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

[Ahab]

Really need to remove the shackles of gender inertia and look into the science to be able to develop a system that provides fairness within a couple standard deviations. Unfortunately, some people seem more interested in mocking than actually addressing the situation.

Life ain't fair. We don't get to choose the bodies we have.

Recognizing that is not mocking trans folks.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor framed the question hoping to elicit a certain kind of answer that would play into his own prejudices about wage gaps, etc. and on what he believed I would answer.

I provided an answer that I believe was more complete than Metaphor was looking for.

It was significantly less complete and mostly irrelevant.

You stated that you do not believe there to be brain structures that compel men to undervalue women's contributions. This doesn't even speak to whether you think that's a brain difference. Do women have structures that compel them to undervalue men's contributions?

Of course, it's far from complete, because while a very specific kind of attitude from men might or might not contribute to the gender pay gap, you are silent on all the other brain differences that may contribute, for example, differing interest in certain subjects.

But, don't worry! Your incomplete and mostly irrelevant answer has some cheerleaders!

 

[laughing dog]

No, her answer isn't "no"....

It is true that Toni did not just say "NO". But that does not mean that a reasonably literate open minded adult who is interested in honest discussion cannot parse the answer to mean "No".

No. It is only a "no" that is implied by her silence after ruling out one specific brain-based mechanism.

At the moment, I do not know Toni's stance on other brain differences that may contribute to the gender pay gap. Hell, even her first response doesn't talk about sex-based brain differences, only that she believed there was no mechanism compelling men to act in a certain way.

Your inability to comprehend an answer does not mean it did not exist.

 

[Metaphor]

No. It is only a "no" that is implied by her silence after ruling out one specific brain-based mechanism.

At the moment, I do not know Toni's stance on other brain differences that may contribute to the gender pay gap. Hell, even her first response doesn't talk about sex-based brain differences, only that she believed there was no mechanism compelling men to act in a certain way.

Your inability to comprehend an answer does not mean it did not exist.

Sure luv.

 

[laughing dog]

No. It is only a "no" that is implied by her silence after ruling out one specific brain-based mechanism.

At the moment, I do not know Toni's stance on other brain differences that may contribute to the gender pay gap. Hell, even her first response doesn't talk about sex-based brain differences, only that she believed there was no mechanism compelling men to act in a certain way.

Your inability to comprehend an answer does not mean it did not exist.

Sure luv.

Thanks for the needless confirmation.

 

[Toni]

Really need to remove the shackles of gender inertia and look into the science to be able to develop a system that provides fairness within a couple standard deviations. Unfortunately, some people seem more interested in mocking than actually addressing the situation.

Life ain't fair. We don't get to choose the bodies we have.

Recognizing that is not mocking trans folks.

Sure we do get to choose the bodies we have. There are multiple industries built upon the notion that we can choose to be slimmer or more muscular or more flexible or to have larger or smaller breasts, different hair, different facial features, and so on. We can choose to have corrective lenses or corrective surgery to improve our sight; we can choose to have our teeth whitened, brightened, straightened, or even replaced.

And if we feel as though our body does not match what our brain is telling us, we can elect to make choices to help reconcile those differences.

 

[Toni]

Metaphor framed the question hoping to elicit a certain kind of answer that would play into his own prejudices about wage gaps, etc. and on what he believed I would answer.

I provided an answer that I believe was more complete than Metaphor was looking for.

It was significantly less complete and mostly irrelevant.

You stated that you do not believe there to be brain structures that compel men to undervalue women's contributions. This doesn't even speak to whether you think that's a brain difference. Do women have structures that compel them to undervalue men's contributions?

Of course, it's far from complete, because while a very specific kind of attitude from men might or might not contribute to the gender pay gap, you are silent on all the other brain differences that may contribute, for example, differing interest in certain subjects.

But, don't worry! Your incomplete and mostly irrelevant answer has some cheerleaders!

It is both relevant and complete. If you wish to discuss other aspects of your question, you are free to do so.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Really need to remove the shackles of gender inertia and look into the science to be able to develop a system that provides fairness within a couple standard deviations. Unfortunately, some people seem more interested in mocking than actually addressing the situation.

Life ain't fair. We don't get to choose the bodies we have.

Recognizing that is not mocking trans folks.

We aren't talking about 'life' as in some irrational phenomenon in the universe. We're talking about sporting organizations which can adjust criteria in light of evidence suggesting is supports their aims. In the IOC charter it states:

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility ofpractising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, whichrequires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

So, the IOC has an obligation to consider if certain practices are discriminatory in the above context. If so, is remedy possible? The question had to be asked. The current answer, with regard to transgender participants, is that they can compete within certain restrictions. This is something which will likely evolve with time.

