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

[ruby sparks]

Sure. But personally I'm blue in the face saying that things do not have to be inherited (or in the form of fixed structures either). To me, those are just unnecessary restrictions when analysing the matter and looking for explanations and causes.

In other words, if a person is genuinely trans because of, say, something that has to do with early brain plasticity, they are still really, actually female in gender terms, are they not?

So yet again I'm wondering what your point is.

Two reasons.

First, the cause may change the treatment. If the cause of my epilepsy was a brain tumor or brain trauma, I probably wouldn't be treated with anti-seizure drugs alone. Right now, transitioning is the treatment that works best, and it doesn't work equally well for each person. If we knew the cause, there might be different treatments available, or at least, we might look for other treatments for different causes that might be more effective and less invasive for those causes.

Second, as mentioned, there's a high level of risk that bad actors could abuse research based on "nature" differences to justify existing disadvantages in treatment of people.

Again, I agree.

In case it’s not completely obvious, in the last several pages, since metaphor’s question, the only thing I’ve really been interested in, has been the responses to his question (initially by Toni but then somehow krypton and I got into a tangle).

A bit blinkered and possibly pedantic I know, but the result is that nearly every time you’ve replied, I have found myself agreeing, but wondering what it has to do with that (the specific thing I’ve been interested in this last few pages).

So in a way, sorry.

To you and to krypton.

I’ll let you into a secret. What’s been interesting me is, I think, what motivated metaphor. I do agree with him that....how to put it....ideologies can skew approaches. There is a tension between, for example, a preference to cite brain differences for one thing but not another, when one’s basic approach leads one to want to cite one over the other in two different directions in two separate scenarios where one’s (in this case liberal, progressive) ideological preferences coincide. This can lead to awkward answers to questions. Imo the consistent approach is to say that brain differences are most likely causal in both cases, even if in different ways or to different extents.

Suspecting a gotcha or being wary of where the questioner is going to go with an answer are not good reasons to obfuscate or not take the point, imo.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I'll pile on with this, with an analogy (yes, please feel free to call me names here, but I really like analogies and I find them helpful).

Let's assume for the argument that definitive and well documented brain difference between males and females exists, in which males strongly like the flavor of mustard and dislike the flavor of licorice, and where females strongly dislike mustard and strongly like licorice.

What possible scenario, outside of 'Jelly Belly Head Tasting Expert', would that definitive sex-differentiated brain structure contribute to a pay gap on the basis of gender?

That one probably wouldn't.

 

[ruby sparks]

Exactly. Whereas differences in financial risk aversion and willingness to push for pay rises are two examples of more likely candidates in general work situations, and in which brain chemistry at least seems to play some role, as a result of either innate characteristics, or learned/environmental/social ones, or a mixture of both.

You of course would probably downplay ‘patriarchal influeneces’ but I’m temporarily not giving you a hard time on that.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure. But personally I'm blue in the face saying that things do not have to be inherited (or in the form of fixed structures either). To me, those are just unnecessary restrictions when analysing the matter and looking for explanations and causes.

In other words, if a person is genuinely trans because of, say, something that has to do with early brain plasticity, they are still really, actually female in gender terms, are they not?

So yet again I'm wondering what your point is.

Two reasons.

First, the cause may change the treatment. If the cause of my epilepsy was a brain tumor or brain trauma, I probably wouldn't be treated with anti-seizure drugs alone. Right now, transitioning is the treatment that works best, and it doesn't work equally well for each person. If we knew the cause, there might be different treatments available, or at least, we might look for other treatments for different causes that might be more effective and less invasive for those causes.

Second, as mentioned, there's a high level of risk that bad actors could abuse research based on "nature" differences to justify existing disadvantages in treatment of people.

Again, I agree.

In case it’s not completely obvious, in the last several pages, since metaphor’s question, the only thing I’ve really been interested in, has been the responses to his question (initially by Toni but then somehow krypton and I got into a tangle).

A bit blinkered and possibly pedantic I know, but the result is that nearly every time you’ve replied, I have found myself agreeing, but wondering what it has to do with that (the specific thing I’ve been interested in this last few pages).

So in a way, sorry.

To you and to krypton.

