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

[Metaphor]

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.

What does 'in the first place' mean?

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.

I don't know what your objection is. Any differences in interests between men and women is a difference that must be a difference in brain states. I am interested in some things and not others because my brain responds more favourably to some things and not others.

Toni thinks mens and womens brains are different. Different brains produce different interests and intelligence and thoughts and personalities. Interests and intelligence and thoughts and personalities all influence career choice. Career choice influences wages and salaries. The gender pay gap is measured on wages and salaries.

I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this line of reasoning. Do you reject one of the assumptions, such as that interests and intelligence influence career choice? Or do you agree that while there is a difference in brains between men and women, those differences all reside in areas that have no effect on career choice?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There should be no "women's teams" and "men's teams" (or other exclusionary categories).

What the NCAA should do is put an end to all distinction of "men's teams" from "women's teams" and instead open all teams and all competitions to every type of participant who wants to compete, no matter what category they belong to.

Distinguishing some types from others and excluding any competitor because they're the wrong type/category should not be allowed in any publicly-funded program. Any such exclusion and categorizing of the participants should be limited to the private sector only, where the sponsors are private individuals creating their own program based on any guidelines they choose, with no outsiders interfering with the free choice of the private sponsors to create any program they wish, with no involvement or support from the state.

Since the NCAA is about "colleges," it's only appropriate category requirement could be that the participant is enrolled as a student.

Any other separation of one type from another must be based only on merit or performance in the athletic activity, so that the superior performers are grouped together to compete with each other, and the inferior performers likewise grouped together, and allowed to move up to compete at the higher levels only as they improve their ability and performance -- with no one changing their superior/inferior ranking any way other than by a change up or down in their performance level, and all of them required to compete with those near to their level.

Each participant should be ranked with a score to indicate their position in the overall inferior-superior scale, such as from 1-99 (zero = total dud, 100 = perfect champion).

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

But toni cited things like differences in grey matter ratios and density, in support of brain differences as relevant to gender identity, and yet you did not question that the way you are questioning this. There was no mention by you, or anyone else, of ‘lazy sci-fi’ at that point. Maybe you didn’t read the links.

And for her part Toni subsequently seemed not to agree that brain differences would affect work and pay outcomes.

I think there’s a consistency issue here. And I also think metaphor has a point about that. He would probably try to run too far with it as usual though, having so far only asked the general question.

A. Brain differences (of whatever sort) as relevant, at least to some extent, to different gender identities: readily accepted at face value at least in principle.

B. Brain differences (of whatever sort) as relevant, at least to some extent, to different work and pay outcomes: not readily accepted at face value even in principle.

My view would be that “what’s in the brain“ must surely affect or be related to both, albeit in different ways. In the absence of fairy dust, I can’t see how it could likely be otherwise, in principle, even if that’s not impossible, and I don’t see why the precise mechanisms need to be demonstrated in the first instance. The questions about how and to what extent and in what ways (and indeed in relation to what other factors) are secondary.

It may for example be that “differences in the brain” (of whatever sort) only explain, possibly indirectly, a very small part of the differences in work and pay outcomes, while they (or other brain differences) may explain more, or more simply or directly, differences in gender identities.

Or the other way around.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Quick question (regarding the OP topic): if it was not at least partly differences (of whatever sort) in the brain, what else (what ‘nothing to do with the brain’) could it be instead? Personally I can’t think of anything. I might be able to think of ways it’s to do with other parts of the body too, but that would still include the brain as a relevant consideration.

And if you are going to suggest that there are different sorts of “brain differences“ (fixed, mobile, plastic, fluid, permanent, transitory, solid, liquid, genetic, non-genetic, micro, macro, etc, but all biological and physical) I’m probably going to say, yes, obviously, and that’s relevant and important, but it’s secondary to the general question of whether there is some sort of connection.

So imo the correct answer to metaphor’s question was obviously a very quick yes (with caveats if necessary), brain differences will probably affect differences in work and pay outcomes, at least partly.

And to not agree to that strikes me as being because of ideological obstacles more than anything else.

