Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[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?