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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

According to science, gay men also perform differently on average. Do you want to segregate them, too, or just the women? I'm just trying to understand when you find it acceptable to segregate based on identity and when you don't find it acceptable?

 

[repoman]

According to science, gay men also perform differently on average. Do you want to segregate them, too, or just the women? I'm just trying to understand when you find it acceptable to segregate based on identity and when you don't find it acceptable?

Identity? What is that?

I have no respect for the concept.

Also, gay men are gay as in they want to fuck and (can at times) pair bond to men instead of women. They don't think they are gay.

This is other end of the spectrum from "the gay lifestyle is a choice" when despite a few "a hole is a hole" perverts most gays are obligate hard wired gays.

You need to identify as something which is obviously not true because it IS not true.

I can accept they have gender dysphoria OR they want to be genderqueer as a statement. But I can't accept they are the same as cisgender people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

According to science, gay men also perform differently on average. Do you want to segregate them, too, or just the women? I'm just trying to understand when you find it acceptable to segregate based on identity and when you don't find it acceptable?

Identity? What is that?

I have no respect for the concept.

Also, gay men are gay as in they want to fuck and (can at times) pair bond to men instead of women. They don't think they are gay.

This is other end of the spectrum from "the gay lifestyle is a choice" when despite a few "a hole is a hole" perverts most gays are obligate hard wired gays.

You need to identify as something which is obviously not true because it IS not true.

I can accept they have gender dysphoria OR they want to be genderqueer as a statement. But I can't accept they are the same as cisgender people.

Use a different word if you don't like identity. Use CATEGORY. Who gives a shit.

Just answer the question.

BTW, the reason women are segregated in sports is historical and isn't exactly the same as post hoc reasoning of today.

 

[Trausti]

Gay men are still men. No need to deny biological reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gay men are still men. No need to deny biological reality.

Thank you for the straw man argument.

Now, could you actually answer the question?

People can be divided a lot of ways including by various racial schemes, mostly inconsistent over time and location, and/or divided up by binary gender, except for intersexed persons, and/or divided up according to age like they do in Senior Olympics creating categories each 5 year block after 50+ but not in the actual general Olympics, and/or by weight like they do in wrestling but for some reason not football, and/or by sexual orientation where they've found biological and performance differences, and/or pick your favorite category.

But so far we've heard weird things like that you should divide by gender but not age because of performance differences when both have performance differences and you should divide by gender but not sexual orientation, even though studies may show gay men clustering with women rather than straight men. So, if performance differences ==> segregation, why is it only a thing for men vs women, not for other categories?

As above, I will note that the reason for gender segregation is historical, rather than the post hoc justification which is why we don't observe all these divisions. In any case, please answer the question.

Why gender, but nothing else?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Nobody is willing to answer the tough questions.

All the medical studies we do on men and women take into account that some diseases are more common in men than women and vice versa. For example, men are more likely to get diabetes. But, if a trans woman insists he's a woman, does this mean his risk of diabetes automatically goes down just because he says he's a woman? Of course not!


This is where it becomes dangerous. Leftists only see, "HAHA YOU GUYS ARE TRIGGERED! JUST CALL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!! WHO CARES?!?!?"

We can see that medically it does matter. How would medical studies get done?

You're railing against nothing even harder than normal.

Why does everyone seem to think transgender people deny what our physiology is? Our physiology is the very fucking thing which causes dysphoria. A transgender woman is acutely aware her anatomy doesn't align with that of a cisgender woman.

And medically, we look at the health risks appraise to our biology. Due to medical transition, I am at elevated risk of breast cancer over men in general. I am at zero risk for testicular cancer. I have a risk of prostate cancer unlike cisgender women.

Admittedly, there are complexities of navigating the health care system. I do recall reading about a transgender woman who was upset that she wasn't given a pregnancy test in a scenario where she believed cisgender women would have been tested. But it's not like she failed to understand that she couldn't get pregnant absent cutting edge medical intervention (and maybe not even then). It was about being treated differently. Despite not agreeing with her, I don't delude myself into thinking "Aha! Trans people deny biology! Dummies." It just isn't the case (absent extreme outliers).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Identity? What is that?

