Idaho governor signs into law anti-transgender legislation

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to keep in mind here:

There have been several recent posts arguing evidence for male and female biological structures--and one claiming that the reverse applies to some of those structures in the transgendered.

The idea that male is male and female is female and that's it assumes everything works correctly--something we know to be false. We have the examples of XY "women" (who are in all biological respects female although their female bits don't always perform up to par) that seem to be widespread. There is no issue of them going against biology because nobody even realized there was an issue until the era of genetic testing, and nobody realized it was widespread until they tried using genetic testing to weed out males trying to compete as females (which caught multiple "males" who had no idea they weren't "female".) And then there's the even weirder relative to this: the "girls" who become "boys" at puberty. (The former have a mutation that keeps testosterone from having it's normal androgenizing effect, the latter are only immune to the version produced in utero but respond normally to the version released at puberty.)

Why in the world should we assume that sexuality and gender do not likewise sometimes go wrong?

 

[Bomb#20]

I just want to see sports segregated on the basis of competitive advantage, nothing more and nothing less.

But segregating sports on the basis of competitive advantage makes no conceptual sense. Assuming the referees do their jobs right, there are only two things determining who wins and who loses a sporting competition: competitive advantage and chance. And, given the prevalence of best-four-out-of-seven matches and you-have-to-win-by-two-games rules and so forth, it appears that by-and-large, people who are into sports are trying to minimize the role of chance. So unless the plan is to just give everyone a participation ribbon, the whole point of the competition can only be to measure who has competitive advantage -- by having people with unequal competitive advantage play each other. Having people not play each other because one has a competitive advantage over the other defeats the entire purpose. When some characteristic delivering competitive advantage is banned, it isn't to exclude competitive advantage, but to exclude that specific source of competitive advantage, because the participants wish to measure different sources of competitive advantage. Sports typically exclude dopers, not because steroids give competitive advantage, but because the participants don't want the sporting event to devolve into a measurement of who took the most drugs.

Of course I take it you understand this. You can't literally mean you want to see sports segregated on the basis of competitive advantage. You want them segregated on the basis of "competitive advantages with respect to hormone exposure", yes?

You have made no justification for why that is better in any way than separating on the basis of "competitive advantage", and make the observation that because we cannot at this time speak as to whether a puberty and some later reversal of hormone treatment constitutes "competitive advantage" we take the safest route: We ban people with post-pubertal transitions from competing in leagues which ban "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure.

Segregating on the basis of competitive advantage with respect to hormone exposure is a lovely idea -- we'd keep sporting events from devolving into measurements of who was exposed to the most hormones so they could do their job of measuring whichever other competitive advantages we value more. The trouble is, it's impossible. Hormone exposure is a continuum, not an either/or, and we can't tell with any accuracy how much hormone a person was exposed to. No matter how many partitions there are and no matter how you divide people up into those partitions, some people assigned to the B league will have had more hormone exposure than others. Consequently, B league contests will very often de facto be measurements of who was exposed to more hormones.

Any league that bans "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure is a league that's kidding itself.

 

[Half-Life]

Why in the world should we assume that sexuality and gender do not likewise sometimes go wrong?

Only if you agree that a white person, who hates their white skin and "feels like" they are black instead of white, is a 100% black person.

If you agree, this would render "race" a meaningless word, just like "man" and "woman."

 

[fromderinside]

Makes no sense. Being some species of human depends on advantages to one so being identified. A white girl with advantages presumed by being white co-opting leadership of blacks in a place where very few are blacks is not the same as a male declaring female identity where there are many there who are females with female identities.

Now if one of other ethnicity declared they were that one among many of that other ethnicity the should be no problem.

Your painting issues with your broad brush does not serve you well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why in the world should we assume that sexuality and gender do not likewise sometimes go wrong?

Only if you agree that a white person, who hates their white skin and "feels like" they are black instead of white, is a 100% black person.

If you agree, this would render "race" a meaningless word, just like "man" and "woman."

"Race" is a combination of traits, there is no gene which is uniquely "white" or uniquely "black".

And that still doesn't address my point--biology doesn't always get it right, especially in cases where there are multiple possible configurations in our DNA.

 

[Jarhyn]

I just want to see sports segregated on the basis of competitive advantage, nothing more and nothing less.

But segregating sports on the basis of competitive advantage makes no conceptual sense. Assuming the referees do their jobs right, there are only two things determining who wins and who loses a sporting competition: competitive advantage and chance. And, given the prevalence of best-four-out-of-seven matches and you-have-to-win-by-two-games rules and so forth, it appears that by-and-large, people who are into sports are trying to minimize the role of chance. So unless the plan is to just give everyone a participation ribbon, the whole point of the competition can only be to measure who has competitive advantage -- by having people with unequal competitive advantage play each other. Having people not play each other because one has a competitive advantage over the other defeats the entire purpose. When some characteristic delivering competitive advantage is banned, it isn't to exclude competitive advantage, but to exclude that specific source of competitive advantage, because the participants wish to measure different sources of competitive advantage. Sports typically exclude dopers, not because steroids give competitive advantage, but because the participants don't want the sporting event to devolve into a measurement of who took the most drugs.

