is patently absurd.

But I need to be abundantly fucking clear yet again. I have not say transgender women have no advantage. I have said it is variable amongst transgender people where some cases represent reasonable concern surrounding advantage with regard to competing against cisgender women and others do not.

Yes, transwomen are unlikely to be able to compete 'fairly' against men. But that's because they're taking hormones to be more like women. It's like a man smoking weed every day and then complaining they can't compete against the best.

No, it's not like that at all. Marijuana typically doesn't have the same implication on performance, and much of marijuana consumption is recreational. For medicinal usage, other options for consuming it exist which may have even less impact by removing factors such as lung irritation, or coming in forms which don't result in getting high.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: Therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

This doesn't describe anything I have said, so no.

That's been your entire participation in this thread. Sorry.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: Therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

This doesn't describe anything I have said, so no.

That's been your entire participation in this thread. Sorry.

There is no way to formulate my 'entire participation' in the thread as "All A is B, all B is C." I have been talking about gamuts and and overlapping categories then entire time.

If it were formulated in your A, B, and C buckets, it would be:
Some members of A and B overlap.
Some members of B and C overlap.
B has some members which neither overlap with A nor C.

So if you are saying 'Then all A is C', based on what I've said, you're talking fucking nonsense.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's been your entire participation in this thread. Sorry.

There is no way to formulate my 'entire participation' in the thread as "All A is B, all B is C." I have been talking about gamuts and and overlapping categories then entire time.

If it were formulated in your A, B, and C buckets, it would be:
Some members of A and B overlap.
Some members of B and C overlap.
B has some members which neither overlap with A nor C.

So if you are saying 'Then all A is C', based on what I've said, you're talking fucking nonsense.

No, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: So therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That's been your entire participation in this thread. Sorry.

There is no way to formulate my 'entire participation' in the thread as "All A is B, all B is C." I have been talking about gamuts and and overlapping categories then entire time.

If it were formulated in your A, B, and C buckets, it would be:
Some members of A and B overlap.
Some members of B and C overlap.
B has some members which neither overlap with A nor C.

So if you are saying 'Then all A is C', based on what I've said, you're talking fucking nonsense.

No, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

You: All A is B, all B is C.
Me: So therefore all A is C.
You: I didn't say that.

Some transgender people overlap with cisgender women in terms of (normal ranges of) competitive advantage.
Some transgender people overlap with cisgender men in terms of (normal ranges of) competitive advantage.
Some transgender people overlap with neither cisgender women nor cisgender men in terms (normal ranges of) competitive advantage.

That aligns with my version, not yours.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your version includes:
If you don't put trans people in the womens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.
If you do put trans people in the mens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.

Don't forget that. It is very important. Even if people have other motives, that IS your argument. No matter what their actual motives, you have given them their "true" motives. Much truthiness.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Your version includes:
If you don't put trans people in the womens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.
If you do put trans people in the mens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.

Don't forget that. It is very important. Even if people have other motives, that IS your argument. No matter what their actual motives, you have given them their "true" motives. Much truthiness.

More things not said nor implied. You really struggle to reply to what is actually said, don't you?

What I actually said is:

Ah, so I see. Fairness, solutions and advantage considerations are solely the entitlement of cisgender people. As long as they aren't disadvantaged or excluded (at least not on the basis of being cisgender), it's all good.

This is based on the fact that you proposed a 'solution' in which the same consideration extended to cisgender women is not extended to transgender people, yet you consider that fair. Agree or disagree with that assessment, it in no way amounts to ''you hate trans people and want to oppress them". It literally means what it says. You considerations in your 'solution' only extend to the point that cisgender people are not disadvantaged, as evidenced by your statements.

It also cannot be formulated as All A=B and all B=C.
It would be, If A, B, and C, then D.

Furthermore, this doesn't constitute my 'entire participation' in the thread.

 

[Metaphor]

Lots of things have an impact on performance. It doesn't mean it creates enough of a competetive gap to be of concern. Or are you under the impression that perhaps competitions and training wait for cycles to line up amongst all athletes? Or that women who don't menstruate are prohibited from competing?

All transwomen do not menstruate because they are men. Some women don't menstruate because of individual factors particular to them. The difference is systemic.

The primary mechanic resulting in advantage is completely absent in some cases. To say I've 'speculated on it only' is patently absurd.

But I need to be abundantly fucking clear yet again. I have not say transgender women have no advantage. I have said it is variable amongst transgender people where some cases represent reasonable concern surrounding advantage with regard to competing against cisgender women and others do not.

The fact that the advantage is variable does not mean that it isn't systemic.

No, it's not like that at all. Marijuana typically doesn't have the same implication on performance, and much of marijuana consumption is recreational. For medicinal usage, other options for consuming it exist which may have even less impact by removing factors such as lung irritation, or coming in forms which don't result in getting high.

Transwomen choose to take a performance-decreasing drug. No cis man who took one would be allowed to compete with women just because he took it.

 

[Toni]

It's pretty telling that it is insulting to call males by feminine names or to say things such as "you throw like a girl." Or " don't be such a girl about it" and so on. As a general insult. It seems that the worst thing that a male can be called is female. Try imagining it from the female side and you might get my point.

Of what is it telling? When people say "you throw like a girl", yes it's an insult, but it's based on the fact that boys throw better than girls. Boys bodies are different (and probably visual-spatial skills) and better at the kind of throwing used in sports.

It seems to me that when I say transwomen are men (therefore refusing to call a man 'female'), I get a lot of hate.

Because trans women are not men.

You’d probably be pretty angry if someone suggested you are not a man because you have sex with men and are not attracted to women like a ‘real’ man.

 

[Metaphor]

Because trans women are not men.

You’d probably be pretty angry if someone suggested you are not a man because you have sex with men and are not attracted to women like a ‘real’ man.

Of course transwomen are men. Transwomen are adult human males.

I wouldn't be angry if somebody thought I wasn't a 'real' man. It demonstrates to me they don't understand what a man is. In fact, I don't think I could care less. Their opinion doesn't affect my life. Their opinion doesn't make me somehow not a man. All I need to be a man is to be born male (check), be born a human (check), and have lived past whatever age separates juvenile from adult (check).

 

[Toni]

Because trans women are not men.

You’d probably be pretty angry if someone suggested you are not a man because you have sex with men and are not attracted to women like a ‘real’ man.

Of course transwomen are men. Transwomen are adult human males.

I wouldn't be angry if somebody thought I wasn't a 'real' man. It demonstrates to me they don't understand what a man is. In fact, I don't think I could care less. Their opinion doesn't affect my life. Their opinion doesn't make me somehow not a man. All I need to be a man is to be born male (check), be born a human (check), and have lived past whatever age separates juvenile from adult (check).

Apparently your understanding of what it is to be a man or a woman is incomplete.

 

[Metaphor]

Because trans women are not men.

You’d probably be pretty angry if someone suggested you are not a man because you have sex with men and are not attracted to women like a ‘real’ man.

Of course transwomen are men. Transwomen are adult human males.

I wouldn't be angry if somebody thought I wasn't a 'real' man. It demonstrates to me they don't understand what a man is. In fact, I don't think I could care less. Their opinion doesn't affect my life. Their opinion doesn't make me somehow not a man. All I need to be a man is to be born male (check), be born a human (check), and have lived past whatever age separates juvenile from adult (check).

Apparently your understanding of what it is to be a man or a woman is incomplete.

Of course, I would say the opposite of your position: your definition of man and woman includes unnecessary psychological components, but worse. It includes sex-role stereotyping of the most idiotic kind.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your version includes:
If you don't put trans people in the womens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.
If you do put trans people in the mens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.

Don't forget that. It is very important. Even if people have other motives, that IS your argument. No matter what their actual motives, you have given them their "true" motives. Much truthiness.

I don’t know where you’re getting that from and I think you are misrepresenting what krypton is saying.

 

[Toni]

Apparently your understanding of what it is to be a man or a woman is incomplete.

Of course, I would say the opposite of your position: your definition of man and woman includes unnecessary psychological components, but worse. It includes sex-role stereotyping of the most idiotic kind.

No, it includes recognition of brain science that shows that brain structure of transwomen is the same structure as for women and that the brain structure of transmen is similar to the brain structure of women. Gender is not dictated by genitalia or by chromosomal array.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your version includes:
If you don't put trans people in the womens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.
If you do put trans people in the mens league it means you hate trans people and want to oppress them.

Don't forget that. It is very important. Even if people have other motives, that IS your argument. No matter what their actual motives, you have given them their "true" motives. Much truthiness.

I don’t know where you’re getting that from and I think you are misrepresenting what krypton is saying.

I'm getting it from Krypton's response to my suggestion that trans athletes compete upwards instead of downwards and enter the mens divisions.