Other organizations have other obligations and considerations, but surely they hold themselves to higher standards than 'life ain't fair.'

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It is both relevant and complete. If you wish to discuss other aspects of your question, you are free to do so.

Your answer was the only thing redeeming an idiotic question.

 

[Metaphor]

It is both relevant and complete. If you wish to discuss other aspects of your question, you are free to do so.

Your answer was the only thing redeeming an idiotic question.

It was a non-answer to a straightforward question. If Toni's answer was "no", as ld believes, then her answer is deeply curious. I find it deeply curious that there are real male- female brain differences, but that none of these differences contribute to a gender pay gap.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It is both relevant and complete. If you wish to discuss other aspects of your question, you are free to do so.

Your answer was the only thing redeeming an idiotic question.

It was a non-answer to a straightforward question. If Toni's answer was "no", as ld believes, then her answer is deeply curious. I find it deeply curious that there are real male- female brain differences, but that none of these differences contribute to a gender pay gap.

There are real height differences. There are real fat distribution differences. There are real erogenous zone differences. How many of these contribute to differences in pay gap, and by what mechanism?

Acknowledging the existence of differences doesn't bear any immediate connection to a pay gap. Forming the question as "If you believe A, then why not B?' either presumes a connection between the two, or the question is disjointed with the second half not following from the first. If you support wearings hats, why don't support that as a reason to floss your butt?

Your question is answerable, but it's not straightforward. We either need to largely ignore the first half of it, or deal with an embedded premise that neurological differences actually are relevant to the discussion on gender pay gap. We also need to set aside a likelihood that the question was asked with the intention of pointing out contradiction rather than genuinely seeking an answer.

Toni's answer went the route of identifying a cause of the gender pay gap and stating disbelief that differences in brain structure account for it. It answers the question, and does so in an entertaining way.

 

[Metaphor]

There are real height differences. There are real fat distribution differences. There are real erogenous zone differences. How many of these contribute to differences in pay gap, and by what mechanism?

Certainly, it has been found that height appears to influence career success, at least in men. Whether that's because people respond to taller people with more respect, or taller people are more self-confident, or taller people are more intelligent, or taller people have interests that lead them more often to lucrative industries, or whatever else, you can acknowledge the possibility that height differences contribute to the gender pay gap.

Acknowledging the existence of differences doesn't bear any immediate connection to a pay gap. Forming the question as "If you believe A, then why not B?' either presumes a connection between the two, or the question is disjointed with the second half not following from the first. If you support wearings hats, why don't support that as a reason to floss your butt?

Of course there is a connection. Why am I in the job I'm in right now? It seems to me my brain plays a very large part in that (as does chance, as may other factors). But it is surely my brain (intelligence, interests, personality) that determined my career choice as much as or more than anything else.

I don't have the brains to be a medical doctor. That's why I'm not a medical doctor. I don't have the interest in teaching secondary students mathematics. That's why I'm not a secondary school mathematics teacher. I don't have the personality to flog consumer items, which is why I'm not a salesman. I'm a data analyst because I had the interest and talent to do it, and by chance my original degree and interest (psychology) had a large component of statistical analysis.

So, if (as seemed obvious to me, but apparently not to you or Toni or laughing dog), brains play a large role in career outcomes, surely brain differences between two groups would also affect career outcomes.

Your question is answerable, but it's not straightforward. We either need to largely ignore the first half of it, or deal with an embedded premise that neurological differences actually are relevant to the discussion on gender pay gap. We also need to set aside a likelihood that the question was asked with the intention of pointing out contradiction rather than genuinely seeking an answer.

Well, yes, I believe it would be contradictory to believe in male-female brain differences, but then imagine that none of those differences contribute to career outcome differences. In fact, I find that impossible to believe.

Toni's answer went the route of identifying a cause of the gender pay gap and stating disbelief that differences in brain structure account for it. It answers the question, and does so in an entertaining way.

No. Toni's answer identified one possible brain-state that might contribute to a gender pay gap difference (men's attitudes to women). It doesn't even speak to brain differences between men and women. It ignores the dozens of other ways brain differences might contribute to the gender pay gap (e.g. the very large and documented interest differences between men and women).