Of course I take it you understand this. You can't literally mean you want to see sports segregated on the basis of competitive advantage. You want them segregated on the basis of "competitive advantages with respect to hormone exposure", yes?

You have made no justification for why that is better in any way than separating on the basis of "competitive advantage", and make the observation that because we cannot at this time speak as to whether a puberty and some later reversal of hormone treatment constitutes "competitive advantage" we take the safest route: We ban people with post-pubertal transitions from competing in leagues which ban "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure.

Segregating on the basis of competitive advantage with respect to hormone exposure is a lovely idea -- we'd keep sporting events from devolving into measurements of who was exposed to the most hormones so they could do their job of measuring whichever other competitive advantages we value more. The trouble is, it's impossible. Hormone exposure is a continuum, not an either/or, and we can't tell with any accuracy how much hormone a person was exposed to. No matter how many partitions there are and no matter how you divide people up into those partitions, some people assigned to the B league will have had more hormone exposure than others. Consequently, B league contests will very often de facto be measurements of who was exposed to more hormones.

Any league that bans "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure is a league that's kidding itself.

hormone exposure is on a continuum. This is a fact. As is the effect of that exposure, as is the effects it has on the body. The hormones we are talking about are specifically hormones they already disallow consumption of in any measure in the "B" league. Your assumption is that people exposed briefly in their youth to insignificant quantities of hormones will define success in the entire field of sports. I find that unlikely. The advantage comes from many years of exposure, consistent skeletal, muscular, and fat placement differentiations that must carry on for years. That's what blockers are for. and later, testosterone suppressors and the like. As I said, there's not enough advantage at that point for it to remain significant, unless you really believe that being born with a "male" anything else besides hormonal advantage is going to define success in sports, think again. And if the person in question for whatever reason never had that, then that's sufficient enough for me to let them play in what has classically been called "women's" sports.

There are hormone levels that are normal, and dosage can be regulated, and the effects on the body monitored. for people who are transitioning, that is generally the case. We just need to define limits for those who get whatever may be regulated by the league from external sources. We already define limits and do testing on large for other steroids in most forms of competition. It just means there needs to be a record, and actual standards.

Isn't that something that you lot keep bitching about, that there's currently no standard on what quantifies someone who can compete fairly? There it is. I'm pointing at a good standard. BOO FUCKING HOO that it runs roughshod over the desire to segregate by "sex", or more significantly what gonads they were born with, to say nothing about anything else that might matter.

You lot keep posing we look in people's pants and ban based on what we see there. I propose something we already do: have them pee in a cup regularly. You haven't convinced me; I don't think it is correct to frame this as "women" vs "men", however you define those things. At least not for sports.

Now interestingly, one thing they do seem to find is that people who postpone puberty end up taller. Maybe basketball will create calls for exception and ban what might be considered a form of "lifecycle" doping. Who knows. That would be an interesting argument to have, too. But this inane squawking about "sex" segregated sports is just fucking stupid. We know what hormone we are talking about: testosterone. We already know practical limits we test athletes for in all segregated sports on both sides.

 

[repoman]

Here is a good question, Jarhyn.

It there was a female high school athlete who can in second place in a track and field event to a transgender MTF but wrote that she came in first in her college application would that be fraudulent?

Or what if she indicated that she was first place among cis women competitors? If she does that sgould dhe be denied college entry?

And yeah the puberty puts the breaks on height growth for sure.

Won't delayed puberty MTF (followed by female hormone puberty) be taller than even average males?

 

[Metaphor]

We know what hormone we are talking about: testosterone. We already know practical limits we test athletes for in all segregated sports on both sides.

I assume then you will disallow all FtM athletes for taking a performance enhancing drug.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

We know what hormone we are talking about: testosterone. We already know practical limits we test athletes for in all segregated sports on both sides.

I assume then you will disallow all FtM athletes for taking a performance enhancing drug.

Therapeutic usage and performance-enhancing usage of testosterone can and should be distinguished, not just for transgender men pursuing transition, but for other conditions such as male hypogonadism. There are regulatory bodies such as the World Anti-Doping Agency which set the standards for therapeutic use exemptions for prohibited substances.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resourc...formation-to-support-the-decisions-of-tuecs-7

 

[Jarhyn]

Here is a good question, Jarhyn.

It there was a female high school athlete who can in second place in a track and field event to a transgender MTF but wrote that she came in first in her college application would that be fraudulent?

Or what if she indicated that she was first place among cis women competitors? If she does that sgould dhe be denied college entry?

And yeah the puberty puts the breaks on height growth for sure.

Won't delayed puberty MTF (followed by female hormone puberty) be taller than even average males?