You need to identify as something which is obviously not true because it IS not true.

That is literally the opposite of what the word 'identify' means.

But I can't accept they are the same as cisgender people.

The term 'cisgender' exists largely as a differentiator from 'transgender', so of course not. No one is claiming as much.

With regard to competition in elite and professional sports, no one is eligible to compete in a gender-specific category based on identity alone.

 

[Half-Life]

Nobody is willing to answer the tough questions.

All the medical studies we do on men and women take into account that some diseases are more common in men than women and vice versa. For example, men are more likely to get diabetes. But, if a trans woman insists he's a woman, does this mean his risk of diabetes automatically goes down just because he says he's a woman? Of course not!


This is where it becomes dangerous. Leftists only see, "HAHA YOU GUYS ARE TRIGGERED! JUST CALL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!! WHO CARES?!?!?"

We can see that medically it does matter. How would medical studies get done?

You're railing against nothing even harder than normal.

Why does everyone seem to think transgender people deny what our physiology is? Our physiology is the very fucking thing which causes dysphoria. A transgender woman is acutely aware her anatomy doesn't align with that of a cisgender woman.

And medically, we look at the health risks appraise to our biology. Due to medical transition, I am at elevated risk of breast cancer over men in general. I am at zero risk for testicular cancer. I have a risk of prostate cancer unlike cisgender women.

Admittedly, there are complexities of navigating the health care system. I do recall reading about a transgender woman who was upset that she wasn't given a pregnancy test in a scenario where she believed cisgender women would have been tested. But it's not like she failed to understand that she couldn't get pregnant absent cutting edge medical intervention (and maybe not even then). It was about being treated differently. Despite not agreeing with her, I don't delude myself into thinking "Aha! Trans people deny biology! Dummies." It just isn't the case (absent extreme outliers).

Because trans women INSIST they are REAL WOMEN! They are not.

Thus, they are susceptible to MEN'S DISEASES and MEN'S CANCER, not WOMEN'S!

As I said, take an Arnold Schwarzenegger type person who says "I'm a woman!" Do you think "she" would now be at risk for women's diseases and cancers? Of course not! If medical science needs a woman test subject, would "she" qualify? Of course not!

But THEY SAY THEY ARE REAL WOMEN! This can not be true!!

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Because trans women INSIST they are REAL WOMEN! They are not.

Not on the basis of anatomy. You are arguing against something people aren't actually saying.

Thus, they are susceptible to MEN'S DISEASES and MEN'S CANCER, not WOMEN'S!

Tell you what, you actually go and READ my response to you, and then maybe we'll chat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because trans women INSIST they are REAL WOMEN! They are not.

Not on the basis of anatomy. You are arguing against something people aren't actually saying.

Thus, they are susceptible to MEN'S DISEASES and MEN'S CANCER, not WOMEN'S!

Tell you what, you actually go and READ my response to you, and then maybe we'll chat.

Even if he did, it has nothing he wants, or can use to advance his fearmongering.

 

[Half-Life]

Not on the basis of anatomy. You are arguing against something people aren't actually saying.



Tell you what, you actually go and READ my response to you, and then maybe we'll chat.

Even if he did, it has nothing he wants, or can use to advance his fearmongering.

Keith, a popular right-wing joke is, "I identify as a millionaire. But when I go to the bank, they don't acknowledge my identity. It's really weird. Why don't they respect my identity??!"

Could the answer be because a person's identity has no bearing on real life??

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not on the basis of anatomy. You are arguing against something people aren't actually saying.



Tell you what, you actually go and READ my response to you, and then maybe we'll chat.

Even if he did, it has nothing he wants, or can use to advance his fearmongering.

Keith, a popular right-wing joke is, "I identify as a millionaire. But when I go to the bank, they don't acknowledge my identity. It's really weird. Why don't they respect my identity??!"

Could the answer be because a person's identity has no bearing on real life??

well, of course, that's your answer. Which is why it is not a joke.
And also not exactly a matter of self-identity.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Keith, a popular right-wing joke is, "I identify as a millionaire. But when I go to the bank, they don't acknowledge my identity. It's really weird. Why don't they respect my identity??!"

