Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[seanie]

A solution might be to keep two categories, the first being Open (subject to doping regulations), and the second being non-androgenised, which 99.95% of the time is unequivocally female.

 

[Enigma]

I answered your questions in post 36.

Ah just like a creationist. (Are you a creationist?).
In post 36 you 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?

He answered your question. Since you are a reasonable and rational person who is acting in good faith, I can only assume that you are saying this because for some reason you failed to see the answer despite incompletely quoting a portion of a post where the answer is.

Perhaps you have a monitor issue or some other issue with low visibility of smaller text. Let me provide assistance to you on that front. Hopefully you should be able to read this text:

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.

I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.

 

[Jarhyn]

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."

Not to mention that the question they did ask is ill-formed: there is no way to answer it without assuming an incoherent position that inappropriately reduces the complexity of being a "man" or "woman" in the first place.

It assumes in the first place that Tia is not a woman, and that everyone Tia could compete with meaningfully is not. Neither of these are reasonable positions, given the repeated statement of what IS a reasonable position, namely that this ought to pivot on the exposure to anabolic steroids, whether pumped from an organ in their own body or not.

I reiterate:

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.

 

[thebeave]

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."

OK, I thought it was rather obvious, but if you want a more direct answer, "No, I do not think being trans should be illegal". I have no uncertainty at all about that. Hope that settles that to your satisfaction.

With regard to the second question, I stuck to just athletics, as that is what the OP is about. Veering off into other topics like trans use of bathrooms, gyms, saunas, in the military, gets much more complex and is heading toward thread derailment. But for the record, in general, I do not support the right of transwomen to compete with biologically born women in adult athletic programs (though I would consider exceptions where physical strength or body type is less of an issue...say curling, bowling, archery, etc). I don't have a problem with transmen competing with biologically born men in adult athletics. I don't think they will ever achieve Gold medal (or even Bronze) status, or even close to it, but if they just want to play and compete then, that's fine by me. If I was transphobic, I would not agree with that, would I?

 

[Jarhyn]

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."

OK, I thought it was rather obvious, but if you want a more direct answer, "No, I do not think being trans should be illegal". I have no uncertainty at all about that. Hope that settles that to your satisfaction.

With regard to the second question, I stuck to just athletics, as that is what the OP is about. Veering off into other topics like trans use of bathrooms, gyms, saunas, in the military, gets much more complex and is heading toward thread derailment. But for the record, in general, I do not support the right of transwomen to compete with biologically born women in adult athletic programs (though I would consider exceptions where physical strength or body type is less of an issue...say curling, bowling, archery, etc). I don't have a problem with transmen competing with biologically born men in adult athletics. I don't think they will ever achieve Gold medal (or even Bronze) status, or even close to it, but if they just want to play and compete then, that's fine by me. If I was transphobic, I would not agree with that, would I?

So, you hold an incoherent position.

You cannot say why or what actual shape of nature is "biologically born", or when it is born, or why you make these distinctions.

I can point at something real: the hormones one has been affected by. I can and do point at that without saying "man" or "woman".

I absolutely think your position makes you a transphobe, that you cannot relent against your position on "man" "woman" "penis" "vagina" and instead actually look at the hormonal realities directly.

 

[seanie]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

 

[TomC]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

I kinda stopped banging my head against this particular concrete wall.
At least here on this corner of the internet.
Tom

 

[seanie]

Well, the more often biological males perform in female sports and demonstrate the obvious unfairness, maybe more people will notice out how ridiculous it is.

 

[Elixir]

I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.

You’re right. I got distracted, expecting a “no” answer to be a little shorter than the diatribe you quoted. My bad!
Thanks.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

So in other words, you admit that it is insufficient for accuracy to use those words, and there is a better way to refer to these things, that your correlation is imperfect in the face of a causality, and you just don't want to relent on behalf of the people stepped on by a willful misapplication of these ideas.

The nice thing about my position is that it does not even require the rare distinctions to have anything to do with being trans for to fix them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, the more often biological males perform in female sports and demonstrate the obvious unfairness, maybe more people will notice out how ridiculous it is.

