• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
This story has been covered by multiple publications. The link below is to New York Post

A teammate of Lia Thomas on the University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team has spoken out as the transgender swimmer has shattered school records.

Before her transition, Thomas competed at Penn for three years as a male.

She recently set school records in the 200-meter freestyle and 500-meter freestyle in November. This past weekend, the record-breaking stretch continued, as Thomas set a school record in the 1650-meter freestyle. Her teammate Anna Kalandadze finished in second place — over 38 seconds behind Thomas.

An anonymous teammate of Thomas spoke to the website OutKick, claiming most members of the team have expressed displeasure over the situation to their coach, Mike Schnur.

“Pretty much everyone individually has spoken to our coaches about not liking this. Our coach [Mike Schnur] just really likes winning. He’s like most coaches. I think secretly everyone just knows it’s the wrong thing to do,” the female Penn swimmer said.

“When the whole team is together, we have to be like, ‘Oh my gosh, go Lia, that’s great, you’re amazing.’ It’s very fake.”

NCAA bylaws permit transgender athletes to compete as women after they have completed one year of testosterone suppression treatment.

The teammate, according to OutKick, said it’s plausible that Thomas could not only win national championships in women’s swimming, but break national women’s college records that were set by eventual Olympic gold medalists Missy Franklin and Katie Ledecky.

Thomas’ best times swimming as a woman at Penn are about two seconds behind Franklin’s record in the 200, and about 10 seconds and 56 seconds behind Ledecky’s in the 500 and 1,600, respectively. However, Thomas’ best times while swimming as a male would break both of Ledecky’s records and fall fractions of a second behind Franklin’s.

“The Ivy League is not a fast league for swimming, so that’s why it’s particularly ridiculous that we could potentially have an NCAA champion. That’s unheard of coming from the Ivy League,” the teammate said.

“On paper, if Lia Thomas gets back down to Will Thomas’ best times, those numbers are female world records. Faster than all the times Katie Ledecky went in college. Faster than any other Olympian you can think of.”
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,902
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Are you saying your opinion on its fairness doesn't matter, you can't be bothered to formulate an opinion, you do have an opinion but you don't want to tell me, or something else?
That is so convoluted I have no idea what you are asking.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Are you saying your opinion on its fairness doesn't matter, you can't be bothered to formulate an opinion, you do have an opinion but you don't want to tell me, or something else?
That is so convoluted I have no idea what you are asking.
I was asking you to explain what you meant by "it doesn't matter".
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,902
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I was asking you to explain what you meant by "it doesn't matter".
I see no adverse consequences that are meaningful in any way. Maybe if you put your thoughts about this I can clarify with your given context.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I was asking you to explain what you meant by "it doesn't matter".
I see no adverse consequences that are meaningful in any way. Maybe if you put your thoughts about this I can clarify with your given context.
My thoughts about it are this:
  • Mens and womens sports were separated by sex because men and women have different physiology
  • The separation has allowed women to compete in sports on a fair basis, as elite level women could not hope to compete against elite level men
  • Lia Thomas is biologically male, experienced a male puberty, and despite his identification as trans, has not changed sex (as that is a biological impossibility)
  • Therefore, it is unfair for Lia Thomas to compete with and against women, his 'womens' records are an illusion, and have robbed actual women of acclaim and opportunities they worked for.
In addition to the above, I would say Lia Thomas is a fucking cunt for doing so, the institutions and individuals supporting his participation are either complicit in his unethical behaviour, or have too much at stake to publically object to the unfairness because of the cultural power trans activists currently wield.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

At the beginning, I think it's entirely reasonable to make the requirement "no more than 2 years past the onset of puberty, in the absence of blockers."

Of course, the bad faith crew will howl and moan! Oh will they howl and moan!

"They are too young to know what they want!"

You know, this first argument sounds like the very reason we don't let kids have sex: because they are too young to understand it.

The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.

So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that of which we do let happen them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...

Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".

Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck. They can adopt if they want a kid. It is far from certain, and as some have noted, we don't need more kids. As technology progresses this may not even be a concern in the long term.

