Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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.

 

[IIDB Staff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

 

[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.