First, yes. It would be fraudulent. She didn't finish first in her class of contestant. If she wrote that she came in first among some class of special pleading, the ethical failure speaks for itself. As to the effects of height, they are not universally benefits for all sports; for some sports it is a curse to be too tall. But that's what deliberation on what may qualify as doping is for. Therapeutic use is separate from out of band exposure for estrogen, but there are situations where "lifecycle doping" are specifically singled out. The key is targeting the relevant differences, and letting irrelevant differences BE irrelevant.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Hormone exposure is a continuum, not an either/or ... Any league that bans "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure is a league that's kidding itself.

hormone exposure is on a continuum. This is a fact. As is the effect of that exposure, as is the effects it has on the body. The hormones we are talking about are specifically hormones they already disallow consumption of in any measure in the "B" league. Your assumption is that people exposed briefly in their youth to insignificant quantities of hormones will define success in the entire field of sports.

I do not automatically assume whatever you need me to have assumed in order to make your arguing job easier. Any time you want to address what I actually said instead of what you assume I assume, feel free.

Isn't that something that you lot keep bitching about <snip>
You lot keep posing we look in people's pants and <snip>

Excuse me? Who the heck is this "we lot" you're addressing? Quote me "bitching" about whatever the heck you're on about. Quote me "posing we look in people's pants". If you want to argue with somebody else, go argue with somebody else; but when you argue with somebody else and try to pass it off as addressing what I said, you're acting like a jerk.

That you're acting like a jerk aside, I explained why your proposal is problematic. If your defense of it is to bring in some third parties and tell me how wrong they are, well, that's really not much of a defense now, is it?

But this inane squawking about "sex" segregated sports is just <expletive deleted> stupid.

And? I don't recall offering an opinion on sex segregated sports.

 

[Jarhyn]

I do not automatically assume whatever you need me to have assumed in order to make your arguing job easier. Any time you want to address what I actually said instead of what you assume I assume, feel free.

Isn't that something that you lot keep bitching about <snip>
You lot keep posing we look in people's pants and <snip>

Excuse me? Who the heck is this "we lot" you're addressing? Quote me "bitching" about whatever the heck you're on about. Quote me "posing we look in people's pants". If you want to argue with somebody else, go argue with somebody else; but when you argue with somebody else and try to pass it off as addressing what I said, you're acting like a jerk.

That you're acting like a jerk aside, I explained why your proposal is problematic. If your defense of it is to bring in some third parties and tell me how wrong they are, well, that's really not much of a defense now, is it?

But this inane squawking about "sex" segregated sports is just <expletive deleted> stupid.

And? I don't recall offering an opinion on sex segregated sports.

Your positions assume a tacit accpetance of sex segregation in sports. How hard is it to accept that, that by arguing about sex segregations, talking about what we do and only talking about problems and solutions from the perspective of that status quo, you are tacit in assuming it is right. The problem is that all your positions launch from a hidden assumption, an assumption of the shape of the problem and thus why the issues are as they are.

You do this by steering the conversation around the sex segregation and what men and women are, as if that should matter to sports in the first place.

You think that being gender and sexuality neutral in language describing what is banned in sports is to "kid oneself". I think you are making up excuses and that we already do 99% of what is required to ban what is obviously a contentious competitive advantage within sports without actually targeting trans people per se.

 

[repoman]

Status quo is good in this case.

 

[Bomb#20]

... I explained why your proposal is problematic. If your defense of it is to bring in some third parties and tell me how wrong they are, well, that's really not much of a defense now, is it?


And? I don't recall offering an opinion on sex segregated sports.

Your positions assume a tacit accpetance of sex segregation in sports. How hard is it to accept that, that by arguing about sex segregations, talking about what we do and only talking about problems and solutions from the perspective of that status quo, you are tacit in assuming it is right. The problem is that all your positions launch from a hidden assumption, an assumption of the shape of the problem and thus why the issues are as they are.

You do this by steering the conversation around the sex segregation and what men and women are, as if that should matter to sports in the first place.

Huh? What are these "your positions" you keep talking about? What is this "arguing about sex segregations" I'm allegedly doing? What "perspective" of mine are you on about? You appear to have me mixed up with somebody else you've been arguing with.

You think that being gender and sexuality neutral in language describing what is banned in sports is to "kid oneself".

You are not competent to tell me what I think. I told you what's kidding oneself: trying to ban "competitive advantages" with respect to hormone exposure. That's because any league that thinks it's doing that will not in fact be doing that. Why you imagine that you can jump from that modest statement to your ridiculously overblown claim about what I think is beyond me. Any sport that wants to write its rulebook in gender and sexuality neutral language can do as it pleases, and nobody said that means it's kidding itself, unless one of those rules happens to be "Nobody gets to have had more testosterone than anybody else."

Incidentally, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't participate in sex-segregated sports and I hardly ever watch sex-segregated sports. In the only sport I watch frequently, men and women compete on an equal footing without any distinction; I haven't read its rulebook but I'm quite confident that what is banned is described in gender and sexuality neutral language. Sex-segregation can continue as is, or be modified, or be abolished; it's all the same to me. Stop telling other people what they think. You aren't any good at it.

But for what it's worth, I forecast that your proposed compromise, if adopted, will satisfy hardly any of the sides in your culture struggle. In particular, I forecast that a league that adopts it will be every bit as vulnerable to political interference with its chosen participation rules as traditional sex-segregated sports are, and as sports with no women's leagues are.