Regardless, the people who make these arguments remind me of the doctors I hear stories bout on /r/childfree who patronize (mostly women) and either expect their husband's OK, second guesses their convictions, or otherwise flat out denies them. My visceral reaction when I see this is "my body, my choice; if you think my body, your choice, then your body my choice," I kIck them in the gonads until they break. Of course I wouldn't, but I would like to. Instead they would be getting a complaint filed with the state medical board, along with whatever other malignancy I can bring into the life of a gatekeeper on reproductive self determination.

@TomC will obviously agree with me that this is a spurious argument as well, I am sure, because of how they have argued we have enough people already.

"There will be false positives!"

That's why the blockers for those in identifiably questionable circumstances, so that their situation may be parsed.

In all honesty I would support unilateral youth choice to take blockers, without parental permission or consultation, universally.

Anything else is, well, we end up right back at the first whinge.

And conveniently, this solves the problem of testosterone exposure in leagues specifically formed because testosterone exposure creates a different competitive class
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
This is posed on the boundaries of "this person was born with (the organ that produces testosterone)", and "has only been off it for a year"

You reference testosterone exposure in your own OP.

We see you.

AM already burned through three, let's see how long it takes you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
This is posed on the boundaries of "this person was born with (the organ that produces testosterone)", and "has only been off it for a year"

You reference testosterone exposure in your own OP.

No, I didn't. The OP quotes a story which quotes a policy. The policy is not my policy and it is a policy I disagree with.

Of course, it's a policy you disagree with, too.

But more to the point, I still have no idea why you came to the conclusion that testosterone exposure is the ONLY thing that should determine who someone competes with. This is not true, since age and disability are also dimensions any fair-minded person would use, but even in the narrow space of sex-based differences, why would it be a good principle?

We see you.

AM already burned through three, let's see how long it takes you.
I don't understand your sentence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
This is posed on the boundaries of "this person was born with (the organ that produces testosterone)", and "has only been off it for a year"

You reference testosterone exposure in your own OP.

No, I didn't. The OP quotes a story which quotes a policy. The policy is not my policy and it is a policy I disagree with.

Of course, it's a policy you disagree with, too.

But more to the point, I still have no idea why you came to the conclusion that testosterone exposure is the ONLY thing that should determine who someone competes with. This is not true, since age and disability are also dimensions any fair-minded person would use, but even in the narrow space of sex-based differences, why would it be a good principle?
Ah, bad faith bringing up dimensions of consideration to declare someone "technically" wrong without actually addressing content. We aren't talking about disability. If you want to talk about whether "special" Olympics or age class groups or whatever are appropriate, start a new thread.

YOU are the one who makes tacit admissions that this orbits around "testosterone" not "gender" or "sex".

But that doesn't matter to bad faith.

We see you.

AM already burned through three, let's see how long it takes you.
I don't understand your sentence.

I didn't expect you to.

This is number two btw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
This is posed on the boundaries of "this person was born with (the organ that produces testosterone)", and "has only been off it for a year"

You reference testosterone exposure in your own OP.

No, I didn't. The OP quotes a story which quotes a policy. The policy is not my policy and it is a policy I disagree with.

Of course, it's a policy you disagree with, too.

But more to the point, I still have no idea why you came to the conclusion that testosterone exposure is the ONLY thing that should determine who someone competes with. This is not true, since age and disability are also dimensions any fair-minded person would use, but even in the narrow space of sex-based differences, why would it be a good principle?
Ah, bad faith bringing up dimensions of consideration to declare someone "technically" wrong without actually addressing content.

You are wrong that testosterone exposure during puberty is the only relevant factor in considering fair competition, even in the narrow space of fairness along sex-based parameters.

YOU are the one who makes tacit admissions that this orbits around "testosterone" not "gender" or "sex".

I have not made any such admissions and if you think I have, I will explicitly disabuse you of them.

"Gender" or "gender identity" is completely irrelevant to fairness in sports. Nobody's gender should make any difference whatever with respect to whom it is fair they compete with.

"Testosterone" is also irrelevant, except that it's a performance enhancing drug and anybody taking testosterone is doping and it is not fair they compete.

But that doesn't matter to bad faith.

We see you.

AM already burned through three, let's see how long it takes you.
I don't understand your sentence.

I didn't expect you to.