I’ll let you into a secret. What’s been interesting me is, I think, what motivated metaphor. I do agree with him that....how to put it....ideologies can skew approaches. There is a tension between, for example, a preference to cite brain differences for one thing but not another, when one’s basic approach leads one to want to cite one over the other in two different directions in two separate scenarios where one’s (in this case liberal, progressive) ideological preferences coincide. This can lead to awkward answers to questions. Imo the consistent approach is to say that brain differences are most likely causal in both cases, even if in different ways or to different extents.

Suspecting a gotcha or being wary of where the questioner is going to go with an answer are not good reasons to obfuscate or not take the point, imo.

Do you realize you are guilty of the letting your ideology skew your approach? Your “middle of the road” approach drives you to think your “consistent” approach is the best way to think about this. And it validates your obtuseness to think someone is obsfucating when they are not.

 

[Toni]

To try to return to the main topic of this thread, I posted upthread links to several articles about differences in brain structure between the brains of (cis) males and (cis) women, with trans individuals showing brain structures similar to the sex they believe they truly are. In other words, there seems to be some biological/physical evidence that suggests an explanation for this variation on sex/gender/genetics.

I am not certain why this would be controversial.

It's not controversial so much as it's not conclusive. At present, the differences that have been found are small, and most of them are correlated with skull size, not with sex. Once the difference in size of head is taken into account, the observed differences are statistically insignificant.

Of those that persist they aren't strong enough differences to be predictive. If we're looking at a bunch of brains, we can sort them and say "this one is more like those than like these", but if you look at a brain by itself, the differences aren't clear enough to say "this is a male brain" or "this is a female brain". Consider it like shoe size. If you're looking at a bunch of feet, and you know whether the foot holder is male or female, you can observe that male feet are bigger than female feet. And you might be able to see that the feet of transgender people tend to be smaller than the average male foot, and thus fall into the range for female feet. But if you don't know if a person is cis or trans, you're no going to be able to tell if they have a small foot for a male, or a large foot for a female.

Additionally, the majority of the findings so far are observable, but aren't necessarily causal. We can't tell if the difference is an innate element of the brain built by genetics, or if it's the result of environmental factors, conditioning, exposure, etc. They don't account for brain plasiticity.

There might ultimately be meaningful differences that cause the gender-sex mismatch. At present, research along those lines is interesting... but not conclusive.

What is NOT conclusive is what it means in terms of predispositions, talents, weaknesses, etc.

Can you point to me some research that suggests that it is NOT conclusive?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

To try to return to the main topic of this thread, I posted upthread links to several articles about differences in brain structure between the brains of (cis) males and (cis) women, with trans individuals showing brain structures similar to the sex they believe they truly are. In other words, there seems to be some biological/physical evidence that suggests an explanation for this variation on sex/gender/genetics.

I am not certain why this would be controversial.

I posted up thread research suggesting that the opposite is the case.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-women-s-teams&p=808803&viewfull=1#post808803


https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5.pdf

In short (but that's a very crude summary; I would recommend the paper instead):

MTF, early onset, androphilic: Limited research, so far indicating mostly male-like brain, some female-like parts, some neither female-like nor male-like.
MTF, early onset, gynephilic: Just one study, indicating mostly male-like brain, no known female-like parts, some neither female-like nor male-like.

One known fact is that the minds of androphilic males (aka gay men) are somewhat different from those of gynephilic males, and so are the brains. A study of the brains of MTF should distinguish between gynephilic and androphilic persons, and also take into consideration the differences between the brains of gay men and straight ones (among many other factors), otherwise there would be no way of telling whether the differences that are found are because of the trans condition or the gay condition, and moreover, it conflates two (as near as it is known) different sorts of brains.

 

[ruby sparks]

There. That was put to you quite a way back. And it clearly was not about "structures". So I have no idea why you carried on as if it was.

I didn't act as if it was.

You said we have to map it back to structures or else we are changing the question entirely.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Contests should be between opponents of about equal demonstrated ability

I.e., measured ability based on past performance in previous competition, not based on any other categorizing into this or that class

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?

Yes, all those. If anyone wants to do it (with parents' approval in the case of minors), and if anyone wants to watch it as a spectator. But the match-ups should be between those of about equal rank, i.e., equal merit based on their past performance, on their won-lost record or any other measure of their past performance in the competitions.