As if people do not already observe the ridiculousness, and I reiterate your dishonest use of language that has been debunked and roundly rejected in the discussion as irrelevant!

I made in my first post to this thread an answer to your asinine bullshit. Before you ever even posted it.

The obvious issue here is people wanting to leverage "man" and "woman" in a place of "steroidally impacted" and "not" as the primary concern.

It's just the kind of off-right implied by "most people are mostly right most of the time."

You got there on your first post on this page, and then you ruined it here, by trying to just jump to the rejected shorthand again.

 

[seanie]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

So in other words, you admit that it is insufficient for accuracy to use those words, and there is a better way to refer to these things, that your correlation is imperfect in the face of a causality, and you just don't want to relent on behalf of the people stepped on by a willful misapplication of these ideas.

The nice thing about my position is that it does not even require the rare distinctions to have anything to do with being trans for to fix them.

The difficulty lies in certain very rare DSD conditions, and even then people affected are either male or female. That is an entirely separate issue to trans identity. As I suggested before, a fair solution would be to reclassify sport into an Open category, and a non-androgenised category that all but essentially means biologically female.

 

[seanie]

Well, the more often biological males perform in female sports and demonstrate the obvious unfairness, maybe more people will notice out how ridiculous it is.

As if people do not already observe the ridiculousness, and I reiterate your dishonest use of language that has been debunked and roundly rejected in the discussion as irrelevant!

I made in my first post to this thread an answer to your asinine bullshit. Before you ever even posted it.

The obvious issue here is people wanting to leverage "man" and "woman" in a place of "steroidally impacted" and "not" as the primary concern.

It's just the kind of off-right implied by "most people are mostly right most of the time."

You got there on your first post on this page, and then you ruined it here, by trying to just jump to the rejected shorthand again.

That’s not all that coherent. Maybe try again?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, the more often biological males perform in female sports and demonstrate the obvious unfairness, maybe more people will notice out how ridiculous it is.

As if people do not already observe the ridiculousness, and I reiterate your dishonest use of language that has been debunked and roundly rejected in the discussion as irrelevant!

I made in my first post to this thread an answer to your asinine bullshit. Before you ever even posted it.

The obvious issue here is people wanting to leverage "man" and "woman" in a place of "steroidally impacted" and "not" as the primary concern.

It's just the kind of off-right implied by "most people are mostly right most of the time."

You got there on your first post on this page, and then you ruined it here, by trying to just jump to the rejected shorthand again.

That’s not all that coherent. Maybe try again?

"I know you are but what am I!"

I can make useless kindergarten slap fight comments too.

Quit acting like a fucking child and read it. If it is not coherent draw the shape of the incoherence.

 

[seanie]

Your coherence isn’t improving.

Anyhoo, most sports are segregated by sex due to the unfair advantages conferred by male physiology, largely but not exclusively due to the effects of testosterone during puberty.

There are some very rare DSD/VSD conditions where there can be some ambiguity as to a persons sex, although everyone is either biologically male or female.

Those very rare conditions are utterly irrelevant to any consideration of including trans athletes in sports.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

So in other words, you admit that it is insufficient for accuracy to use those words, and there is a better way to refer to these things, that your correlation is imperfect in the face of a causality, and you just don't want to relent on behalf of the people stepped on by a willful misapplication of these ideas.

The nice thing about my position is that it does not even require the rare distinctions to have anything to do with being trans for to fix them.

The difficulty lies in certain very rare DSD conditions, and even then people affected are either male or female. That is an entirely separate issue to trans identity. As I suggested before, a fair solution would be to reclassify sport into an Open category, and a non-androgenised category that all but essentially means biologically female.

And then you step in it again.

All you had to do was just stop without bringing up the bolded portion. Then demand that this is what happens.

As will and does happen more and more every day, children born with testes are growing up without testosterone, generally with progesterone and estrogen instead.

Some so born may never be affected by either.

Some born with ovaries will grow up indistinguishable from a fair number of folks born with testicles, with broad shoulders and square chins and low cheekbones.