The gender pay gap is a bit off topic, obviously. But imo it needn't have dragged on this way. A quick answer along the lines of what I said above and we all could have gotten back on the main track. And apologies to all for banging on about this, but one of my favourite sayings is, 'consistency, it's a bitch'.

As for Toni, well, she's spent a LOT more time telling us she's got no time than it would to have given a brief, straight answer one way or the other.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

Quick question: if it was not at least partly differences (of whatever sort) in the brain, what else (what ‘nothing to do with the brain’) could it be instead? Personally I can’t think of anything. I might be able to think of ways it’s to do with other parts of the body too, but that would still include the brain as a relevant consideration.

What do you mean what else could it be? I am not saying it is anything else. I am saying you cannot just look at human brains, realize there is some degree of differentiation in male and female brains and then go 'Aha! Transgender identities explained!'. There were reasons to believe transgender identities are, at least in many cases, neurologically driven. There were reasons to believe comparing the brains of transgender individuals to their cisgender counterparts was a reasonable course of investigation. This produced evidence supporting a hypothesis. The evidence to date (to the best of my knowledge) is more indicative than conclusive due to a number of reasons including methodological limitations and complications.

The same is not true regarding the pay gap as far as I know. The pay gap isn't akin to gender identity. There is no reason to take what we have learned in one case and arbitrarily transfer it over into an arbitrary case.

Gender identity happens in the brain of an individual, and it pertains to sex. In transgender people, the mismatch between gender identity and primary and secondary sex characteristics appears to be intrinsic, involuntary, and persistent. Suspecting a neurological cause is a reasonable line of inquiry. Evidence from a number of studies indicated transgender brains often more closely resemble the brains of the sex with which they identify, or in some cases occupy a middle ground between the sexes. In a number of cases, if memory serves, scientists knew there were differences between male and female brains--in some cases pronounced differences, and in others overlapping ranges--, but they didn't necessarily know how those differences might contribute to gender identity or if they contributed to differences in behaviour between men and women.

Looking at whether transgender brains may have been sexualized to some degree to be in line with their identified sex doesn't translate to explanations on complex behaviour in individuals let alone belief that sexualized differences explain complex social patterns. It's just a huge fucking leap.

So imo the correct answer to metaphor’s question was obviously a very quick yes, brain differences will probably affect differences in work and pay outcomes, at least partly.

And I would say present some manner of evidence or a coherent line of reasoning.

And to not agree to that strikes me as being because of ideological obstacles more than anything else.

There is nothing ideological about not accepting an unsupported and wildly speculative position.

As for toni, well, she's spent a LOT more time telling us she's got no time than it would to have given a brief, straight answer one way or the other.

We're not talking about parties who don't know one another. Posting tendencies reasonably lead us to suspect when other users are asking pointed questions for the sake of a 'gotcha' moment. Or at the very least let us know when a derail might get lengthy. I am not limiting this behaviour to metaphor or even excluding myself. I am just saying sometimes we don't want to go down that bloody road again with certain users, at least not at length or at that time. I don't know if that is the case here. I'm just saying there are other explanations for why she might not have wanted to burn more time on the derail.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

to expand:

And I would say present some manner of evidence or a coherent line of reasoning. You can't just collect an assorted set of premises and sloppily connect dots that may not be connected.

P1: Sexualized differences in brains exist.
P2: Brains account for behaviour.
P3: Behaviour is a variable in pay.
P4: There is (or may be for the doubters) a gender pay gap.
Therefore: Brain differences account at least partially for the pay gap.

Each step has to be reasonably supported.

Do we know the relationship between sexualized differences in brains and how they manifest in certain specific or complex behaviours?
If so, do we know how those behaviours act as a variable in pay?
If so, do we know how consistent those behavioural variables apply within men and women as groups, and how they contribute to statistical differences in overall pay, or specific differences in the pay of individuals doing the same work?

As of yet, the answer to all three as far as I know is 'no'.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I don't know what your objection is. Any differences in interests between men and women is a difference that must be a difference in brain states.

'Brain states' is not an equivalent term with 'sexually differentiated brain structures'.