This is number two btw.
Okay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,902
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
In addition to the above, I would say Lia Thomas is a fucking cunt for doing so, the institutions and individuals supporting his participation are either complicit in his unethical behaviour, or have too much at stake to publically object to the unfairness because of the cultural power trans activists currently wield.
Whenever I hear people talk about imaginary "cultural power", I am always reminded of that Jon Stewart/Bernard Goldberg interview where it's pretty obvious "cultural power" is just code for, "I want to be a fuckwit and be immune from consequences". Especially when the people who bemoan about cultural power never talk about actual abuses of power. Considering trans activists are only asking for equality and not transparency, your irrational fear over it along with your Prager-esque insistence on addressing Lia Thomas as "he" is kinda obvious which side of the fence you are on. Good luck with that - I look forward to your next thread bemoaning the death of western civilization because a trans person won a hopscotch contest or something.

Besides, given your strict beliefs of laser precise definitions, by your logic Lia Thomas is a woman as she is a fucking cunt. Can't have a cunt and be a man as there are no shades of grey in your world of arguments.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
In addition to the above, I would say Lia Thomas is a fucking cunt for doing so, the institutions and individuals supporting his participation are either complicit in his unethical behaviour, or have too much at stake to publically object to the unfairness because of the cultural power trans activists currently wield.
Whenever I hear people talk about imaginary "cultural power", I am always reminded of that Jon Stewart/Bernard Goldberg interview where it's pretty obvious "cultural power" is just code for, "I want to be a fuckwit and be immune from consequences".
It is not code. Trans activists have immense cultural power. Enough that JK Rowling was not included in the 20th anniversary celebration of the first Harry Potter movie, for example.

Especially when the people who bemoan about cultural power never talk about actual abuses of power. Considering trans activists are only asking for equality and not transparency, your irrational fear over it along with your Prager-esque insistence on addressing Lia Thomas as "he" is kinda obvious which side of the fence you are on.

Lia Thomas is an adult human male. "He/him/his" are the only honest pronouns to address him.
Good luck with that - I look forward to your next thread bemoaning the death of western civilization because a trans person won a hopscotch contest or something.
Trans people winning anything does not bother me in the slightest.

Adult human males competing as if they were women, against women, bothers me, whether those adult human males win or not.

Besides, given your strict beliefs of laser precise definitions, by your logic Lia Thomas is a woman as she is a fucking cunt.
Non. A fucking cunt is not synonymous with 'a woman'.

Can't have a cunt and be a man as there are no shades of grey in your world of arguments.
I see. You don't understand figurative language.

Lia Thomas does not have a vagina, because Lia Thomas is an adult human male.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.
I've pointed out NUMEROUS times now that this better way is to just remove "sex" and "gender" completely from the discussion. While these things are in the same idea system, different abstract relations to the thing that sports fairness divides on, the real and complete alignment of the pivot happens on hormonal advantages.

When someone has some mutation or condition or decision that exposes their body to testosterone for a long term period of time, and particularly while the skeleton is finalizing development THIS and ONLY THIS determines who someone ought be competing with.

How have you come to this conclusion?
This is posed on the boundaries of "this person was born with (the organ that produces testosterone)", and "has only been off it for a year"

You reference testosterone exposure in your own OP.

No, I didn't. The OP quotes a story which quotes a policy. The policy is not my policy and it is a policy I disagree with.

Of course, it's a policy you disagree with, too.

But more to the point, I still have no idea why you came to the conclusion that testosterone exposure is the ONLY thing that should determine who someone competes with. This is not true, since age and disability are also dimensions any fair-minded person would use, but even in the narrow space of sex-based differences, why would it be a good principle?
Ah, bad faith bringing up dimensions of consideration to declare someone "technically" wrong without actually addressing content.

You are wrong that testosterone exposure during puberty is the only relevant factor in considering fair competition, even in the narrow space of fairness along sex-based parameters.

YOU are the one who makes tacit admissions that this orbits around "testosterone" not "gender" or "sex".

I have not made any such admissions and if you think I have, I will explicitly disabuse you of them.
Cool story bro. So I have a giant pile of evidence that shows that testosterone exposure CAUSES A PUBERTY!
Um, okay?

