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

[Emily Lake]

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.

Oh that's hilarious... because most of my posts have been focused around the broad topic, and I pretty much dismissed Met's question as the bait-line that it so clearly was!

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.

Confirmation bias is a son-of-a-bitch.

 

[repoman]

Asking a non sarcastic question here. For girls and boys does puberty itself make them have more feminine and masculine interests than before?

Or perhaps if the attraction to (usually) and need for acceptance by the opposite sex make them conform to what they think their roles should be instead? It would be hard to tease these apart.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That approach has a fairly predictable outcome, which I think should produce at least a bit of hesitation. Let's start with a more dramatic scenario, where there are no age limits. So you would have a fully grown adult competing in a track race against a 6-year old. Who is going to win? I think it's pretty clearly 99.99999% of the time, the adult is going to win. So, in aggregate, the adults win, and move forward, and the children lose and are removed from competition. Looking at their continued stats over time, you'll see consistent wins for the adults, and consistent losses for children. The result ends up being that the children end up not being allowed to compete... which also, by the way, ends up meaning that those children aren't provided an opportunity to improve their skills even if they are an exceptional runner for a child. The net result is that children end up crowded out of competition altogether.

I swam competitively as a child. I was pretty good at it - for a child. If I were competing against adults, or even against much older teenagers, rather than kids in my own age bracket, I would consistently lose. I would fall out of the competitions, heck I wouldn't even qualify for them in the first place. And I guarantee I would have quit swimming quite quickly, because there's no real opportunity for me to compete there.

What if you took the same approach to car races? All cars, with no restrictions or classes, all compete against each other and the best car wins. It might be interesting for a season, but it would get boring after a while. If we're talking about drag races, the funny cars are going to win, and nothing else will ever be able to take part in it. If we're talking about road races, it will be F1. There would be no more NASCAR. No more Indy Car. No more Stock Car.

Sounds like it would be boring... as well as very effectively stifling competition.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I find it entertaining and humorous that we both ended up with car races as an analogy here

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I don't think krypton has expressed that view. I think you are making assumptions about her views based on your own stereotypes, rather than actually listening to what she says and considering her opinions as those of an individual.

 

[Jarhyn]

Asking a non sarcastic question here. For girls and boys does puberty itself make them have more feminine and masculine interests than before?

Or perhaps if the attraction to (usually) and need for acceptance by the opposite sex make them conform to what they think their roles should be instead? It would be hard to tease these apart.

Puberty changes things. Every instance of puberty does this, often in ways that cannot strictly be predicted.

It definitely impacts behavior, but not the motivation of what peer group one seeks membership to, or which rules. As best I can tell the process is that a brain grows, the brain forms affinity to some set of roles and desires, and then puberty either meshes well with that or it doesn't. I don't honestly think it matters much: people should have access to the hormones which best harmonize with their brains.

Sometimes, sexuality changes entirely as a function of transition.

Hormones push our behavior in a direction. Sometimes it pushes motivations, but more frequently it just pushes an urgency behind what is already there.

At any rate, we shouldn't have to tease anything apart. We have people saying "this puberty is pushing me further away from who I want to be!" And people saying "deal with it". We don't really need to open that box for people who aren't us though. That's their box, not ours, to investigate, preferably with the help of a degreed developmental psychologist.

 

[Emily Lake]

Asking a non sarcastic question here. For girls and boys does puberty itself make them have more feminine and masculine interests than before?

Or perhaps if the attraction to (usually) and need for acceptance by the opposite sex make them conform to what they think their roles should be instead? It would be hard to tease these apart.

It's a good question, and I'm going to go with... we don't really know and probably a bit of both?

It's really, really, really hard to tease apart the evolutionarily prompted predispositions from the socially conditioned behavior. I think it's probably a bit of both. Most sexually dimorphic animals display some degree of sexual selection in mating, and sexual selection is powerful. Peacocks don't have those tails because they increase their ability to survive predation, they have then because peahens like them and actively select males with the most vibrant and lush tail display. I see no reason to doubt that some of the interests and behaviors pubescent humans display are also driven by the desire to attract a mate, even if they don't realize it. A lot of women's makeup, for example, ends up mimicking the physical effects of either sexual arousal or ovulation. But a lot of it is also going to be a parroting of social norms defining what is seen as attractive, including behavior. As an example, think women being viewed as attractive is a pretty modern thing, really only about the last hundred years. Prior to that a woman with some padding was seen as being much more feminine and attractive than a skinny woman.

So... it's complicated and we don't really know for sure... and we're probably going to continue arguing about it for a while

 

[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.

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.

kis, you believe that trans-identified, biological males --transwomen-- should play in women's sports. Now, I don't think you want it to destroy women's sports: I think you are recklessly indifferent to the fact that girls and women will be disadvantaged and pushed out.

You can adorn your belief with qualifiers such as testosterone limits, but these qualifiers do not address the rank stupidity of the idea and the utter, unalloyed, unhinged selfishness of it.

 

[Metaphor]

Peacocks don't have those tails because they increase their ability to survive predation, they have then because peahens like them and actively select males with the most vibrant and lush tail display.

It's too bad there's no animal hell for the relentless psychosexual pressure those peahens put on peacocks, but maybe they've created their own hell living with the fact that their man is prettier than they'll ever be.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

kis, you believe that trans-identified, biological males --transwomen-- should play in women's sports. Now, I don't think you want it to destroy women's sports: I think you are recklessly indifferent to the fact that girls and women will be disadvantaged and pushed out.