Toni thinks mens and womens brains are different. Different brains produce different interests and intelligence and thoughts and personalities.
Interests and intelligence and thoughts and personalities all influence career choice. Career choice influences wages and salaries. The gender pay gap is measured on wages and salaries.

I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this line of reasoning. Do you reject one of the assumptions, such as that interests and intelligence influence career choice? Or do you agree that while there is a difference in brains between men and women, those differences all reside in areas that have no effect on career choice?

The relationship between brain differences and interests, intelligence and personalities is only partially understood. In some cases, we can tell that some intelligence deficits or personality disorders map to certain activity, inactivity, or deformities in the brain. But this doesn't translate to sexualized differences in brain structure producing such differences, certainly not to any degree which explains a complex social dynamic such as employment compensation.

You're taking vague and disparate concepts, and mashing them together on the most specious of connections to support a much more specific and complex hypothesis. You need something more compelling to establish that hypothesis as compelling.

Otherwise you end up with lines of reasoning like "Humans can safely eat plants. Water hemlock is a plant. Humans can safely eat water hemlock." It looks reasonable when it's neatly packaged like that, but when you examine the premises it's going to fall apart hard even though the first two statements are true.

 

[ruby sparks]

So imo the correct answer to metaphor’s question was obviously a very quick yes, brain differences will probably affect differences in work and pay outcomes, at least partly.

And I would say present some manner of evidence or a coherent line of reasoning.

The line of reasoning is already coherent. See my previous posts.

As for evidence, there's lots. I bet you I could find at least a dozen studies in about 5 minutes online. It'd be off-topic though.

Let me put it another way. Are you suggesting that there is no causal connection whatsoever between what is in brains, and work, career and pay outcomes (and by extension differences in the former not having at least some effect on differences in the latter)? That would seem to be so extremely unlikely, almost to the point of absurdity, that I'd put the onus on whoever said it to support it before thinking it was my job to support the opposite.

I also think you've genuinely missed my main point, which was really only about consistency in addressing the basic questions in principle. Nothing in what you've said suggests to me anything other than that some people are taking an inconsistent approach to that, for reasons which to me are inexplicable and which I suspect are ideological. All you're doing is going into the detail of how the ways the outcomes are affected (by the brain) might not be the same in each case. That, as I said, is secondary, to the general question that was asked.

 

[ruby sparks]

As of yet, the answer to all three as far as I know is 'no'.

Then I think you should read more widely before forming an opinion one way or the other.

Women are generally more financially risk averse. They are also less likely to push for a pay rise. Just two right off the top of my head and without even going looking for studies. As far as I am aware, there is evidence that testosterone levels may play some role.

Answer 1 to metaphor's question: "Yes, but it's not simple and straightforward, nor is it likely to be causal in the same ways, and it may not be significantly causal".

Answer 2 to metaphor's question:"No".

Guess which one is basically untenable?

That's pretty much all I've been saying about this.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The line of reasoning is already coherent.

As for evidence, there's lots.

I've pointed out why it is not coherent. The argument requires specious jumps.

I also think you've genuinely missed my point, which was really only about consistency. Nothing in what you've said suggests to me anything other than that some people are taking an inconsistent approach.

I haven't missed the point. I am saying it is not an issue of consistency. It's about whether certain relationships are valid or evidenced. A belief that there is some degree of sexual differentiation in brains doesn't necessitate or even rationally imply some relationship to a gender pay gap. To make that connection, more facts have to be established. Asserting very generalized statements on brains (on the verge of truisms) doesn't make any obvious argument regarding the limited sexually differentiated structures we do know about let alone a complex social dynamic such as the gender pay gap.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

As of yet, the answer to all three as far as I know is 'no'.

Then I think you should read more widely before forming an opinion one way or the other.

This isn't about forming an opinion one way or the other. I have not stated an opinion that the gender pay gap is or is not partially due to sexualized differentiation in neurology. I have stated belief that differentiated structures exist does not rationally necessitate believe or suspicion that these differences partially or wholly explain the gender pay gap.

Women are more financially risk averse. They are also less likely to push for a pay rise. Just two off the top of my head and without even going looking for studies.