Before that puberty, people who have organs that will produce testosterone are very similar in performance with people who do not.
Even if that were true--which you have not produced any evidence of--so what? There is no evidence that males who do not undergo a typical male puberty are indistinguishable from females in relevant ways for sporting fairness.

After puberty, people tend to look and perform a little different.

It's almost like testosterone/estrogen cause large impacts.
Yes, it does.

We can get into the with in-group between-group statistics, but either testosterone is what this is about, or you are trying to make it about the gross shape of the outside of people's bodies.
No. You are trying to make it about testosterone only. Testosterone exposure is not the only physiological difference relevant to sex differences between men and women.

"Gender" or "gender identity" is completely irrelevant to fairness in sports. Nobody's gender should make any difference whatever with respect to whom it is fair they compete with.[/QUOTE
Indeed, it should be decided on the basis of how their body has been modified by identifiable core circumstances.

Those circumstances are which hormones they have been exposed to and when.
Not the only relevant circumstance. The bodies of pre-pubescent boys are different to the bodies of pre-pubescent girls.

The major effect, orders of magnitude more generally impactful than any minor effect.
"Testosterone" is also irrelevant, except that it's a performance enhancing drug and anybody taking testosterone is doping and it is not fair they compete.
So, if you think testosterone exposure is not relevant, why do you bring up a whinge explicitly in your OP that "OnLy OfF T FoR a YeAr!!!111"?
Lia Thomas could be suppressing testosterone for a lifetime, and he would still be an adult human male. Testosterone is part of the relevant difference in athletic performance between men and women, but it is not all of it.

I am guessing it's because every post I have ever seen you make on trans people drips with disingenuousness
That you cannot do anything but strawman my posts is your problem, not mine.

But that doesn't matter to bad faith.

We see you.

AM already burned through three, let's see how long it takes you.
I don't understand your sentence.

I didn't expect you to.

This is number two btw.


Looks like you figured it out.
I didn't.

Now either you can discuss YOUR model about what physical factors, what chemicals which have changed their bodies, and thus which effects of which changes "ruin" people for competitive purposes within these leagues, or you can admit that you have not thought it through that far and your attacks come from somewhere else.

I propose that sports were separated by sex because men and women are physiologically different in ways that are relevant for performance. I also propose that mammals cannot change sex.

I've proposed a model that would work. Your posts reveal fear over discussing this.
I don't know what your model is, but I do not agree with your premises. Testosterone exposure at puberty is not the sole reason for the physical differences relevant to sports performance between men and women, and testosterone suppression is not sufficient to remove those differences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I will note that OP wants people to do their homework for them.

So I work on a sensor at work. The goal is, in many ways, a job wherein one of my primary responsibilities is in fact to parse between "significant" and "insignificant" sources of variation with respect to the outcomes.

So, some factors are largely relevant, and some are largely not.

I can for instance point to a thermal effect I noticed: the sensor values would go up or down when the system temperature changed.

This had two effects, one small and insignificant and one large and significant: the temperature change was modifying the resistance of a sensor and also the length and geometry of a coil around that sensor (among other things).

Now, with regards to sports there are clearly some differences, seemingly small and insignificant: early genetic factors create minor differences in skeletal shape.

But as has been seen time and again, especially in the development of trans teens (and oh how their existence makes my heart sing, especially when the bad faith crowd weeps bitter tears over the joy of others!) It is seen that it's the testosterone, the chemical which drives primary puberty, which creates of fairly uniform physical origination a very dimorphic result.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
I think that question is not at relevant or well formed. Ask it again and this time don't inject load into your questions. You have all the tools before you to accomplish this.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
I think that question is not at relevant or well formed. Ask it again and this time don't inject load into your questions. You have all the tools before you to accomplish this.
Either you'll answer it or you won't. If you want to avoid answering it the same way Patooka avoided answering it, I understand.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
I think that question is not at relevant or well formed. Ask it again and this time don't inject load into your questions. You have all the tools before you to accomplish this.
Either you'll answer it or you won't. If you want to avoid answering it the same way Patooka avoided answering it, I understand.
Ok, I'll answer that question when you answer me why you killed Jeffrey Epstein.

