Should Trans-Women Be Allowed In Women's Sports? NO!

[Half-Life]

Let's talk about trans women in sports. Should they be allowed? I say no because it's making a mockery of biological women.

Let me give you guys an example, (especially the people who advocate for trans rights):

Suppose a 17 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger identified as a woman and he was comfortable with his body and did not want to transition using hormones or anything. This is a view of the trans rights advocates: "If you say you're a woman, you're a woman. No questions asked.")

Would it be fair for Arnold to enter women's weightlifting and dominate 1st place in everything? Of course not. Yet, this is what trans rights advocates want. Disgusting things like this.

Do you guys seriously believe that if Arnold did this, you would all of a sudden start calling him a woman and the greatest women's weight lifter in history?

Can any of you guys logically explain why muscular 14-18 year old high school men should be allowed in women's sports to dominate just because they say, "I'm a woman!?"

Or think about if LeBron James identified as a woman today and said he was going to the WNBA, is that fair? Why or why not? If you say it's not fair, you're going against your beliefs. If you say it is fair, you're delusional. How the hell do trans rights advocates get out of this pickle?!?!?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, OP's bullshit aside...

There really should be more of a discussion about how AND WHY we divide sports the way we do. Because I think that dividing them by gender is wrong.

There are absolutely two very different populations of people for which competing in a common field is nonsensical, but this is not as simple as man/woman.

This division in nature, the real difference, is testosterone exposure. It can be tested for. It can even in many cases be assumed. But this is the REAL against which gender is used as proxy.

So, should testosterone-exposed people be allowed to play in testosterone-exposed sports leagues? No. They should not.

Should we name and separate and regulate these on the basis of gender instead of testosterone exposure? No, we should not.

Now cue the anti-trans whinefest completely ignoring this reality.

 

[Half-Life]

So, OP's bullshit aside...

There really should be more of a discussion about how AND WHY we divide sports the way we do. Because I think that dividing them by gender is wrong.

There are absolutely two very different populations of people for which competing in a common field is nonsensical, but this is not as simple as man/woman.

This division in nature, the real difference, is testosterone exposure. It can be tested for. It can even in many cases be assumed. But this is the REAL against which gender is used as proxy.

So, should testosterone-exposed people be allowed to play in testosterone-exposed sports leagues? No. They should not.

Should we name and separate and regulate these on the basis of gender instead of testosterone exposure? No, we should not.

Now cue the anti-trans whinefest completely ignoring this reality.

If sports were not separated by gender, the men would always win. Put the females into the NBA, none would make the team. Put the males in the WNBA, all the females would lose their spots.

There have even been cases of a biological women being disqualified because her testosterone level was actually higher than the limit they have for trans-women! Talk about insanity!

 

[Metaphor]

So, OP's bullshit aside...

There really should be more of a discussion about how AND WHY we divide sports the way we do. Because I think that dividing them by gender is wrong.

There are absolutely two very different populations of people for which competing in a common field is nonsensical, but this is not as simple as man/woman.

This division in nature, the real difference, is testosterone exposure. It can be tested for. It can even in many cases be assumed. But this is the REAL against which gender is used as proxy.

No. Testosterone exposure is only part of it. If you have gone through a male puberty you have an advantage, created by nature, that no amount of testosterone blockers can undo.

We separate sports by sex in the first place because if, at the elite level, women had to compete against men, women would always lose. This is obvious in most sports, but I think it would be true even for subjectively-judged sports like figure skating. Men's figure skating routines currently have harder and more complex elements than women's.

However, although sport used to be separated by sex, it is increasingly separated by gender, as the OP points out. At elite and semi-professional level, evidence of transition is required. But at other levels, mere identification is the only requirement.

But even with the requirement of evidence of transition and rules around it, cis women are, basically, fucked. Trans women--biological men--have a natural advantage and this remains even after they block their own testosterone.

But the idea that 'trans women are women' is now so beyond polite discourse to question, it is verboten to point the unfairness to cis women out. It's why Rachel McKinnon feels free to call cis women 'losers'. Fallon Fox destroyed Tamikka Brents in MMA fighting. Even one area that feminists are probably happy to leave to the men - heavy lifting - didn't stop Laurel Hubbard taking gold for weightlifting.

Competing in a sport in the gender you identify as is not a human right.

This is a battle cis women are going to need to fight. (No cis elite male athlete need fear a trans man unfairly competing against him). I wish them luck.