That doesn't make a case. Map that to a sexually differentiated brain structure. You need to actually do that. No one is saying there aren't behavioural differences between men and women in general. That doesn't mean they are the result of intrinsic sexualized aspects of our neurology. They could be wholly the byproduct of social conditioning or some other variable. And even then, it doesn't explain the emergence of a system where risk taking and pushiness are rewarded above prudence and measured contribution. To be clear, I am not asking for you to explain it. I, too, can speculate and produce explanations.

I am saying make a case which is coherent. That means you provide the pieces of the puzzle and actually put them together in some semblance of an argument. You don't just slap down a grey and black tile from a thousand piece set in the middle of the table, a blue tile in the top and a blurry green time at the bottom then say done: it's a tabby cat on a grassy field on a clear day.

So we start by saying risk aversion is a variable in pay rate. Studies indicate sexual variance in neurology maps to risk-taking behaviour (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677650/). Then we determine if this is due to innate differences between men and women in general, or if it is the byproduct of conditioning and boom: you already have one toe hold into something resembling a coherent argument. Next we have to fit it into a broader understanding of the pay gap and why a system exists where risk-aversion is, on average, penalized, and risk-taking is rewarded. The behaviour has to relate to the outcome or else we could just be talking about a scenario where we discriminate against certain behavioural patterns rather than establishing some intrinsic link between those behaviour patterns and outcome.

 

[laughing dog]

As of yet, the answer to all three as far as I know is 'no'.

Then I think you should read more widely before forming an opinion one way or the other.

Women are generally more financially risk averse. They are also less likely to push for a pay rise. Just two right off the top of my head and without even going looking for studies. As far as I am aware, there is evidence that testosterone levels may play some role.

Answer 1 to metaphor's question: "Yes, but it's not simple and straightforward, nor is it likely to be causal in the same ways, and it may not be significantly causal".

Answer 2 to metaphor's question:"No".

Guess which one is basically untenable?

That's pretty much all I've been saying about this.

Answer 1 is so equivocal since it is i admits to every possibility that it has to more "tenable". Answer 2 is more definitive, so, of course it is much more likely to be less tenable.

"Tenability" of the response "could be anything" is not much of an accomplishment.

 

[Emily Lake]

There's a lot in there.

Inorite? It's a mess in here.

Now, if someone identifies as a woman, while having a man's body (ie the rest of their body other than the brain part of their body), there there must be, without any question I think, something female about that person's brain. Literally, logically and biologically. As with the schizophrenia and the homosexuality (and your epilepsy and my depression), it's not fairy dust and more to the point it's not just role play or learned behaviour (well mostly not, assuming we are talking about clear and clinical cases). And what does it matter if it's because of nature, nurture, or a combination of the two? Or, what does it matter if it shows up on a brain scan or not?

I don't think it's role play or just learned behavior.

Aaargh. This is a prickly topic. I don't want to offend anyone, let alone krypton idodide sulfur, because KIS seems cool. And I 100% support her in doing everything she can to lead a happy and healthy life as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. And generally, transition and gender expression don't hurt anyone. There's only a few limited areas where there's some conflict. So I really don't want to offend or inadvertently insult anyone.

I don't think it's role play or learned behavior. I don't think transgender people are making it up. I also don't think that a schizophrenic who firmly and truly believes that they are an angel is playing a role or that it is learned behavior. It's not made up in the way that we generally use the phrase.

I completely accept that a transperson believes themselves to be a gender that is different from their body. I completely accept that as a true representation of how they feel, as well as the effect that such a misalignment has on their mental well-being.

But I'm not convinced that the belief dictates reality. A transwoman is a transwoman - and more power to her. She's got my support in living her life as a woman, to the greatest extent she can. A transwoman isn't, however, female... and I rather disagree with altering the meaning of "woman" to such a drastic extent that it erases the female experience and replaces it with "how I feel".

To me, the question of whether someone should get into women's refuges, compete in a race with women or use women's changing rooms, are all slightly separate from the above, even if it were true that it was a woman (as in a person with a woman's brain) trapped in a man's body (by which I mean the rest of the body since the brain is a body part) and I would not generally be in favour of those things, even in that hypothetical case.