I won't personally answer what is really a rhetorical LIE framed as a question.

I do not believe Lia Thomas to be an appropriate competitor except against those who have undergone long term testosterone exposure. I stated that numerous times. This is the full shape of my position, and there are no corners to cut on it nor nuances that serve to be stripped.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,904
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)

Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What would it mean for it to be illegal to 'be trans'?

What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)
What rights do trans people have to 'forego' at the moment, or what 'rights' do you think I think they should 'forego'?

Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
Do you think it is fair for Lia Thomas to compete against women?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What would it mean for it to be illegal to 'be trans'?
You tell us, you're the one who seems to want to pass laws restricting trans behaviors and transitional self-determination
What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)
What rights do trans people have to 'forego' at the moment, or what 'rights' do you think I think they should 'forego'?
Talk about dodging questions. At least I tell you WHY I don't answer your questions and then flatly state the position that your question intended to mangle.

Here you just answer a question with a question.

What if any behaviors or rights should (in Metaphor's dictatorship) be suppressed of trans people? It's not a hard question.
Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
Do you think it is fair for Lia Thomas to compete against women?
Why did you murder Epstein in his cell?

Your question references dimensions of irrelevance. There's a no-true-scotsman and a false dichotomy buried in that question making horny fuck-times, with a baby bump of bad faith.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
I think that question is not at relevant or well formed. Ask it again and this time don't inject load into your questions. You have all the tools before you to accomplish this.
Either you'll answer it or you won't. If you want to avoid answering it the same way Patooka avoided answering it, I understand.
Ok, I'll answer that question when you answer me why you killed Jeffrey Epstein.

I won't personally answer what is really a rhetorical LIE framed as a question.

Oy gevalt. Accusing another poster of lying is against the terms of use.
I do not believe Lia Thomas to be an appropriate competitor except against those who have undergone long term testosterone exposure. I stated that numerous times. This is the full shape of my position, and there are no corners to cut on it nor nuances that serve to be stripped.
Very good. So, we both believe it is not appropriate for Lia Thomas to be competing against the people he's currently competing against. And, I believe, it is your position that it could never be fair for Lia, who went through--by all appearances--a full male puberty, to compete against people who did not do so.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,904
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I can’t answer your question Meta, because I don’t know Lia or who they are competing with at what. And I don’t care, which makes me different from you.

You can’t/won’t answer my question because doing so truthfully would expose the stench of the [removed] anti-trans activist who doesn’t even have a remedy in mind, just complaint.

Should being trans be illegal?
What rights should a trans person be required to forego?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, we have an OP who can't understand or even draw out a model of why, how, and what impacts exist that make people different.

It's almost as if Meta does not have a fucking clue.

I'm sure metaphor that with all the vocal opinion na you spew on the topic that you would have a model driving these opinions? So let's have it!

If it's not the testosterone what is it? Midichlorians? marlocks maybe?

Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
I think that question is not at relevant or well formed. Ask it again and this time don't inject load into your questions. You have all the tools before you to accomplish this.
Either you'll answer it or you won't. If you want to avoid answering it the same way Patooka avoided answering it, I understand.
Ok, I'll answer that question when you answer me why you killed Jeffrey Epstein.

I won't personally answer what is really a rhetorical LIE framed as a question.

Oy gevalt. Accusing another poster of lying is against the terms of use.
I do not believe Lia Thomas to be an appropriate competitor except against those who have undergone long term testosterone exposure. I stated that numerous times. This is the full shape of my position, and there are no corners to cut on it nor nuances that serve to be stripped.
Very good. So, we both believe it is not appropriate for Lia Thomas to be competing against the people he's currently competing against. And, I believe, it is your position that it could never be fair for Lia, who went through--by all appearances--a full male puberty, to compete against people who did not do so.
Ah, so you are implying that you are also unable to parse the difference between saying a statement contains a lie, and saying someone is lying. Classic metaphor.

It's a rhetorical lie. If you do not like having the contents of your post discussed with regards to rhetorical effect and spin loading, go pound sand.