EDIT: I don't know if Jarhyn was talking about testosterone exposure in utero, which includes the exposure of XX females to high amounts of male hormone in cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or something else.

 

[Trausti]

I used to think the evil “patriarchy” was silly feminist nonsense. Then biological men and boys began competing and winning in women’s sport and going into female restrooms to watch girls undress. The patriarchy is powerful.

 

[repoman]

The Kiwi Farms consensus is that it is mostly the AGP's (autogynephiles) that are a menace to women and not the HSTS's (homosexual transsexuals).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with testosterone exposure as your yardstick is how do you measure it? You can measure current testosterone levels but how do you measure what they were last year? Or 10 years ago?

I don't believe there is any fair solution here as the only right answer (they compete against other trans people) doesn't have enough athletes.

 

[Patooka]

The only two opinions that should have merit in this argument should be

a)the athletes participating and
b)(because this is just how the fucking world works nowadays) the sponsors of the sport.

Someone who believes hateful bullshit like being transgender is a sickness that can eradicated through eugenics should be disqualified from the discussion.

 

[Trausti]

You make good points. We should allow trans-age athletes to compete in the age group which they identify. The transphobia must stop.

 

[Half-Life]

The only two opinions that should have merit in this argument should be

a)the athletes participating and
b)(because this is just how the fucking world works nowadays) the sponsors of the sport.

Someone who believes hateful bullshit like being transgender is a sickness that can eradicated through eugenics should be disqualified from the discussion.

Transgender people commit suicide at an alarming rate. If we could stop transgender from happening, that would be a good thing. In the same way it would be a good thing if we can stop Down syndrome form happening. You wouldn't call me sick for thinking that could be stopped, right?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I tend to find discussion on this topic pretty funny. A bunch of people who scarcely give a shit about women's sports or fairness in spots all gather to pretend they are suddenly invested.

Sports are't fair. While that doesn't mean competitions should be anything-goes, the reality is, they simply aren't fair. Factors such as opportunity, biological advantage, money and available resources will all bias outcomes and will not all be equally available to all athletes.

When it comes to biological advantage, there will always be some arbitrariness in categorization. In some cases, such as combat sports, classes exist in part to keep things safer. But I suspect the main point of classifications is to keep the range of biological advantage within a category restrained to the point that the outcome is not close to a foregone conclusion. Categories need to be limited to the point where we feel differences in skill or effort can reasonably close the gap.

Why should we do that? Why not simply lump everyone together and seek the pinnacle athletes with an understanding that peak performance will never be a matter of strict fairness and merit? Some may say this is to keep things from being discriminatory. Would there be many women in professional/ elite level sports without women's categories? Probably not. But then, does that mean sports are not discriminatory? I'd wager a shit ton of people are left out due to all sorts of circumstances, and to that we generally shrug and say 'what can you do?'

I don't know. Sports are an entertainment industry. Having more people actually able to play helps extend the market. Athletes make a career out of their sport. Education opportunities ride on scholarships. Culturally, we place a bizarre emphasis on sports. I mean, for a random pickup game of touch football, let's say, does anyone really give a shit about advantages of sex hormones when it's just for fun? Maybe some do, but most probably don't think it matters too much. But once things start getting more serious, we want sports to be more closely regulated so that they are only discriminatory to the point that we can comfortable stomach.

So, we try to categorize competition to have divisions which are actually competitive. Sex hormones are one variable in that. Does that mean gender is a good way to set divisions to keep divisions competitive?

Probably not. There are so many variables at play that the crude division between men and women is inadequate. Intersex individuals, for instance, have long created complications to this scheme. There are also outliers such as Caster Semenya (who may be intersex, though I am not sure that was ever confirmed). There are transgender women who started hrt at the onset of puberty and likely have no biological advantage over cisgender women. There are transgender men who compete at the elite level.

And then there are assumptions about what actually constitutes competitive advantage. In the case of people such as myself who started hrt later in life, it's argued factors such as height and bone density give me an advantage. I'd say that is conditional. Perhaps for basketball or volleyball or mma it does. For my sport--climbing--it's probably the reverse. Height--despite added reach--provides mechanical disadvantage which previously was only offset for me by increased strength (which I will never fully regain). If gymnastics were my game, I'd probably get trashed. My supposed advantage is very contextual. And honestly, the variables people use to argue I have an advantage aren't consistent within either sex or gender.