You can adorn your belief with qualifiers such as testosterone limits, but these qualifiers do not address the rank stupidity of the idea and the utter, unalloyed, unhinged selfishness of it.

Now you've gone off a bit sideways here. I support allowing transwomen to compete on women's teams with reasonable restrictions that account for the physical differences of sex. The push-back against transwomen competing isn't about them being male, it's about the inherent differences in physical capabilities that make it an unfair competition when there is no treatment involved.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

kis, you believe that trans-identified, biological males --transwomen-- should play in women's sports. Now, I don't think you want it to destroy women's sports: I think you are recklessly indifferent to the fact that girls and women will be disadvantaged and pushed out.

You can adorn your belief with qualifiers such as testosterone limits, but these qualifiers do not address the rank stupidity of the idea and the utter, unalloyed, unhinged selfishness of it.

Now you've gone off a bit sideways here. I support allowing transwomen to compete on women's teams with reasonable restrictions that account for the physical differences of sex. The push-back against transwomen competing isn't about them being male, it's about the inherent differences in physical capabilities that make it an unfair competition when there is no treatment involved.

But that's the point, Emily. The sexes were separated in the first place because males have a systemic competitive advantage.

As for 'treatment' - trans activists do not want there to be any medicalisation. Trans activists want school policies to be 'self-declaration' only - no requirement for medical, legal, or social transition.

But 'treatment' does not and never has eliminated the advantage that transwomen have. It doesn't retroactively eliminate a transwoman's male puberty. It doesn't eliminate a woman competitor's female puberty or hips or fat distribution. Treatment doesn't give transwomen periods. Treatment doesn't shave a centimetre off Hannah Mouncey's 190cm frame, or change Hannah's shoe size.

Sports were segregated on sex, because sex is a systemic difference that gives men an advantage. Sports were never separated based on gender and there is no sane reason to do so.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

kis, you believe that trans-identified, biological males --transwomen-- should play in women's sports. Now, I don't think you want it to destroy women's sports: I think you are recklessly indifferent to the fact that girls and women will be disadvantaged and pushed out.

You can adorn your belief with qualifiers such as testosterone limits, but these qualifiers do not address the rank stupidity of the idea and the utter, unalloyed, unhinged selfishness of it.

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women. I don't make strong statements on what restrictions should be in place because that is a matter for medical professionals and sciences specific to sports.

If advantages are nullified by appropriate measures, then by definition cisgender women are not at a disadvantage. It's kind of a tautology that.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

I find it entertaining and humorous that we both ended up with car races as an analogy here

Huh. I guess it appeals because the machine aspect makes it feel coolly objective.

 

[Metaphor]

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women.

Of course they would have advantages. Not having a male puberty, for a male, does not mean you had a female puberty.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women.

Of course they would have advantages. Not having a male puberty, for a male, does not mean you had a female puberty.

Are you under the impression that the word 'advantages' is synonymous with 'magic'?

 

[Toni]

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women.

Of course they would have advantages. Not having a male puberty, for a male, does not mean you had a female puberty.

What do you suppose taking female hormones does for a transwoman?

 

[Metaphor]

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women.

Of course they would have advantages. Not having a male puberty, for a male, does not mean you had a female puberty.

Are you under the impression that the word 'advantages' is synonymous with 'magic'?

No. I'm under the impression that you can't change sex, and sports are segregated by sex because males have distinct physiological superiority at sports, compared to females. If they didn't we wouldn't separate sports in the first place.

A transwoman who never went through a male puberty is likely to be taller than average (as a result of puberty blockers), and they will lack any of the effects of a female puberty, such as menarche and hip-widening.

 

[Metaphor]

I support the inclusion of transgender women where advantage has been adequately adjusted for. I've never really made firm statements on what that entails apart from the considered position that transgender women who never went through male puberty would not have advantages over cisgender women.

Of course they would have advantages. Not having a male puberty, for a male, does not mean you had a female puberty.

What do you suppose taking female hormones does for a transwoman?

I can tell you what it doesn't do: it doesn't change a body from male to female. It doesn't cause a male body to menstruate. And if it's a male that has been through a male puberty, it doesn't eliminate the height and strength and stamina advantages that males have in the first place.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Are you under the impression that the word 'advantages' is synonymous with 'magic'?

No. I'm under the impression that you can't change sex, and sports are segregated by sex because males have distinct physiological superiority at sports, compared to females. If they didn't we wouldn't separate sports in the first place.

A transwoman who never went through a male puberty is likely to be taller than average (as a result of puberty blockers), and they will lack any of the effects of a female puberty, such as menarche and hip-widening.

Right, so we can cis women with narrow hips and who don't undergo menstruation and are tall. Whe find a curve and we let only the middle compete even when the actual implication on advantage really isn't clear.

Question: do we need to ban the short transgender girls from gymnastics?

 

[Metaphor]

Right, so we can cis women with narrow hips and who don't undergo menstruation and are tall. Whe find a curve and we let only the middle compete even when the actual implication on advantage really isn't clear.

No. You haven't passed the first hurdle. Transwomen are men and they don't qualify to compete in women's sports, because they are the wrong sex.

Question: do we need to ban the short transgender girls from gymnastics?

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. Men and women already have different events in gymnastics. For example, women don't compete in pommel horse or still rings, because of the extreme upper body strength required.

But if you are asking if natal males should be disqualified from girl's gymnastic events, yes. Or rather, they are not disqualified since they don't qualify in the first place.