Generally, it will be the case that most will probably be competing mostly with "girls", at least until they get old enough for a hormone prescription. Doesn't mean they are on a team specifically for girls; some will be people born with testicles, yet who are not girls!

As I have stated, the relevant factor is hormones.

You keep misconstruing from some perhaps unintentional ignorance you can consider yourself relieved of today, insofar as trans kids are growing up into trans adults who have never been subjected to the effects of testosterone.

Most wish to be called women! But my compromising on 'women' you secure the win for all who shouldn't be deprived of fair competition!

I leave you with this TikTok

 

[seanie]

So my problem is bringing up a material objective fact?

My bad.

How very dare I.

However, there is the live issue of biological males, with the advantages of androgenised development, performing in female sports.

Which is manifestly and obviously unfair.

 

[Metaphor]

So, apparently OP does not wish to discuss what the actual dimensions of separation ought be.

Jarhyn is wrong. I think that mens and womens sports are separated by sex because the sexes are physiologically different, and therefore no males should compete with females.

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,

Being male cannot be undone, because mammals cannot change sex.

 

[Metaphor]

I answered your questions in post 36.

Ah just like a creationist. (Are you a creationist?).
In post 36 you 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?

Anybody can see what I posted in post 36 and what I wrote earlier. But to answer your questions yet again, with one syllable so perhaps it might be easier for you to understand

Should being a trans person be illegal?

No.

What rights should they be required to forego?

None.

 

[Metaphor]

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 lie.

My question was not a lie and did not contain a lie. Stop accusing me of lying.

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!

Testosterone contributes to the competitive advantage but does not create it. Nor does the suppression of testosterone destroy that advantage.

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.

I believe you mean 'uninterest'. And you'd also be wrong.

 

[seanie]

However, if there was a transitioning process that removed male physiological advantage, pre or post puberty, then the unfairness objection would not apply. But the evidence is that post puberty hormone treatment doesn’t negate male physiological advantages, and there’s very little evidence on the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence.

 

[Jarhyn]

So my problem is bringing up a material objective fact?

My bad.

How very dare I.

However, there is the live issue of biological males, with the advantages of androgenised development, performing in female sports [against non-androgenized persons]

Which is manifestly and obviously unfair.

I could bring up many facts in a debate about many things. It would be incorrect to do so, just as it is incorrect to do here. Just because between you and metaphor this is common does not mean that it is acceptable in either case.

I've made the changes that you could make so you stop making such wild conflationary leaps that throw trans people under the bus.

However, if there was a transitioning process that removed male physiological advantage, pre or post puberty, then the unfairness objection would not apply. But the evidence is that post puberty hormone treatment doesn’t negate male physiological advantages, and there’s very little evidence on the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence.

There is. It's called blockers until some reasonable age and then undergoing a singular, engineered puberty.

I will widely support the use of such blockers, without prescription or parental approval.

There are few situations where people would decide to not undergo puberty, and I've already discussed this objection too, in my first post to this thread. So... Let me dredge that up here...

"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]

However, if there was a transitioning process that removed male physiological advantage, pre or post puberty, then the unfairness objection would not apply. But the evidence is that post puberty hormone treatment doesn’t negate male physiological advantages, and there’s very little evidence on the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence.

The transition process could not possibly remove the advantage. Transwomen don't get smaller hands and feet after they transition. Transwomen don't shed the lining of their womb once a month after they transition. And since sports are separated by sex, transwomen simply do not qualify to compete with females.

 

[seanie]

I only offered it as a hypothetical. Post-pubertal treatment does not currently negate male physiological advantage.

And puberty blockers to treat dysphoria is currently an experimental and potentially harmful treatment.

Also, focusing on the hypotheticals around hormone treatment for adolescents, ignores the obvious and current concerns about the ethics of biological males who have gone through a male puberty participating in female sports.

 

[Jarhyn]

I only offered it as a hypothetical. Post-pubertal treatment does not currently negate male physiological advantage.

And puberty blockers to treat dysphoria is currently an experimental and potentially harmful treatment.

Also, focusing on the hypotheticals around hormone treatment for adolescents, ignores the obvious and current concerns about the ethics of biological males who have gone through a male puberty participating in female sports.

