Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
In light of what you are saying concerning hormonal exposure, I think the person should not be competing against women.
Which is where I stand, also. We have a situation in which there is no answer that doesn't harm someone. Thus we should be seeking to minimize harm--pointing out that a position causes harm is not an argument that it's wrong.

To me the least harm comes from not allowing those who experienced puberty as males to compete as females. Someday there may be a better answer.

seanie

Member
Have an Open category and a non-androgenised category. The non-androgenised category being 99.95% confirmed female at birth.

Jarhyn

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

Who knew?
Your side of the argument is what?

My point is that some people you would absolutely identify as "males" will, over the course of their entire lives, grow up without being affected by testosterone.

It is happening right now, and some of these "males" some of which will not be "women", will be entirely qualified to compete fairly in ways that Lia cannot.

The reason for this, is that they will only have gone through one or fewer puberties at the time, zero of which involve testosterone (or perhaps .01 of one!).

Your hand waving does not invalidate the existence of such people, of their need to compete, nor of the way your handwaving around "males" and "females" disregards their reality.

Metaphor

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

Who knew?
Your side of the argument is what?

My point is that some people you would absolutely identify as "males" will, over the course of their entire lives, grow up without being affected by testosterone.

It is happening right now, and some of these "males" some of which will not be "women", will be entirely qualified to compete fairly in ways that Lia cannot.

The reason for this, is that they will only have gone through one or fewer puberties at the time, zero of which involve testosterone (or perhaps .01 of one!).

Your hand waving does not invalidate the existence of such people, of their need to compete, nor of the way your handwaving around "males" and "females" disregards their reality.
Human males stay human males regardless of what you do to them, because mammals cannot change sex.

You propose that testosterone exposure during puberty is the only relevant factor in the performance difference between males and females. You have not produced any evidence of that and I do not believe you. The burden is on you to prove 'testosterone exposure at puberty' is the better binary division rather than sex.

Metaphor

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

Who knew?
Your side of the argument is what?

My point is that some people you would absolutely identify as "males" will, over the course of their entire lives, grow up without being affected by testosterone.

It is happening right now, and some of these "males" some of which will not be "women", will be entirely qualified to compete fairly in ways that Lia cannot.
This new pretense that people don't now know what everyone knew up until five minutes ago.

I know what a male is. That you don't is your own problem.

TomC

Celestial Highness
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.
Misogynist is the key term here.

Casual dismissal of the concerns and issues of cis-females is so politically correct it's annoying and disgusting. But I don't think you're any more likely to change their minds than I think you could change the minds of Trump Supporters.

Not gonna happen.
At least not on an internet forum like this.
Tom

Keith&Co.

Contributor
I wonder how many of these arguments were posed back when the sports were de-segregated?
Too much of a natural advantage, ____ can't compete against ___, they were separate for a reason....
And what they'll turn up again for?

Jarhyn

Wizard
I wonder how many of these arguments were posed back when the sports were de-segregated?
Too much of a natural advantage, ____ can't compete against ___, they were separate for a reason....
And what they'll turn up again for?
And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone, no matter who they are, how they identify, no matter what they were born with, from having to compete with someone who is so subjected to testosterone, assuming they themselves have not so been.

It's a desegregation of two leagues, into two leagues with mostly the same membership, that protects the competitive spirit and good sportspersonship.

I hazard to think the only reason people object is because then you can't call it "women's" or "female's" leagues. But I don't really care. To me it seems rather... Well it's not misandrist because it's against people with no pubertal androgen affect. But is definitely misaligned.

TomC

Celestial Highness
And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone,

"Separate, but equal" and "Affirmative Action" rolled into one.
You are a genius.

Why don't those cis-females recognize that? Dumb bitches. Why do us guys listen to them?
Baby, you can't swim! Fetch me a beer.
Tom

Jarhyn

Wizard
And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone,

"Separate, but equal" and "Affirmative Action" rolled into one.
You are a genius.

Why don't those cis-females recognize that? Dumb bitches. Why do us guys listen to them?
Baby, you can't swim! Fetch me a beer.
Tom
Which cis females. I am pretty sure most such athletes are serious enough that they don't really care whether the person they are playing against was born with balls so long as they never got a significant competitive advantage on account of them in particular.

TomC

Celestial Highness
And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone,

"Separate, but equal" and "Affirmative Action" rolled into one.
You are a genius.

Why don't those cis-females recognize that? Dumb bitches. Why do us guys listen to them?
Baby, you can't swim! Fetch me a beer.
Tom
Which cis females. I am pretty sure most such athletes are serious enough that they don't really care whether the person they are playing against was born with balls so long as they never got a significant competitive advantage on account of them in particular.

You really don't know about cis-females at all, do you?

Misogynistic is the olden days term for guys who didn't understand why women didn't understand their place. Today, it's politically correct.
I'm being as charitable as I can. There's lots of words I would prefer to use here, but I doubt that they're permissible.

Those of us who see women's issues as being as important as trans issues are labeled transphobic. "Angry" "An enemy"

Or the Penn women's swim team.

Oh wait.
Why would you ask women for an opinion? What do women's opinions have to do with reality?

You just tell them what's what.

Tom

Jarhyn

Wizard
And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone,

"Separate, but equal" and "Affirmative Action" rolled into one.
You are a genius.

Why don't those cis-females recognize that? Dumb bitches. Why do us guys listen to them?
Baby, you can't swim! Fetch me a beer.
Tom
Which cis females. I am pretty sure most such athletes are serious enough that they don't really care whether the person they are playing against was born with balls so long as they never got a significant competitive advantage on account of them in particular.

You really don't know about cis-females at all, do you?

Misogynistic is the olden days term for guys who didn't understand why women didn't understand their place. Today, it's politically correct.
I'm being as charitable as I can. There's lots of words I would prefer to use here, but I doubt that they're permissible.

Those of us who see women's issues as being as important as trans issues are labeled transphobic. "Angry" "An enemy"

Or the Penn women's swim team.

Oh wait.
Why would you ask women for an opinion? What do women's opinions have to do with reality?

You just tell them what's what.

Tom
So, I'm going to take the vocal minority and disregard them same as I would for metaphor and his concerns about men.

IF you wish to make this about "female" concerns over all others, then it's really about catering to TERFs.

Emily is a TERF and Emily can pound sand as long as she holds onto her crazed TERFy behavior.

I will gladly ask people their opinions, do a look at those opinions and every opinion that is loud and uses special pleading I will point out and then throw away.

Neither "women" nor "men", nor "eunuchs" nor "cis" nor whatever other label you wish has any special right to be separated, segregated, or treated in different regards.

What I do know is there are people who wish to compete, that it is a plain fact that what I have proposed will create fair competiton as relates to testosterone-based physical advantages, and will open the door to the next steps of understanding.

What I can see in fact as the primary driver for rejecting this is that you can't use it to eject trans people from sports, and you can no longer use them as a cudgel or example of something "broken".

It's taken TERFs almost a decade of work to drum up this complaint, and it's one of only three primarily battleground issues, the other issues being prisons (which we ought fix instead with policies to move towards the Nordic model), and with bathrooms (which we can fix at least moving forward by transitioning from "genital A/genital B" to "community"/"family").

The TERFs have nothing else. They know that they won't be able to discover any other situations in society where trans people are disruptive enough to use that disruption as an excuse for hate. They've had 10 years to search and find it and they are still on this garbage.

So flip it around. Remember this is not just about women.

TERFs seek to erase non-cis persons, denies them space to compete, denies them the power to be seen and accepted. To erase them so as to "protect" half of everyone from being, what, exactly? Not talked about the way they once were?

Yes, I'm going to disregard childish TERF concerns, I'm going to push for zero sports leagues restricted on any other concept than androgen exposures, and I'm going to do it HAPPILY over the objections of TERFs while happily listening to and working with everyone else to get a compromise in place that "everyone" hates.

Only one set of sports leagues here discriminates absolutely against people on the basis of their genital, gender, or any such other thing. So the group that is doing that is the one that gets their discriminative toy taken away.

The sign of a good compromise is that "everyone" hates it, which is to say "everyone who wanted to troll the system". I'm not really sorry you would get your vehicle for trolling and crybullying taken away.

Crybully someone else

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
=========================
STAFF NOTICE
=========================

To all posters: Address the argument, do not attck the poster.

Look at your post before you click “post reply,” and if it includes attacks agaisnt the character, personality, background or family of the poster, please edit before you submit.

thebeave

Veteran Member
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.
It is very unfair. For Christ's sake, in the 1650 meter freestyle competition, the second place winner was a full 38 seconds behind Lia! Such a disparity would be unheard of in a same sex competition. There are many other real life examples, and likely to be many more to come. This whole thing kind of reminds me of when Kramer from Seinfeld took karate classes with a bunch of kids:

Love the kids' facepalms at the end.

It also makes me wonder about the mindset of transwomen who compete with biological women. Do you they really not realize its a rather hollow victory, and the whole spectacle makes them out to be really just a bully who's destroying the dreams of many hard working young female athletes?

TomC

Celestial Highness
Do you they really not realize its a rather hollow victory, and the whole spectacle makes them out to be really just a bully who's destroying the dreams of many hard working young female athletes?
Who cares about a bunch of girls?

Not the CERTs(Cis Exclusionary Radical Transists).
Tom

Jarhyn

Wizard
Do you they really not realize its a rather hollow victory, and the whole spectacle makes them out to be really just a bully who's destroying the dreams of many hard working young female athletes?
Who cares about a bunch of girls?

Not the CERTs(Cis Exclusionary Radical Transists).
Tom

It's not my fault that an entire generation of girls was sold on a subtle lie that it might destroy their dream to compete against women born without ovaries, but never significantly affected by anything but the products of such.

I care about all the people, not just the girls, and I care about all of them equally.

If you wish to argue against my position, it's in the first post I made here. Anything else is arguing again nst arguments against arguments not even related to that position.

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
It also makes me wonder about the mindset of transwomen who compete with biological women. Do you they really not realize its a rather hollow victory, and the whole spectacle makes them out to be really just a bully who's destroying the dreams of many hard working young female athletes?
I can't know their minds, but I've read interviews with Veronica Ivy (nee Rachel McKinnon nee Rhys McKinnon), Laurel Hubbard (nee Gavin Hubbard) and the athlete in the OP, Lia Thomas (nee Will Thomas).

Veronica Ivy has expressed the conviction that there is nothing at all unfair about him competing and the people that question him doing so are 'losers'. I believe Ivy is the kind of person who, if he didn't have to worry about an academic career, would posts 'kill a TERF today' on his Twitter.

Laurel Hubbard, in contrast, seems very soft-spoken and possibly hasn't really thought about how unethical his selfish actions are.

Lia Thomas is quite young and possibly genuinely believes he is a woman, that everything he has done is 'fair'. He is getting institutional support for his actions. So I doubt he thinks his victories are hollow and he probably does not regard himself as a bully.

TomC

Celestial Highness
It is very unfair. For Christ's sake, in the 1650 meter freestyle competition, the second place winner was a full 38 seconds behind Lia! Such a disparity would be unheard of in a same sex competition.

I'd be curious.
How does Lia's time compare to her old male competitors? Did it affect her performance? Did transition from male to woman also transition her from "also ran" to "star athlete"?
I don't know.

What about other elite athletes? Folks like Hubbard. Would Hubbard have made the Olympics in the men's weight lifting competition? Given her performance, it seems unlikely. But she is, and always will be, an "Olympic Athlete". Not many people can claim that. It is a big deal.

Tom

Trausti

Deleted
Lia Thomas is quite young and possibly genuinely believes he is a woman, that everything he has done is 'fair'. He is getting institutional support for his actions. So I doubt he thinks his victories are hollow and he probably does not regard himself as a bully.

Seems to be the pathology of our current times to champion the bully and sneer at the victim. He’s just a selfish jerk and we should treat him as such.

TomC

Celestial Highness
Lia Thomas is quite young and possibly genuinely believes he is a woman, that everything he has done is 'fair'. He is getting institutional support for his actions. So I doubt he thinks his victories are hollow and he probably does not regard himself as a bully.

Seems to be the pathology of our current times to champion the bully and sneer at the victim. He’s just a selfish jerk and we should treat him as such.

Unfortunately true.

But it got Trump into the White House. Not everyone has a problem with it.
Tom

J842P

Veteran Member
Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
It doesn't matter one way or the other. It really doesn't.
Cool. So then, you would be fine with removing Title IX considerations, at least for athletics?

J842P

Veteran Member
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:

Patooka

Veteran Member
Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
It doesn't matter one way or the other. It really doesn't.
Cool. So then, you would be fine with removing Title IX considerations, at least for athletics?
Nope. Title IX is a yank thing and from what I can gather it states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance". I think trans people participating in sports requires a little more nuance than a blanket statement like that and I reflexively reject asinine statements like "if you're born a man you stay a man" or similar horseshit that is just copy pasted from PragerU.
Furthermore, I don't suffer from crippling autism and understand that legislation is flawed and doesn't fit every instance. This is one of those instances. Let it go to the keeper - the world is not going to end. If you think this incident is going to precipitate a slew of male athletes switching genders to win competitions I really don't know what to say.

J842P

Veteran Member
Do you think it's fair for Lia Thomas to be competing against women?
It doesn't matter one way or the other. It really doesn't.
Cool. So then, you would be fine with removing Title IX considerations, at least for athletics?
Nope. Title IX is a yank thing and from what I can gather it states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance". I think trans people participating in sports requires a little more nuance than a blanket statement like that and I reflexively reject asinine statements like "if you're born a man you stay a man" or similar horseshit that is just copy pasted from PragerU.
Furthermore, I don't suffer from crippling autism and understand that legislation is flawed and doesn't fit every instance. This is one of those instances. Let it go to the keeper - the world is not going to end. If you think this incident is going to precipitate a slew of male athletes switching genders to win competitions I really don't know what to say.
Wait, I thought you said it doesn't matter? So what is it?

Patooka

Veteran Member
Wait, I thought you said it doesn't matter? So what is it?
Because in this specific instance it doesn't.

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Apparently the Penn coach is quite happy with the arrangement of having ex men on the women's swim team because he really likes to win. A shallow victory in my opinion and unfair to the actual women in the team and the other competitors.

TomC

Celestial Highness
Apparently the Penn coach is quite happy with the arrangement of having ex men on the women's swim team because he really likes to win. A shallow victory in my opinion and unfair to the actual women in the team and the other competitors.

Sounds like a graduate of the Trump University School of Coaching.
Tom

thebeave

Veteran Member
This is kind of different twist on the subject of transwomen competing, not against other women in sports, but in a mixed sex gaming competition.

'JEOPARDY!' AMY SCHNEIDER 4TH CONTESTANT TO WIN MORE THAN $1M ... Breaks All Sorts Of Records!!! Amy Schneider is on a roll ... she just became the 4th player in "Jeopardy!" history to rake in more than$1 mil in non-tournament play, and she's still in the game!!!

Amy, the first transgender contestant to qualify for the show's Tournament of Champions, won her 28th game on the show that aired Friday night, taking her winnings north of $1M ... to be specific,$1,019,001.

She was stoked, saying, "It feels amazing, it feels strange. It's not a sum of money I ever anticipated would be associated with my name."

Amy has now won more loot than any other female contender, and she's now the record-holder for most consecutive wins by a female contestant.

Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the females on this forum about this woman's achievement. Is it a fair and square victory for female accomplishment or not? Are biological women (aka women who menstruate) largely cheering her on from the sidelines, or do they think this this whole thing is just dreadful and embarassing?

TomC

Celestial Highness
This is kind of different twist on the subject of transwomen competing, not against other women in sports, but in a mixed sex gaming competition.

'JEOPARDY!' AMY SCHNEIDER 4TH CONTESTANT TO WIN MORE THAN $1M ... Breaks All Sorts Of Records!!! Amy Schneider is on a roll ... she just became the 4th player in "Jeopardy!" history to rake in more than$1 mil in non-tournament play, and she's still in the game!!!

Amy, the first transgender contestant to qualify for the show's Tournament of Champions, won her 28th game on the show that aired Friday night, taking her winnings north of $1M ... to be specific,$1,019,001.

She was stoked, saying, "It feels amazing, it feels strange. It's not a sum of money I ever anticipated would be associated with my name."

Amy has now won more loot than any other female contender, and she's now the record-holder for most consecutive wins by a female contestant.

Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the females on this forum about this woman's achievement. Is it a fair and square victory for female accomplishment or not? Are biological women (aka women who menstruate) largely cheering her on from the sidelines, or do they think this this whole thing is just dreadful and embarassing?

In a post Alex Trebek world the show continues on like a zombie.
But not many people care.
Notice the number of responses in this thread.

We're also in a post "first female to..." world. Not many people care about that any more either.

Kamala Harris could wind up the first woman POTUS and it would feel a bit anticlimactic at this point. Hillary Clinton already won a presidential election.
Tom

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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!)
More like I weep over the detransitioners who have been medicalized and mutilated as a result of over-zealous ideology driving medicine rather than the Hippocratic Oath. For those who truly benefit from appropriate treatment, I'm happy for them. But I cringe that you have no compassion and no care at all for those who are permanently damaged and harmed. Your willingness to sacrifice kids on the altar of your belief is appalling.

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.
This is wrong-ish. Testosterone is a byproduct of puberty, not the cause of it. Puberty is driven by the tandem actions of the pituitary and the adrenal glands, which work in concert to produce bone growth, the accretion of bone density, the closure of growth plates; growth of leg hair armpit hair, and fine pubic hair; mental maturation and the development of romantic bonding pathways; the development of secondary sex characteristics and the maturation of primary sex characteristics which make the person capable of reproduction (in most cases).

Testosterone plays virtually no role in the development of females, but plays a large role in the development of males. You talk about it as if it's the only hormone that matters, which has the effect of completely ignoring female development altogether. I'm rather of the opinion that you don't give a shit about females, but that's a different discussion.

Even prior to the onset of puberty, males and females have somewhat different development paths. They attain cognitive benchmarks at different ages, they experience growth spurts at different ages. And regardless of whether or not you artificially interrupt a natural puberty and supple exogenous wrong-sex hormones, they have different skeletons and different attachment points for several ligaments and tendons. Males and females have different pelvic bones and different leg angles, and those differences exist from birth. Furthermore, even if you suppress testosterone in a male during puberty, and you artificially pump them full of estrogen, they will still end up being taller on average than females, with larger hands and feet than females.

You keep flailing about with your emotionally laden language and your ideological hammers... but you actually know fuck all about the process of puberty, or about the side effects of interrupting it, or the effects of providing cross-sex hormones during puberty. FFS, you keep referring to the mystical "wrong puberty" that a transgender person goes through if they aren't forcibly medicalized! It's not a "wrong puberty" no more than it's a "wrong body". It's the body they have and the puberty that their body is evolved to experience.

Your dogmatic insistence that this is "wrong" is a religious belief. It is woo. It is not science and it is not grounded in fact.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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…
No, nobody at all in this forum, thinks that being trans should be illegal. That's a strawman, and it's ridiculous. Outside of a very small cohort of devout religious whackos, the vast majority of people in the developed world have exactly zero objection to anyone being transgender.

Transgender persons should not be required to forego any rights. So far as I know, nobody has asked them to forego any rights.

Now... let's see if you'll play your own game. What rights do you think that transgender people currently lack? What rights are transgender people asking for?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
But you have exactly ZERO empathy, understanding, or acceptance for the people who are being forced to compete against those transgender people who have had the benefit of testosterone, and who experience blows to their career as a result. All of your compassion is reserved for the transgender identified males who are displacing females... none of your compassion is for the females.

Why is that, Jarhyn?

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.
Actually, these problems are the RESULT of people who have put policies into place that ALLOW the Lia Thomases, the Laurel Hubbards, and the Rachel McKinnons of the world to compete against women in athletics, despite the obvious and clear advantage they have over those women.

If most trans people are okay with limiting participation based on steroidal advantages, why aren't they speaking out against this blatantly unfair practice that has been put in place in their name?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant

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

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?
Well now, this is rather duplicitous. You literally snipped out the part of Post #36 that answers your question, so that you can falsely claim that Metaphor didn't answer your question.

Do you think the other people on this board are unable to read?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
Like... maybe... I dunno... the effect of sex? Call me crazy, but that seems like a pretty definitive biological standard that takes into effect biological development as a child.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
Is it really worth the effort on your part to hold out this exception for the 0.002% of humans with disorders of sexual development that produce genetic males who were not subjected to testosterone via CAIS or genetic females who had a transcribed SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes?

It seems like keeping the guideline based on 99.998% of the population, and granting a case-by-case exception on the outliers ought to be sufficient for any rational person. Your reliance on semantic chicanery seems like a lot of work for no real gain... except to muddy language to such an extent as to rob it of meaning entirely.

Jarhyn

Wizard
But you have exactly ZERO empathy, understanding, or acceptance for the people who are being forced to compete against those transgender people who have had the benefit of testosterone, and who experience blows to their career as a result

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."
My first post to this thread, one of the first posts in the chain, directly contradicts this ridiculous bullshit. My first statement was specifically that people should not have to compete with those impacted by testosterone beyond early onset puberty.
Why is that, Jarhyn?
Because you are either incapable of reading or remembering or telling the truth. Take your pick.
Actually, these problems are the RESULT of people who have put policies into place that ALLOW the Lia Thomases, the Laurel Hubbards, and the Rachel McKinnons of the world to compete against women in athletics, despite the obvious and clear advantage they have over those women.
And it's quite convenient that the first step I make is to demand that not happen through approaches to sports that, while looking at factors comorbid to a high degree with sex, are not actually "sex."
If most trans people are okay with limiting participation based on steroidal advantages, why aren't they speaking out against this blatantly unfair practice that has been put in place in their name
Every trans person I know on these forums, and various not-cis persons (including at least one wizard) did.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
No, asking a question that literally is incoherent for the sake of defending an incoherent position is not "disagreeing".
It's only incoherent if you make up your own definitions for commonly understood words, and then proceed to go all humpty-dumpty on your own made-up definitions.

Jarhyn

Wizard
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.
Is it really worth the effort on your part to hold out this exception for the 0.002% of humans with disorders of sexual development that produce genetic males who were not subjected to testosterone via CAIS or genetic females who had a transcribed SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes?

It seems like keeping the guideline based on 99.998% of the population, and granting a case-by-case exception on the outliers ought to be sufficient for any rational person. Your reliance on semantic chicanery seems like a lot of work for no real gain... except to muddy language to such an extent as to rob it of meaning entirely.
And for such humans as you would yourself attempt (and fail) to deny the right to a brain-concordant single puberty.

You can pretend that the numbers are smaller than they are by using a selection bias, but you are just revealing yourself at the extreme end of bias against trans people's existence.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
And then... hear me out because this is really kinda on 'out there' idea... how about we use a term for "non-androgenized" that is accessible and understood by almost everyone over the age of 3? Perhaps we could make use of an already-existing word that already encompasses the 99.998% of the people who are non-androgenized? What was that word again? I think it rhymes with "come in" or something, I just really can't seem to bring that word to mind, so much effort has gone into removing it from the lexicon...

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.

This is postmodernist bullshit. It is in no way whatsoever incoherent. That you personally have created incoherent definitions in your own mind-brain doesn't affect the rest of us who speak English with even moderate skill.

You pretending that well-established biological processes are magically and irreducibly complex is religious thinking of the wooest type.

Jarhyn

Wizard
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.
And then... hear me out because this is really kinda on 'out there' idea... how about we use a term for "non-androgenized" that is accessible and understood by almost everyone over the age of 3? Perhaps we could make use of an already-existing word that already encompasses the 99.998% of the people who are non-androgenized? What was that word again? I think it rhymes with "come in" or something, I just really can't seem to bring that word to mind, so much effort has gone into removing it from the lexicon...
Maybe because it's dumb and shitty and downright bullying to insist on something that sticks a knife into one of the deepest traumas a human being can experience.

And fuck you if you don't think being forced into the wrong puberty and body against your will is such.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
STOP USING PEOPLE WITH REAL DELETERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITIONS AS A FOIL FOR YOUR RELIGION.

Disorders of sexual development have nothing at all to do with being trans. Lia Thomas does NOT have a DSD condition. Lia Thomas is 100% normal male human, who identifies in their mind as a woman. There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about the sex of Lia Thomas, nor of Laurel Hubbard, nor of Rachel McKinnon, nor of the several other transgender identified males who are depriving females of opportunities and fair competition.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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!

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."

I think it bears pointing out that your personal "rejection" of a commonly used and commonly understood term does not constitute "debunking", nor does it make use of that term in any fashion dishonest.

You are not the dictator of language, despite how clearly authoritarian you are.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the females on this forum about this woman's achievement. Is it a fair and square victory for female accomplishment or not? Are biological women (aka women who menstruate) largely cheering her on from the sidelines, or do they think this this whole thing is just dreadful and embarassing?

Is this even about gender, or is it about reporters always trying to make the facts seem more important? In a situation like this "female record holder" basically says the reporter is trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is. People are competing on an equal footing, it doesn't matter what gender they are and thus all that really matters is "record holder"--when you qualify it you're actually saying it isn't a record.

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
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.
And then... hear me out because this is really kinda on 'out there' idea... how about we use a term for "non-androgenized" that is accessible and understood by almost everyone over the age of 3? Perhaps we could make use of an already-existing word that already encompasses the 99.998% of the people who are non-androgenized? What was that word again? I think it rhymes with "come in" or something, I just really can't seem to bring that word to mind, so much effort has gone into removing it from the lexicon...
Maybe because it's dumb and shitty and downright bullying to insist on something that sticks a knife into one of the deepest traumas a human being can experience.

And fuck you if you don't think being forced into the wrong puberty and body against your will is such.
That you believe people can be born in the wrong body is a foundational error in your thinking. Every incoherent misstep and blunder afterwards either compounds that error or is a result of it.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant

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.
I almost completely agree. My only alteration would be quite small. In your first sentence, I would rather say "... due to the disparate advantages conferred by male physiology..."

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
Why are you so frightened of females that the very term is verboten to you?

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.
And in a generation we're going to look back and try to figure out why we let this travesty occur to so many helpless children, what kind of social madness grabbed hold of us all and made us as a society think that mutilating and sterilizing children was a good thing to do.

I'll also point out again that SKELETAL FORMATION IS NOT A RESULT OF HORMONE EXPOSURE. It exists from birth. It exists from birth because males and females are different. We're different from the point at which that sperm breaches the egg.
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!
You know, all you're doing is making it clear that women (adult human females) and girls (immature human females) absolutely 100% should NOT surrender the language with which we identify and describe ourselves and our experiences. If you're going to force a pairing in which engaging in the polite fiction that a transgender identified male is a "woman" necessarily requires that I also surrender the very real differences of their sex from my entire vocabulary, then I'm sorry, but my politeness ends at the point where my existence, my experience, my rights, my dignity - and that of all other female human beings - is erased from our communications and is rendered meaningless.

No Thank You

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
So my problem is bringing up a material objective fact?

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.
Let's not even get started on prisons or rape shelters.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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.
Why on earth do you feel entitled to demand that women - female humans - must surrender reality and facts to your religious beliefs? Why do you think we would throw OURSELVES under the fucking bus so that even more males can treat us like second-class citizens and deprive us of our ability to equally participate in society?

Look at you, insisting that women not be allowed to use the terms "women" and "female" in reference to ourselves... because it hurts the feelings of some men who identify as women.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
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...

I find it truly bizarre that you are literally advocating for the eugenic sterilization of gender non-conforming children.

And you think this is progress.

Status
Not open for further replies.