Given that qualifier, that the competitors generally should be about equal, of about the same rank or measure of their past performances, why would any of the above be objectionable?

What would be wrong about a 300-pounder competing against a 120-pounder, in ANY sport imaginable, as long as in their past performances they displayed about the same performance level in competing so that their present rankings are about equal? This means the only reason their ranks are equal is that they defeated the same opponents, or equivalent opponents, in earlier match-ups -- i.e., their schedules were equally challenging, or comparable to each other and measurable, so that in this match-up (this 300-pounder vs. this 120-pounder) it is difficult to predict who will win. In such a case -- let's assume it's boxing -- the lightweight may have shown some unusual talent, or whatever, to overcome his/her weight disadvantage. There would have to be something unusual about this athlete to do so well in earlier matches against heavier opponents, and so his extra talent was able to overcome the handicap.

In fact, the whole notion of "handicap" should be eliminated, and instead there should just be lots of match-ups in which a handicapped opponent goes up against a non-handicapped opponent, as long as they seem to be about equal, in their past performance, and always rank them according to their performance -- the score, win-loss record, various stats to quantify their level of performance -- over time, the inferior performers would collect in the lower numbers while the superior ones in the higher-rank numbers, and most or all match-ups between equals (approximate equals) would eliminate the handicaps as factors and there would seldom be mismatches between anyone very high (in the 90s percentile) with someone very low (in the 20s) etc. Maybe there would never be such mismatches.

Let the performance and merit determine who should compete against whom, not the artificial categorizing of everyone into types they're supposed to belong to.

What would be wrong with any match-up, no matter what the differences, as long as the contenders are of about equal ranking based on past performance? Give a specific horror story that would happen as a result.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There. That was put to you quite a way back. And it clearly was not about "structures". So I have no idea why you carried on as if it was.

I didn't act as if it was.

You said we have to map it back to structures or else we are changing the question entirely.

Yes, obviously. The topic at the start of this tangent was belief A in relation to belief B. At some point metaphor substituted A with Æ, and did so as if here were still responding to the initial scenario which started the tangent.

A in relation to B is a different topic than Æ in relation to B. If one wants to change the question, by all means. If one wants to discuss a broader topic, cool cool cool. If one wants to criticize or analyze a person's belief in A, they can't randomly swap A with Æ in that criticism.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Let the performance and merit determine who should compete against whom, not the artificial categorizing of everyone into types they're supposed to belong to.

If you don't equalize for vastly different innate advantages, you aren't really making it a competition about performance and merit.

Is a race between an F1 car and a golf cart much of a test of performance and merit? For the golf cart driver, maybe. Gaps in human biological advantage tend not to be that stark, but the basic line of reasoning applies.

What would be wrong with any match-up, no matter what the differences, as long as the contenders are of about equal ranking based on past performance? Give a specific horror story that would happen as a result.

Horror story depends on how you see the value of sports. Aside from sports where mismatches could result in serious injury or death, there aren't many horror stories. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a significant point of concern that, let's say, women as a class would largely be eliminated from elite sports, not because their performances were less meritorious, but because of innate disadvantage.

 

[Metaphor]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a significant point of concern that, let's say, women as a class would largely be eliminated from elite sports, not because their performances were less meritorious, but because of innate disadvantage.

Yes. kis doesn't want to eliminate women from elite sports that way. kis would prefer to do it via allowing biological males to compete against women instead.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a significant point of concern that, let's say, women as a class would largely be eliminated from elite sports, not because their performances were less meritorious, but because of innate disadvantage.

Yes. kis doesn't want to eliminate women from elite sports that way. kis would prefer to do it via allowing biological males to compete against women instead.

This is a gross misrepresentation of anything I have ever written on the subject. If bald faced-lies are your game, that is on you, not me.

 

[ruby sparks]

You said we have to map it back to structures or else we are changing the question entirely.

Yes, obviously. The topic at the start of this tangent was belief A in relation to belief B. At some point metaphor substituted A with Æ, and did so as if here were still responding to the initial scenario which started the tangent.

A in relation to B is a different topic than Æ in relation to B. If one wants to change the question, by all means. If one wants to discuss a broader topic, cool cool cool. If one wants to criticize or analyze a person's belief in A, they can't randomly swap A with Æ in that criticism.