Pre or peripubertal treatment does, however. Which is the second half of that discussion.

There are years of results now, many lives impacted, and mostly for the better.

If you wish to claim a potential for harm, you are now the one with the burden to show it, and show it sufficiently outstrips the other concerns.

If course it ignores the current concerns because the shape of this behavior puts a pin in the whole issue: it rips the rug out of all comers with bad faith, and even compromises on all post-pubertal transitions.

We have centuries of observations of eunuchs, as well. All evidence shows forgoing testosterone can increase expected lifespans...

 

[Metaphor]

I only offered it as a hypothetical. Post-pubertal treatment does not currently negate male physiological advantage.

And puberty blockers to treat dysphoria is currently an experimental and potentially harmful treatment.

Also, focusing on the hypotheticals around hormone treatment for adolescents, ignores the obvious and current concerns about the ethics of biological males who have gone through a male puberty participating in female sports.

Pre or peripubertal treatment does, however. Which is the second half of that discussion.

There are years of results now, many lives impacted, and mostly for the better.

If you wish to claim a potential for harm, you are now the one with the burden to show it, and show it sufficiently outstrips the other concerns.

No. The people who wish biological males to compete with females, in a world where the sports have been separated by sex in the first place, have the burden of proof to show that such a situation is fair.

 

[Jarhyn]

[Argument from tradition]

LOL!

 

[seanie]

There is very little evidence of the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence, as those that pioneered the treatment acknowledge. As to the medium term benefits the evidence is also weak.

But again, that’s a separate consideration to the participation of males who identify as females participating in female sports.

The vast majority of self identified trans women have not undergone any puberty suppression, and the majority are not undertaking hormone treatment at all.

 

[Metaphor]

[Argument from tradition]

LOL!

It is not an 'argument from tradition' to say 'if you are separating sports by sex, then separate them by sex. Don't incoherently allow some people to play on a team or against competitors of the other sex'.

 

[Jarhyn]

[Argument from tradition]

LOL!

It is not an 'argument from tradition' to say 'if you are separating sports by sex, then separate them by sex. Don't incoherently allow some people to play on a team or against competitors of the other sex'.

"If you are (by tradition) separating by sex then separate by sex (continuing on)."

Yes it is an argument from tradition. That you omit the implicit sections does not change the fact that they are there in the explosion of the compressed idea.

 

[seanie]

There are very, very good reasons for segregating most sports by biological sex.

There are few good reasons for segregating sport by self-identified gender, and obvious reasons why that's a very bad idea.

 

[seanie]

It's not an argument based on tradition. It's an argument based on objective reality that, hard won, has existed for long enough to be considered a "tradition" by those a little hard of thinking.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is very little evidence of the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence, as those that pioneered the treatment acknowledge. As to the medium term benefits the evidence is also weak.

We have two generations now that grew up with access, and many generations before for who there was application. The ship has sailed and found open water

And lest I remind you, we have been suppressing puberty in other ways for centuries. We have plenty of evidence surrounding that.

But again, that’s a separate consideration to the participation of males who identify as females participating in female sports.

So.. taking measures to allow "males", whatever the fuck you intend that to mean, who have never had such advantages as would impact the fairness of their participation, has nothing to do with the discussion of whether it might be fair for exactly those people to so participate? LOL.

That's a solid contradiction you have going there.

The vast majority of self identified trans women have not undergone any puberty suppression, and the majority are not undertaking hormone treatment at all.

And it's a good thing then that I am not arguing that any such person be forced to participate with such persons.

Nor is any other trans advocate or person here.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not an argument based on tradition. It's an argument based on objective reality that, hard won, has existed for long enough to be considered a "tradition" by those a little hard of thinking.

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

 

[seanie]

Puberty suppression to treat dysphoria is still an experimental treatment. The use has increased dramatically over the last 10 years but there is little follow up data. A number of countries who enthusiastically pushed the treatment are now reviewing, pausing or reigning back the route to medicalisation.