I stated my whole position and now you are trying to pull chunks out of it in a vacuum to make an unreasonable statement of a reasonable one by ommitting the reason!
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What would it mean for it to be illegal to 'be trans'?
You tell us, you're the one who seems to want to pass laws restricting trans behaviors and transitional self-determination
What laws have I proposed that would restrict 'trans behaviours' and 'transitional self-determination'?

What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)
What rights do trans people have to 'forego' at the moment, or what 'rights' do you think I think they should 'forego'?
Talk about dodging questions. At least I tell you WHY I don't answer your questions and then flatly state the position that your question intended to mangle.

Here you just answer a question with a question.

What if any behaviors or rights should (in Metaphor's dictatorship) be suppressed of trans people? It's not a hard question.
Well, I haven't proposed a dictatorship, and I simply don't know what 'rights' you think I want to suppress. From my perspective, I do not want to 'suppress' any 'rights' of trans people (or any people).


Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
Do you think it is fair for Lia Thomas to compete against women?
Why did you murder Epstein in his cell?

Your question references dimensions of irrelevance. There's a no-true-scotsman and a false dichotomy buried in that question making horny fuck-times, with a baby bump of bad faith.
You've already answered my question that you don't think it's fair.

I would like to hear Elixir's answer.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, apparently OP does not wish to discuss what the actual dimensions of separation ought be.

There is a certain kind of cowardice in not wanting to actually discuss legal and systemic models by which variance arises with regard to sports, though.

I fully admit that some trans athletes are quite unthrilled about having to compete with people who will get continuing effects from their exposure to testosterone while they do not, and will not for some long period of time. It may even be a big enough blow to their career that they never get back into competition, or that they age out before their testosterone exposure does.

It's a tragedy that I have massive empathy for.

These are sacrifices that actual reasonable people put in their positions: empathy, understanding, acceptance, roads forward so that the younger generations are not so Injured.

I see none of that in the howling over this in the OP. All I see are implications of bad faith by the athlete.

And the fact is, most trans people I bring this to are OK with separating on the dimension of steroidal advantages, even if it means they are excluded on the basis of irrevocable exposure levels.

These problems are wholely the invention of people who have tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I can’t answer your question Meta, because I don’t know Lia or who they are competing with at what. And I don’t care, which makes me different from you.

You can’t/won’t answer my question because doing so truthfully would expose the stench of the [removed] anti-trans activist who doesn’t even have a remedy in mind, just complaint.

Should being trans be illegal?
What rights should a trans person be required to forego?
I have answered your question. I don't know what you mean by it being 'illegal' to be trans. I literally cannot conceive what you think it means. So, my answer is 'to the best of my understanding, it is impossible for it to be 'illegal' to be trans, and if it were somehow possible, no, I don't think being trans should be illegal.

The answer to your second question is: trans people qua trans people should not be required to forego any rights they already have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What would it mean for it to be illegal to 'be trans'?
You tell us, you're the one who seems to want to pass laws restricting trans behaviors and transitional self-determination
What laws have I proposed that would restrict 'trans behaviours' and 'transitional self-determination'?

What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)
What rights do trans people have to 'forego' at the moment, or what 'rights' do you think I think they should 'forego'?
Talk about dodging questions. At least I tell you WHY I don't answer your questions and then flatly state the position that your question intended to mangle.

Here you just answer a question with a question.

What if any behaviors or rights should (in Metaphor's dictatorship) be suppressed of trans people? It's not a hard question.
Well, I haven't proposed a dictatorship, and I simply don't know what 'rights' you think I want to suppress. From my perspective, I do not want to 'suppress' any 'rights' of trans people (or any people).


Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
Do you think it is fair for Lia Thomas to compete against women?
Why did you murder Epstein in his cell?

Your question references dimensions of irrelevance. There's a no-true-scotsman and a false dichotomy buried in that question making horny fuck-times, with a baby bump of bad faith.
You've already answered my question that you don't think it's fair.

I would like to hear Elixir's answer.
No, I did not. I did not answer anything about "women".

That you think I did is your own failure.
You did answer my question. We disagree on nomenclature.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,904
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I would like to hear Elixir's answer.

So what? I’d like to see Metaphor’s answer.

Should being trans be illegal?
What rights should a trans person be required to forego?