The point of all that rambling is not that I have some magical answers to how sports should be conducted and how competition divisions should be formed. It's just when the subject of transgender women gets brought up, it seems many people trod out all these notions of fairness and consistency and competitive advantage which normally are very ragged and imperfect as-is. Rather than seek to improve on these flawed things in order to resolve the issue, instead we use the terms as a blunt instrument to exclude transgender women. Me? I don't care much about sports. I'm not deeply moved one way or the other. But I do think the narrative on sports--especially regarding the inclusion of transgender women--is all fucked up and severely lacking in honest appraisal of what competition really is in practice.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The only two opinions that should have merit in this argument should be

a)the athletes participating and
b)(because this is just how the fucking world works nowadays) the sponsors of the sport.

Someone who believes hateful bullshit like being transgender is a sickness that can eradicated through eugenics should be disqualified from the discussion.

Transgender people commit suicide at an alarming rate. If we could stop transgender from happening, that would be a good thing. In the same way it would be a good thing if we can stop Down syndrome form happening. You wouldn't call me sick for thinking that could be stopped, right?

Suicidal tendencies aren't intrinsic to being transgender. One of the biggest predictors of emotional well-being (and not being suicidal) has been found to be acceptance, in particular from family and close peers. Seeing as we can't cure having trans identities, we might as well focus on the thing we can do which is shown to reduce harm.

 

[Trausti]

I tend to find discussion on this topic pretty funny. A bunch of people who scarcely give a shit about women's sports or fairness in spots all gather to pretend they are suddenly invested.

One of the traditional aspects of masculinity - toxic if you like - is the protection of women; particularly against abuse by other men.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I tend to find discussion on this topic pretty funny. A bunch of people who scarcely give a shit about women's sports or fairness in spots all gather to pretend they are suddenly invested.

One of the traditional aspects of masculinity - toxic if you like - is the protection of women; particularly against abuse by other men.

I am doubtful that explains much of anything.

 

[Trausti]

I tend to find discussion on this topic pretty funny. A bunch of people who scarcely give a shit about women's sports or fairness in spots all gather to pretend they are suddenly invested.

One of the traditional aspects of masculinity - toxic if you like - is the protection of women; particularly against abuse by other men.

I am doubtful that explains much of anything.

Imagine this is your daughter.

 

[Metaphor]

I tend to find discussion on this topic pretty funny. A bunch of people who scarcely give a shit about women's sports or fairness in spots all gather to pretend they are suddenly invested.

I don't really give a shit about women's (or men's) sports, but I'm invested in fairness.

Why should we do that? Why not simply lump everyone together and seek the pinnacle athletes with an understanding that peak performance will never be a matter of strict fairness and merit? Some may say this is to keep things from being discriminatory. Would there be many women in professional/ elite level sports without women's categories? Probably not. But then, does that mean sports are not discriminatory? I'd wager a shit ton of people are left out due to all sorts of circumstances, and to that we generally shrug and say 'what can you do?'

As a sports outsider, I would lump everyone together. What is most celebrated in running 100 metres? Running it the fastest. We don't have a world record for 'fastest white person to run 100 metres'.

I don't know. Sports are an entertainment industry. Having more people actually able to play helps extend the market. Athletes make a career out of their sport. Education opportunities ride on scholarships. Culturally, we place a bizarre emphasis on sports. I mean, for a random pickup game of touch football, let's say, does anyone really give a shit about advantages of sex hormones when it's just for fun?

Well, yes, they do. I know women who play in mixed-sex teams, and there are hard rules around the composition of the teams. (Sometimes the minimum number of women on the team, and sometimes an exact number of men and women).

So, we try to categorize competition to have divisions which are actually competitive. Sex hormones are one variable in that. Does that mean gender is a good way to set divisions to keep divisions competitive?

Sex is a far better division than gender.

There are transgender men who compete at the elite level.

Who and in what sports?

And then there are assumptions about what actually constitutes competitive advantage. In the case of people such as myself who started hrt later in life, it's argued factors such as height and bone density give me an advantage. I'd say that is conditional. Perhaps for basketball or volleyball or mma it does. For my sport--climbing--it's probably the reverse. Height--despite added reach--provides mechanical disadvantage which previously was only offset for me by increased strength (which I will never fully regain). If gymnastics were my game, I'd probably get trashed. My supposed advantage is very contextual. And honestly, the variables people use to argue I have an advantage aren't consistent within either sex or gender.