By "males" I mean biological males. This is not a remotely difficult concept. That you are confused by the term suggests a serious problem in your understanding of reality.

And your final point simply ignores both reality and the ethical implications of the arguments being advanced. The IOC have effectively just endorsed self-id into female sports.

No presumption of advantage, no presumption of medical treatment.

 

[Jarhyn]

Puberty suppression to treat dysphoria is still an experimental treatment. The use has increased dramatically over the last 10 years but there is little follow up data. A number of countries who enthusiastically pushed the treatment are now reviewing, pausing or reigning back the route to medicalisation.

Nice scare word.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel then?

By "males" I mean biological males. This is not a remotely difficult concept. That you are confused by the term suggests a serious problem in your understanding of reality.

I have outlined why the dimension of your position is incoherent.

There are both (A) and (B) among (males) and (females)

Therefore the position, your question, is incoherent.

And your final point simply ignores both reality and the ethical implications of the arguments being advanced. The IOC have effectively just endorsed self-id into female sports.

No presumption of advantage, no presumption of medical treatment.

And this has been caused by a stunning failure to compromise!

I presented a solution. You accepted that this solution would work. It's unimportant to discuss what the continued problems are when there is a solution without those problems available.

 

[seanie]

Males have physiological advantages over females in most sports, largely due to development in puberty due to testosterone.

That is not an argument "from tradition".

It is an argument from obvious, demonstrable reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Males have physiological advantages over females in most sports, largely [almost entirely] due to development in puberty due to testosterone.

That is not an argument "from tradition".

It is an argument from obvious, demonstrable reality.

No, that is not an argument from tradition. It is also not the argument posed. It is also still not an effective argument:

You are making a causal admission here and then stepping away from the causality, in a bait/switch format of fallacious thinking.

The next portion that I can draw from your own premise, corrected in accuracy, is that we should focus on the "testosterone" not the "male".

"Male" or "female" is confounding data.

Only PEOPLE who actually have gotten those advantages matter in the calculus and the fact you can't bring yourself to argue that means it is about hurting trans people rather than fixing sports so that it's not an issue.

 

[seanie]

You appear to be confused and upset by the use of the term "males".

This does not suggest you have a coherent understanding of the issues in hand, your confident claims about what you have outlined or established notwithstanding.

 

[seanie]

"Male" and "female" are very relevant and obvious classifications when it comes to sport. Male physiology confers such an advantage that we need to separate most sports by sex. That allows us to celebrate and reward excellences on both sexes.

Segregating sport by self-identified gender is inherently silly.

 

[Jarhyn]

You appear to be confused and upset by the use of the term "males".

This does not suggest you have a coherent understanding of the issues in hand, your confident claims about what you have outlined or established notwithstanding.

No, I don't care what you mean by it. I certainly know the vast majority of here who appear and spew such half baked stolen opinions seem to conflate "male" with "man", "person with penis and testicles", "person exposed to testosterone long enough to undergo a puberty from it", and various other things, all of which have been described at length in the science forum among other places.

I don't care what lines you wish to draw from whatever badly formed mental model you may have around it.

The reason we find ourselves here is specifically that none of "male", "female", "man", or "woman" describe the shape of competitive advantages which we wish to filter upon, and these clearly are not good enough in a world where more people every day are growing up with the afforded right to make their own decisions about puberty.

Some wish to use just-so circumstances of traditional modes of achieving separation in a way that explicitly harms trans people and creates controversies exactly like in the OP.

You can either pivot and ask for what is really reasonable, to separate on the basis of exactly the thing you seem to think is the cause of the important differences... Or you can continue arguing in a way that is revealed as only existing as a device to exclude a suspect class, and to do so in clearly bad faith.

 

[seanie]

Well, and I don’t want to be unkind, you’re talking shite.

We necessarily segregate most sports by sex due to the physiological advantages that male bodies have over females.

And trans women, whilst they should be respected and protected from harm and discrimination, are biologically male.

Biological males have no right to participate in female sport. That includes trans women.