Quite honestly, I myself never read metaphor’s question, even initially, as being restricted to ‘structures’, even if he was responding to someone citing them. As such, I don’t think it was a change of question.

In any case, whatever the confusion, I see no point in restricting it to structures.

 

[ruby sparks]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a significant point of concern that, let's say, women as a class would largely be eliminated from elite sports, not because their performances were less meritorious, but because of innate disadvantage.

Yes. kis doesn't want to eliminate women from elite sports that way. kis would prefer to do it via allowing biological males to compete against women instead.

Oh dear. That’s unfortunate. Because you’re talking shite.

Why do you always ruin any decent point you ever make?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You said we have to map it back to structures or else we are changing the question entirely.

Yes, obviously. The topic at the start of this tangent was belief A in relation to belief B. At some point metaphor substituted A with Æ, and did so as if here were still responding to the initial scenario which started the tangent.

A in relation to B is a different topic than Æ in relation to B. If one wants to change the question, by all means. If one wants to discuss a broader topic, cool cool cool. If one wants to criticize or analyze a person's belief in A, they can't randomly swap A with Æ in that criticism.

Quite honestly, I myself never read metaphor’s question, even initially, as being restricted to ‘structures’, even if he was responding to someone citing them. As such, I don’t think it was a change of question.

In any case, whatever the confusion, I see no point in restricting it to structures.

You believe there is no point in limiting hostile interrogations to facts?

When you can sort through why the above question is stupid as a response to you, you should understand what we are talking about in this situation.

 

[ruby sparks]

You believe there is no point in limiting hostile interrogations to facts?

No, obviously. And I'm not even sure what facts you mean.

When you can sort through why the above question is stupid as a response to you, you should understand what we are talking about in this situation.

?

 

[ruby sparks]

Done!


For the most part, yes, pretty much in agreement, and for the most part, yes gendered woman.

Sidenote: We are all having trouble with words. When you said, "A transwoman isn't, however, female... and I rather disagree with altering the meaning of "woman" to such a drastic extent.." you switched from female to woman as if they were identical. I do it too. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. I'm not sure.

That was actually intentional. It really is meant to focus on the difference between sex and gender identity. A transwoman is not genetically or biologically female. But there has been a purpose-driven attempt to change the definition of "woman" over the last decade or so. For most of history, "woman" meant adult human female, and it encompassed the aspects of sex as well as the lived experience of female humans within society, including disadvantages, sexism, gender bias, and gender roles. It's been redefined to be representative of one's internal view of oneself as being "a woman". It makes it tautological as a trivial matter. "Woman" means "feeling like a woman" or "identifying as a woman". But beyond that, the redefinition of "woman" to focus exclusively on the identity aspect ends up negating and erasing both the sex-related aspects of being a female in society as well as the lived experience of it. It obfuscates the existing and very pernicious barriers that female humans face. By extending the definition of "woman" to be any person who feels themselves to be a woman, regardless of whether they have (or even can experience) the very real biological aspects of femaleness, and regardless of whether they have been subjected to a lifetime of gender bias and role-based expectations creating boundaries on their behavior and their success and their liberty, it effectively strips cis-women of their identity as women within society.

It creates a social narrative wherein the differential treatment foisted upon us by society at large is framed to be unimportant and not meaningful... or to not exist at all. In many cases, it creates a message (whether intentional or not) that because transwomen are defined as women, and because their struggles are severe and more dramatic (which they are, absolutely), then the needs of that subset of women are more important. The desires of that subset of women get prioritized as the fight that must be fought first, because it's more extreme. The challenges and barriers faced by females in our society end up being expected to take a back seat.

If that's one of your reasons, I don't think it's a very good one. As far as I can see, trans gender women are not claiming to be women so that they can crash the oppressed women's party, they're only doing it because that really is what they feel they are, which to me is then what they really are, in gender terms. And this gut feeling I've been having throughout that you are somehow trivialising or invalidating that, including the way you just have (which has a slight whiff of bogus about it, imo), is still with me.