The answer did not entertain me, but there's no accounting for taste.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well, yes, I believe it would be contradictory to believe in male-female brain differences, but then imagine that none of those differences contribute to career outcome differences. In fact, I find that impossible to believe.

Perhaps rather than imagination and belief, what you should focus on is some form of evidence-based relationship, or at least a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course there is a connection. Why am I in the job I'm in right now? It seems to me my brain plays a very large part in that (as does chance, as may other factors). But it is surely my brain (intelligence, interests, personality) that determined my career choice as much as or more than anything else.

I don't have the brains to be a medical doctor.

The point of contention is not whether our brains are in some manner engaged in our work. We can't so much as itch without our brains being involved, and any individual differences in our personalities, preferences, intelligence with in some way be reflected in our neurology. This doesn't mean that all of our neurology accounts for these differences. It doesn't mean that portions of our brain being differentiated by sex (in some cases not as a binary, but as overlapping ranges) accounts for these differences in any way which explains pay structures which compensate women less.

Certainly the medical doctor example is an odd one. There are male, female and intersex doctors (as well as non-binary doctors in the event that enby identity may have a root neurological cause).

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps rather than imagination and belief, what you should focus on is some form of evidence-based relationship, or at least a reasonable hypothesis.

But I'm not imagining the sex-based differences that men and women already have. There's a very large difference in the interests of men and women, and of course interests are solely determined by your brain state.

The point of contention is not whether our brains are in some manner engaged in our work. We can't so much as itch without our brains being involved, and any individual differences in our personalities, preferences, intelligence with in some way be reflected in our neurology. This doesn't mean that all of our neurology accounts for these differences. It doesn't mean that portions of our brain being differentiated by sex (in some cases not as a binary, but as overlapping ranges) accounts for these differences in any way which explains pay structures which compensate women less.

And yet interests, intelligence, and any other number of brain-related effects clearly do affect compensation.

Certainly the medical doctor example is an odd one. There are male, female and intersex doctors (as well as non-binary doctors in the event that enby identity may have a root neurological cause).

Sorry, what on earth makes the example an odd one? I was illustrating all the reasons I was in the job I am currently in, and why I would be unsuited to certain other jobs, and all these reasons are to do with my brain.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But I'm not imagining the sex-based differences that men and women already have. There's a very large difference in the interests of men and women, and of course interests are solely determined by your brain state.

'Brain state' is rather vague here. 'Brain state' is affected by innate and environmental factors alike. The extent to which interests are affected by innate biological factors, sociological factors or other environmental factors is not established let alone what relevance sex may have.

Sorry, what on earth makes the example an odd one? I was illustrating all the reasons I was in the job I am currently in, and why I would be unsuited to certain other jobs, and all these reasons are to do with my brain.

When you say 'brains' it's not exactly clear what variable you are referring to (intelligence or academic ability, I assume), but it's unlikely it is a sex-based variable. When you say interest in the subsequent category, that is not a sex-based variable at least not with regard to teaching (if in any way at all). You didn't say that they were, but that's not the issue. There is no phenomenon or principle in your examples that is established to be applicable to sex-based differences in neurology.

 

[Toni]

Certainly, it has been found that height appears to influence career success, at least in men. Whether that's because people respond to taller people with more respect, or taller people are more self-confident, or taller people are more intelligent, or taller people have interests that lead them more often to lucrative industries, or whatever else, you can acknowledge the possibility that height differences contribute to the gender pay gap.



Of course there is a connection. Why am I in the job I'm in right now? It seems to me my brain plays a very large part in that (as does chance, as may other factors). But it is surely my brain (intelligence, interests, personality) that determined my career choice as much as or more than anything else.

I don't have the brains to be a medical doctor. That's why I'm not a medical doctor. I don't have the interest in teaching secondary students mathematics. That's why I'm not a secondary school mathematics teacher. I don't have the personality to flog consumer items, which is why I'm not a salesman. I'm a data analyst because I had the interest and talent to do it, and by chance my original degree and interest (psychology) had a large component of statistical analysis.

So, if (as seemed obvious to me, but apparently not to you or Toni or laughing dog), brains play a large role in career outcomes, surely brain differences between two groups would also affect career outcomes.

Your question is answerable, but it's not straightforward. We either need to largely ignore the first half of it, or deal with an embedded premise that neurological differences actually are relevant to the discussion on gender pay gap. We also need to set aside a likelihood that the question was asked with the intention of pointing out contradiction rather than genuinely seeking an answer.

Well, yes, I believe it would be contradictory to believe in male-female brain differences, but then imagine that none of those differences contribute to career outcome differences. In fact, I find that impossible to believe.