You failed to answer twice now. Cat got yer tongue? 😳🤣

I know it must be hard [removed] under pressure to admit to their beliefs, but just pretending “I asked you first!” should keep all but the very sharpest critics from seeing through the guise. So clever!
:hysterical:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I would like to hear Elixir's answer.

So what? I’d like to see Metaphor’s answer.

Should being trans be illegal?
What rights should a trans person be required to forego?

You failed to answer twice now. Cat got yer tongue? 😳🤣

I know it must be hard for [removed] under pressure to admit to their beliefs, but just pretending “I asked you first!” should keep all but the very sharpest critics from seeing through the guise. So clever!
:hysterical:
I answered your questions in post 36.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,904
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I answered your questions in post 36.

Ah just like a creationist. (Are you a creationist?).
In post 36 you said
Metaphor said:
”I have answered your question”

It was a false assertion then, and just as false when you said it again above. Just like a creationist.
Try again:

Should being a trans person be illegal?
What rights should they be required to forego?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.

There needs to be a biological standard established which takes into effect biological development as a child. In some cases it probably is fine to compete and others not as much.

Sadly Metaphor just wants to be angry about any ole shit and not actually want to address the problem and determine how to solve it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You did answer my question. We disagree on nomenclature.
And that you think that "disagreement" is not breaking yo your position is entirely why your question contained a[n untruth] [edit by moderator]
It isn't fair, this is a stupid way to run a women's sport. All the sports bodies need to figure out a better way for trans athletes to compete in more suitable divisions.

There needs to be a biological standard established which takes into effect biological development as a child. In some cases it probably is fine to compete and others not as much.

Sadly Metaphor just wants to be angry about any ole shit and not actually want to address the problem and determine how to solve it.
Yeah, like I have discussed for the better part of a decade the solution to this being to look to the actual science of what creates the competitive advantages re: TESTOSTERONE, and just... Actually look at that!

Historically this has yielded disinterest and even scorn. I will maintain that the disinterest is on account of, in such a world, their being unable to push an agenda against transition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IIDB Staff

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
45
Location
Virual Space
Basic Beliefs
N/a
Numerous posts have had to be edited due to being ad hominum in nature. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Further violations can affect your access to the board.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,389
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So, apparently OP does not wish to discuss what the actual dimensions of separation ought be.

There is a certain kind of cowardice in not wanting to actually discuss legal and systemic models by which variance arises with regard to sports, though.

I fully admit that some trans athletes are quite unthrilled about having to compete with people who will get continuing effects from their exposure to testosterone while they do not, and will not for some long period of time. It may even be a big enough blow to their career that they never get back into competition, or that they age out before their testosterone exposure does.

It's a tragedy that I have massive empathy for.

These are sacrifices that actual reasonable people put in their positions: empathy, understanding, acceptance, roads forward so that the younger generations are not so Injured.

I see none of that in the howling over this in the OP. All I see are implications of bad faith by the athlete.

And the fact is, most trans people I bring this to are OK with separating on the dimension of steroidal advantages, even if it means they are excluded on the basis of irrevocable exposure levels.

These problems are wholely the invention of people who have tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
In light of what you are saying concerning hormonal exposure, I think the person should not be competing against women.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, apparently OP does not wish to discuss what the actual dimensions of separation ought be.

There is a certain kind of cowardice in not wanting to actually discuss legal and systemic models by which variance arises with regard to sports, though.

I fully admit that some trans athletes are quite unthrilled about having to compete with people who will get continuing effects from their exposure to testosterone while they do not, and will not for some long period of time. It may even be a big enough blow to their career that they never get back into competition, or that they age out before their testosterone exposure does.

It's a tragedy that I have massive empathy for.

These are sacrifices that actual reasonable people put in their positions: empathy, understanding, acceptance, roads forward so that the younger generations are not so Injured.

I see none of that in the howling over this in the OP. All I see are implications of bad faith by the athlete.

And the fact is, most trans people I bring this to are OK with separating on the dimension of steroidal advantages, even if it means they are excluded on the basis of irrevocable exposure levels.

These problems are wholely the invention of people who have tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
In light of what you are saying concerning hormonal exposure, I think the person should not be competing against women.
The most I will say in the matter is that I don't think they should be competing against people who have not undergone significant testosterone exposure.