I'm not supportive of a blanket allowance, but I am supportive of a case-by-case decision. Some transwomen really do need a safe space to take refuge from abusers, and to the extent that the other women are comfortable with her being there, I have no objection to her staying at a refuge for women. Hell, even when it comes to prisons, there's some reasonable range of acceptability, depending on the individuals's history and behavior, and potentially whether or not the person has surgically transitioned or not. Transwomen in men's prisons are at a very high risk of rape and abuse, which I think should be addressed. Complete isolation from everyone seems harsh and cruel. So again, case by case on how to handle it. Even when it comes to sports, I think there's some reasonable guidelines around testosterone levels that can be put in place that would alleviate a lot of the concern... even if it can't completely remove the inherent advantages of someone who went through puberty as a male. At least it's recognition that physical differences do exist.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok. So that’s why you avoided answering his question directly. ������

Fair enough.

I did answer his question directly. It is not my fault if he or you are unable to understand what I wrote or that it was a direct answer.

FWIW, I couldn't really parse your post either. It was confusingly worded.

On the other hand, I also don't care since it wasn't directed at me

 

[ruby sparks]

That doesn't make a case. Map that to a sexually differentiated brain structure. You need to actually do that.

Yes (if true) it does make the case (and it is at least evidence for it) and no I don't need to map it to whatever you mean by "brain structures". If (as is the case) there is evidence of a testosterone effect in the brain that varies by gender, which appears to affect, for example, financial risk aversion differently by gender, then that is already evidence of a relevant brain difference. Ditto for example other chemicals, such as oxytocin. How would it not be? You don't think brain chemicals affect thinking and behaviour?

Bear one thing in mind. I'm not saying that any issue is settled or that any one study 'proves' anything. I'm just saying that apparently some people more or less do not appear to reject, or even question, and in some cases appear to readily accept, evidence for a certain type of conclusion while being highly sceptical and questioning (as you are here) about evidence for a different type of conclusion.

I also want to say that I was initially referring to another poster, or indeed about 'some people' in general, but somehow seem to have ended up talking about this with you specifically, although I don't necessarily see you as doing the thing I'm picking up on to any great extent.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

Technically, Toni's answer was more along the lines of "I refuse to believe it to be true". That's a fairly odd way of saying it, and it does make it a bit more confusing. It could range anywhere from that implying "No I don't believe so" (indicating that based on current understanding, the answer is no, but that Toni is aware that there's a lot she doesn't know) all the way to implying "Evidence to support that exists, but I reject that evidence irrespective of its validity".

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

OH, yeah, in case it hasn't been clear from me, Metaphor's question was clearly a leading question intended for an asinine "gotcha".

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Height and weight do! Taller people get paid more, on average, and are perceived as being more competent. Fit people get promoted more than fat people do, and fat people are perceived to be less disciplined, less dedicated, and less capable than fit people.

I don't know about erogenous zones though. It could have some impact on pay in the porn industry.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

This is a lot more complicated than you seem to imply here. In particular, it conflates "current brain state" with "innate brain structure". Current brain state includes the effect of conditioning and socialization - what we have been taught that girls should be interested in and what we have been taught that boys should be interested in. Innate brain structure, on the other hand, would imply that the brain of a female is different from the brain of a male from a fetal stage.

That a pay gap exists isn't the question - it's a question of the cause. Does it exist because male and female brains have innate natural differences in behavior and tendencies? Or does it exist because men and women have been conditioned to express different interests and to exhibit different behaviors?

That question of nature versus nurture is one of the sticking points with respect to the brain research that Toni has presented. Differences can be observed (although in only small areas of the brain, and with small measurable differences). But that doesn't tell us whether those differences are an inherent attribute of sex, or whether they're a learned behavior that expresses via plasticity.

 

[Emily Lake]

What the NCAA should do is put an end to all distinction of "men's teams" from "women's teams" and instead open all teams and all competitions to every type of participant who wants to compete, no matter what category they belong to.

What about weight classes? Or age classes?

Would you support removing weight classes from wrestling and boxing? Would you support allowing 18 year olds to compete against 6 year olds?