 

[prideandfall]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

that's like saying it's only an argument based on 'tradition' that we use gasoline to fuel combustion engines, or only an argument from tradition that we use electricity to power devices which use electricity.

there's a fundamental reality-based purpose for the behavior in the first place, and none of the factors that go into that purpose have changed just because some folks such as yourself seem hell bent on arguing that a statistically insignificant (to the point of it being functionally non-existent) aberration constitutes an argument against the existence of the whole.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

that's like saying it's only an argument based on 'tradition' that we use gasoline to fuel combustion engines, or only an argument from tradition that we use electricity to power devices which use electricity.

there's a fundamental reality-based purpose for the behavior in the first place, and none of the factors that go into that purpose have changed just because some folks such as yourself seem hell bent on arguing that a statistically insignificant (to the point of it being functionally non-existent) aberration constitutes an argument against the existence of the whole.

No, it's like saying we have to only use gasoline to fuel combustion engines, because we only ever have.

I have outlined what dimension is meaningful: TESTOSTERONE.

This is the basis of reality here.

The argument is about the impacts and handling of the "aberration" itself, and how it has significant impacts!!!"

It is not even an argument against existence so much as an argument for change of the system.

You are one of the ones disregarding the basis of your own arguments: Testosterone exposure.

You wish to wave your hands and use a clearly identifiably, materially and objectively flawed proxy.

I wonder why ..

 

[prideandfall]

You are one of the ones disregarding the basis of your own arguments: Testosterone exposure.

i haven't disregarded anything, nor have i made an argument - i simply pointed out that your criticism was flawed, because it is.

You wish to wave your hands and use a clearly identifiably, materially and objectively flawed proxy.

I wonder why ..

you should wonder why, since everything you just said is a pure fabrication you pulled out of your ass with zero basis in objective reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are one of the ones disregarding the basis of your own arguments: Testosterone exposure.

i haven't disregarded anything, nor have i made an argument - i simply pointed out that your criticism was flawed, because it is.

You wish to wave your hands and use a clearly identifiably, materially and objectively flawed proxy.

I wonder why ..

you should wonder why, since everything you just said is a pure fabrication you pulled out of your ass with zero basis in objective reality.

Ah, the old "thats... but .. you're... You're wrong!!!111" (then hide) technique.

If you are right here you can, I'm sure, parse out where the incoherency is.

 

[prideandfall]

Ah, the old "thats... but .. you're... You're wrong!!!111" (then hide) technique.

that's a rather ironic position coming from someone who's repeatedly stated position is that factory defects constitute new products and invalidate the existence of the original product in the first place.

If you are right here you can, I'm sure, parse out where the incoherency is.

you have no idea what my argument even is because i haven't presented it, so i'm curious what psychic powers you think you have that would allow you to determine whether or not it's incoherent.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, the old "thats... but .. you're... You're wrong!!!111" (then hide) technique.

that's a rather ironic position coming from someone who's repeatedly stated position is that factory defects constitute new products and invalidate the existence of the original product in the first place.

This is an attempt to derail. If you wish to argue evolution, which you seem to do here, you can make yourself look like a complete idiot, that's your choice, though, I guess.

If you are right here you can, I'm sure, parse out where the incoherency is.

you have no idea what my argument even is because i haven't presented it, so i'm curious what psychic powers you think you have that would allow you to determine whether or not it's incoherent.

I start in every thread such as this posting my argument. You clearly do not, probably so you can dance around a non-argument.

It is clear from your posture all you wish to do is throw mud in the water around what is even being discussed.

As your allusion to your inability to understand descent through modification and natural selection implies every reason to disregard you entirely, I'm probably just going to put you back on ignore soon.

There are no factory defects as regards to evolution. There is only what happens, what happens to exist, and doing our best to work together with whatever we get, at least until we can work together to actually get what we want.

 

[TSwizzle]

Well, the more often biological males perform in female sports and demonstrate the obvious unfairness, maybe more people will notice out how ridiculous it is.

People are not stupid, they do see it. It’s just a case of overcoming the vociferous wokesters and misogynists who have sway over these things. This is particularly obvious case and the pushback is there.

 

[seanie]

Putting Testosterone in capitals is not, in itself, an argument.

Who knew?