Some such people are men. (A)

Some women are not as such. (B)

So the question is ill-formed: it fails.to.priduce a binary answer when the word is "men" or "women", regardless.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,611
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I won't personally answer what is really a rhetorical LIE framed as a question.
Disagreeing with you is not a LIE, regardless of how strongly you hold your opinions.
But I do understand why you avoid answering the question.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I won't personally answer what is really a rhetorical LIE framed as a question.
Disagreeing with you is not a LIE, regardless of how strongly you hold your opinions.
But I do understand why you avoid answering the question.
Tom
No, asking a question that literally is incoherent for the sake of defending an incoherent position is not "disagreeing".

But I do understand why you would be interested in leveraging such a dishonest rhetorical device.

Are we quite done with this idiotic slap fight about a dishonest rhetorical question? Can we finally get back around to the discussion, which is what needs be done with regards to policy and cultural direction as regards trans athletes?

Or do you agree with me on my position? I made the answer to the non-dishonest, non-rhetorical form of the question in my first post to the thread!

It is exactly appropriate for this person to compete with any and all persons who have been exposed to testosterone; it is inappropriate for them to compete with people who have not been exposed. Neither of these things is exactly "women" or "men".

I have stated repeatedly that any reduction away from this, any application of "men" or "women" to my statement is a dishonest mischaracterization that makes a lie out of any possible truth that anything I said could contain. You and metaphor both freely did that anyway.

It is bad faith.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,508
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)

Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
If by "illegal" you mean "forbidden by law", then I think you will find no one here has suggested that. Feel free to look though. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone, anywhere say it should be against the law. If there are, they probably number around the same as those who think the moon landing was a hoax. In other words, de minimus and not worth paying attention to. Who pays for such a transition is worthy of discussion, though.

For your second question, I could reframe it in the context of the OPs case:

Should the rights of thousands of (biologically born) women to compete for the top spots in college athletic events be thwarted so as to accommodate a handful of transwomen? A wise man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one)". Can you guess who said that?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Should the rights of thousands of (biologically born) women to compete for the top spots in college athletic events be thwarted so as to accommodate a handful of transwomen?
Wow, so you think more people asking the same incoherent question but in a different way will make it less coherent?
So, apparently OP does not wish to discuss what the actual dimensions of separation ought be.

There is a certain kind of cowardice in not wanting to actually discuss legal and systemic models by which variance arises with regard to sports, though.

I fully admit that some trans athletes are quite unthrilled about having to compete with people who will get continuing effects from their exposure to testosterone while they do not, and will not for some long period of time. It may even be a big enough blow to their career that they never get back into competition, or that they age out before their testosterone exposure does.

It's a tragedy that I have massive empathy for.

These are sacrifices that actual reasonable people put in their positions: empathy, understanding, acceptance, roads forward so that the younger generations are not so Injured.

I see none of that in the howling over this in the OP. All I see are implications of bad faith by the athlete.

And the fact is, most trans people I bring this to are OK with separating on the dimension of steroidal advantages, even if it means they are excluded on the basis of irrevocable exposure levels.

These problems are wholely the invention of people who have tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
In light of what you are saying concerning hormonal exposure, I think the person should not be competing against women.
The most I will say in the matter is that I don't think they should be competing against people who have not undergone significant testosterone exposure.

Some such people are men. (A)

Some women are not as such. (B)

So the question is ill-formed: it fails.to.priduce a binary answer when the word is "men" or "women", regardless.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,904
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Does anyone think being trans should be illegal?
What, if any, rights should a trans person be required to forego? (assuming they shouldn’t be locked up just for being trans.)

Just entertaining Meta’s fixation…
If by "illegal" you mean "forbidden by law", then I think you will find no one here has suggested that.

I didn't ask if anyone suggested it. I asked Metaphor if he thought it should be. I take it you don't?
If that's the case, a simple "no" would have sufficed. The fact that you chose to write a treatise instead, speaks to your uncertainty regarding your own stance on the question.

For your second question, I could reframe it in the context of the OPs case:

Or, put another way, "I'll ignore your question and ask my own because my honest answer to your question might paint me in a bad light."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom