Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[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.