Toni's answer went the route of identifying a cause of the gender pay gap and stating disbelief that differences in brain structure account for it. It answers the question, and does so in an entertaining way.

No. Toni's answer identified one possible brain-state that might contribute to a gender pay gap difference (men's attitudes to women). It doesn't even speak to brain differences between men and women. It ignores the dozens of other ways brain differences might contribute to the gender pay gap (e.g. the very large and documented interest differences between men and women).

The answer did not entertain me, but there's no accounting for taste.

You keep tossing around the term ‘brain state.’ Can you please explain what that term means and cite sourc s?

 

[ruby sparks]

Acknowledging the existence of differences doesn't bear any immediate connection to a pay gap.

Setting aside that any connection need not be immediate (or direct) to still be partly causal, does acknowledging the existence of differences bear any connection to different gender identities, do you think?

Toni clearly does, and yet it seems she is unwilling to openly say that she thinks it affects work and pay.

For your part, you are being somewhat sceptical of the latter, or at least not taking it as reasonable at face value, which is not something you did after brain differences were offered as a possible explanation for different gender identities.

The gender pay gap may be off topic, yes, and the ways that brain differences by gender might on the one hand play a role in gender identity and on the other hand play a role in work and pay, might differ (almost certainly will) but the issue of consistency usually always is, in any discussion.

 

[Metaphor]

'Brain state' is rather vague here. 'Brain state' is affected by innate and environmental factors alike. The extent to which interests are affected by innate biological factors, sociological factors or other environmental factors is not established let alone what relevance sex may have.

I don't doubt that brain states are affected by innate and environmental factors. I am thirsty right now, a response to not having had enough water causing my brain to give me the sensation of thirst, and when I slake my thirst my brain will be in a different state.

I have an interest in 1980s horror films. The state of my brain when I think about or watch 1980s horror films is different to somebody else who doesn't like them as I do. What if men are more interested in horror films than women? It doesn't matter how the interest arose, just that the interest is differential. You might find men more likely than women to write, or try to write, horror films. And perhaps even more than the general disparity in screenwriting between men and women.

Men and women differ in hundreds of ways, and many of these ways are the result of particular brain states.

When you say 'brains' it's not exactly clear what variable you are referring to (intelligence or academic ability, I assume),

Yes--when I illustrated why I was not a medical doctor, it's because I don't have the (colloquially speaking) 'brains' to do it. I'm not smart enough. But I also don't have the academic discipline either. I have two friends who are physicians, and it is extremely obvious they are more intelligent than I am (trying playing board games dependent largely on skill against a medical doctor), but even at that very high level of intelligence, they had to study their fucking brains out to pass their courses.

but it's unlikely it is a sex-based variable.

It very well could be. In fact, it is now something for which distinguished professors get fired for saying, but intelligence is more variable in men than women.

When you say interest in the subsequent category, that is not a sex-based variable at least not with regard to teaching (if in any way at all). You didn't say that they were, but that's not the issue. There is no phenomenon or principle in your examples that is established to be applicable to sex-based differences in neurology.

If women are more interested than men in a particular thing, that is a sex-based difference. Interest is a direct result of brain states and neurotransmitters. What else could it be? So, when two people have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. If two sexes have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. Interests influence career choice. Career choice influences wage and salary income.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Acknowledging the existence of differences doesn't bear any immediate connection to a pay gap.

Setting aside that any connection need not be immediate (or direct) to still be partly causal

Immediate with regard to logical assumptions or conclusions. In order to get from 'there is some degree of sexual differentiation in human neurology' to 'sexually-differentiated neurology at least partially explains the gender pay gap', there are intermediate steps which need to be establish to make it a reasonable proposition

does acknowledging the existence of differences bear any connection to different gender identities, do you think?

Not in itself. That's why specific research was conducted in this area. It's not as conclusive as we may like, but there is some evidence indicating there is a connection.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If women are more interested than men in a particular thing, that is a sex-based difference.

Or a gender-based difference, if women actually are more interested than men in the first place.

Interest is a direct result of brain states and neurotransmitters. What else could it be? So, when two people have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. If two sexes have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. Interests influence career choice. Career choice influences wage and salary income.

This is a very equivocal line of reasoning. It's a sort of lazy, sci-fi "and then quantum mechanics shit happened or something" kind of explanation of things. Saying neurotransmitters are involved really says very little about sex differentiation in neurology and links to specific behaviours or outcomes in social matters.