I also don't understand why distinguishing between 'female' and 'woman' focuses, as you put it, "on the difference between sex and gender identity". That does not parse for me and is confusing. For what it's worth, I personally would be happy to simply say that they really, actually are both female, and women, in gender terms, so the terms are interchangeable as far as I am concerned. The definition of woman is 'adult human female', so I wouldn't have good grounds to accept 'female' and not 'woman'.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You believe there is no point in limiting hostile interrogations to facts?

No. Odd that you should say that.

Of course it is odd. I substituted terms on you. Despite the fact that I was quoting you, addressing you, and speaking about your beliefs, I substituted terms to land on something different from what you were saying.

In situations such as the above, it is nonsensical to substitute terms. That is what metaphor did. You can revise or expand your contributions to a conversation as you go. You can't reframe other people's for them and be taken seriously.

This is my last post in this exchange. I honestly do not get why this has you so confused.

 

[ruby sparks]

You believe there is no point in limiting hostile interrogations to facts?

No. Odd that you should say that.

Of course it is odd. I substituted terms on you. Despite the fact that I was quoting you, addressing you, and speaking about your beliefs, I substituted terms to land on something different from what you were saying.

In situations such as the above, it is nonsensical to substitute terms. That is what metaphor did. You can revise or expand your contributions to a conversation as you go. You can't reframe other people's for them and be taken seriously.

This is my last post in this exchange. I honestly do not get why this has you so confused.

I disagree that metaphor ever limited himself to structures, regardless of what he was initially replying to. And in fact he made that clear to you subsequently, and yet after that you still said, to ME (for whom it was never about structures) that it was about structures.

And for good measure, you pooh-poohed his ‘non structural’ point in any case, and you turned out to be wrong.

I think you are now merely trying to manufacture a pointless return gotcha on metaphor, to the extent that you are the whole time ignoring the underlying salient point, which is that there is no good reason to limit it to structures.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Of course it is odd. I substituted terms on you. Despite the fact that I was quoting you, addressing you, and speaking about your beliefs, I substituted terms to land on something different from what you were saying.

In situations such as the above, it is nonsensical to substitute terms. That is what metaphor did. You can revise or expand your contributions to a conversation as you go. You can't reframe other people's for them and be taken seriously.

This is my last post in this exchange. I honestly do not get why this has you so confused.

I disagree that metaphor ever limited himself to structures, regardless of what he was initially replying to. And in fact he made that clear to you subsequently, and yet after that you still said, to ME (for whom it was never about structures) that it was about structures.

And for good measure, you pooh-poohed his ‘non structural’ point in any case, and you turned out to be wrong.

I think you are now merely trying to manufacture a pointless return gotcha on metaphor, to the extent that you are the whole time ignoring the underlying salient point, which is that there is no good reason to limit it to structures.

I know I said that would be my last post, but read what I wrote. Like, actually read it. Look at the point I have raised. Now look at your response. Do you see how they don't actually line up?

I am not asking you to say I am right. I don't need you to prove I am wrong. I just want you to process what I have been saying the whole time. THE WHOLE TIME.

Because no matter how many times I try to get you to acknowledge what I am saying and always have been saying, you keep going after what I am not saying.

While I can accept responsibility for initial misunderstandings if I was unclear, I can't accept responsibility for your repeated unwillingness to try to understand what I am actually saying. I have reframed it more than once to try to help you, but you keep sweeping it aside are repeating yourself. Please pursue honest inquiry when I have been trying to tell you in oh so many ways I just am not saying what you think I am.

I am not saying metaphor or you or anyone else has to limit their views to brain structures. Maybe right now your brain is thinking 'Aha! I know you said it. I can quote it.'

But you would be wrong if you were thinking that. Because my statement was limited to a very basic principle: when you are rebutting someone else's position, it is rationally necessary to address a position they are actually espousing. And I am saying now, and in the past, and in every post where I have commented on this exchange, that is not what metaphor was doing.

You have said more that once 'regardless of what he was relying to'. No. It isn't just what he was replying to. He literally embedded it in the question. And that is literally what I was responding to.

There is no gotcha in my posts. No trap. No bait and switch. No pooh-poohing of non-structural points. There is a consistent throughline of wanting metaphor, and subsequently you, to address the argument a person has made rather than an argument they have not yet made.

In all contexts where he is not directly arguing against someone else's position, he is not in any way rationally obligated to make arguments which address someone else's position. Sky is the limit.