What per cent of sports do you think 'favour' biological men over biological women?

The point of all that rambling is not that I have some magical answers to how sports should be conducted and how competition divisions should be formed. It's just when the subject of transgender women gets brought up, it seems many people trod out all these notions of fairness and consistency and competitive advantage which normally are very ragged and imperfect as-is. Rather than seek to improve on these flawed things in order to resolve the issue, instead we use the terms as a blunt instrument to exclude transgender women. Me? I don't care much about sports. I'm not deeply moved one way or the other. But I do think the narrative on sports--especially regarding the inclusion of transgender women--is all fucked up and severely lacking in honest appraisal of what competition really is in practice.

What's fucked up is that biological men can punch cis women in the face, and if it's in the context of sport, nobody can say a word.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I am doubtful that explains much of anything.

Imagine this is your daughter.

He's a transgender guy.The whole reason he is competing in the women's category is because they won't recognize him as male.

 

[Patooka]

The only two opinions that should have merit in this argument should be

a)the athletes participating and
b)(because this is just how the fucking world works nowadays) the sponsors of the sport.

Someone who believes hateful bullshit like being transgender is a sickness that can eradicated through eugenics should be disqualified from the discussion.

Transgender people commit suicide at an alarming rate. If we could stop transgender from happening, that would be a good thing. In the same way it would be a good thing if we can stop Down syndrome form happening. You wouldn't call me sick for thinking that could be stopped, right?

Thanks for making my point. And yes, I would call you sick, and a lot worse if you thought that. Forum rules prohibit me from doing so, but use your imagination buddy.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well, yes, they do. I know women who play in mixed-sex teams, and there are hard rules around the composition of the teams. (Sometimes the minimum number of women on the team, and sometimes an exact number of men and women).

Do you know what a pickup game is?

Sex is a far better division than gender.

It's inadequate regardless.

Who and in what sports?

What does it matter? It's very rare, but part of the mix. Currently, many transgender men choose to quit competing post transition without seeking to compete as males. I know of two exceptions and I suspect there will be more at the professional/ elite level as time goes on. The two I know of readily:

Chris Mosier -- triathlon
Patricio Manuel -- boxing (though he only had one professional fight as a male boxer)

What per cent of sports do you think 'favour' biological men over biological women?

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

What's fucked up is that biological men can punch cis women in the face, and if it's in the context of sport, nobody can say a word.

Plenty of people can say a word. They are competing along a set of rules within a given set of constraints. Some of these sports are inherently violent and dangerous. People die. A woman died recently in an MMA fight. To the best of my knowledge, her opponent was a cisgender woman, so hey, at least it wasn't one of those 'biological men' amirite?

 

[Metaphor]

Do you know what a pickup game is?

Perhaps not. Is it an American term?

It's inadequate regardless.

Whether it's "inadequate" is hardly the point. You don't--or at least shouldn't--go from "inadequate" to "worse".

What does it matter? It's very rare, but part of the mix. Currently, many transgender men choose to quit competing post transition without seeking to compete as males. I know of two exceptions and I suspect there will be more at the professional/ elite level as time goes on. The two I know of readily:

Chris Mosier -- triathlon
Patricio Manuel -- boxing (though he only had one professional fight as a male boxer)

It absolutely fucking matters. If you are going to segregate sports by sex in the first place, you're doing it because it's unfair for biological women to compete with biological men. I haven't heard of either of the trans men athletes you've listed, but did they win anything at all? Did their female-at-birth reality play out in any kind of advantage?

Plenty of people can say a word. They are competing along a set of rules within a given set of constraints. Some of these sports are inherently violent and dangerous. People die. A woman died recently in an MMA fight. To the best of my knowledge, her opponent was a cisgender woman, so hey, at least it wasn't one of those 'biological men' amirite?

Contact bloodsports like MMA and boxing, where the idea is to beat your opponent to a bloody pulp and you win, I find absolutely vile. I've never watched one voluntarily and I would never ever pay to watch one. (Entertainment wrestling, which is basically high fantasy, is slightly different, though not different enough for me to actually be interested).

I do find bizarre that you think I'd be more moved by the death of a biological male at the hands of a biological female, than the death of a biological female at the hands of a biological male. I think boxers are basically mentally deranged, but that doesn't mean I think female boxers should increase their probability of dying by being forced to compete against biological men.