Could the answer be because a person's identity has no bearing on real life??

Incidentally, there is a popular joke in the trans community. It more or less consists of laughing at people who say ridiculous shit like that thinking they are making some sort of coherent point. Not everyone finds it funny, but I have no qualms about laughing at you.

Fun fact: Did you know that money isn't gender?

 

[Half-Life]

Keith, a popular right-wing joke is, "I identify as a millionaire. But when I go to the bank, they don't acknowledge my identity. It's really weird. Why don't they respect my identity??!"

Could the answer be because a person's identity has no bearing on real life??

Incidentally, there is a popular joke in the trans community. It more or less consists of laughing at people who say ridiculous shit like that thinking they are making some sort of coherent point. Not everyone finds it funny, but I have no qualms about laughing at you.

Fun fact: Did you know that money isn't gender?

The point is they are identifying as something other than what they are in reality. That's the whole point.

If someone says, "I identify as a millionaire!," the proper response is, "That's great but you're not a millionaire."

Likewise if a man says, "I'm a woman!," the proper response is, "That's great, but you're not a woman."

No amount of yelling at the bank manager, " BUT I IDENTIFY AS A MILLIONAIRE, GIVE ME MY MONEY!!!!" is going to make them seriously give you a million dollars.

Just like no amount of yelling, "BUT I'M A WOMAN!!!!" is going to make people seriously think you're a woman.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The point is they are identifying as something other than what they are in reality. That's the whole point.

If someone says, "I identify as a millionaire!," the proper response is, "That's great but you're not a millionaire."

Likewise if a man says, "I'm a woman!," the proper response is, "That's great, but you're not a woman."

It's cute you think you are in a position to explain something to me.

Yes, I am fully aware of the point you are trying to make, but the situations aren't analogous. I do understand you won't be able to follow along with the rest of this post, but I feel compelled to write it all the same.

Acknowledging transgender identities isn't based merely on the idea that we say we are women or men.
"But wait!" you cry, "don't transgender people argue self-identification is all that matters? Is all that is needed?"

Kind of. The acceptance of transgender identities in principle isn't based merely off of self-identification. There is a history of practical medicine and scientific research which supports the validity of transgender identities. However, there is no satisfactory test to objectively and indisputably measure that an individual person is transgender. We rely on self-reported feelings for diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We rely on self-reporting for understanding people's gender identities. This approach is not unique to transgender identities.

But even if we set that aside, to say one is a millionaire at the bank is a statement of the wealth one possesses in their account. Factually, the money isn't there.

But to say one is a transgender woman when talking to one's doctor and seeking medical transition, let's say, is pretty much doing the opposite. It's saying I have a female gender identity, but my body doesn't align with that.

If we translate that back to the millionaire analogy, it's like walking into the bank and saying, "I a millionaire's identity, but it troubles me that my identity doesn't align with my bank balance." And to that the bank says, "Well, we don't have the means to make you a millionaire, but we can take what you do have, set you up with a financial advisor and get you as close as we can. Not only that, but if you show up the the yacht club, we won't talk down to you like you're poor as shit because we recognize--despite your bank balance--we recognize you're cut from the same cloth."

But even then, still not analogous. There are reasons to believe there is a biological root to gender identity and that a misalignment between neurology and the rest of our physiology is plausible. We also recognize a shit ton of what we label 'male' and 'female' or 'masculine' and 'feminine' has fuckall to do with anatomy or biology. A lot of it is social convention which can be applied to someone regardless of what they have going on in their pants.

But that doesn't apply to being a millionaire. There is no known biological root cause to identifying as a millionaire neither is there a reason to believe one exists. Millionaire, by and large, is just a singular statement on how much wealth you have.

 

[repoman]

Some solid points there, kis.

I see that this is about competing ideologies each warning about slippery slopes of the others proposals while also sneakily crafting "thin edge of the wedge" methods to crack open their vision of the future for this topic.

Or basically, life as normal.

This makes me realize why people make extreme rules.

One way would be to say that no XY male should ever be allowed in individual competition for female leagues. Even one that never went through male puberty and instead went theough female puberty inasmuch as it can happen for a male. Will a sports interested boy who feels trans-ish feel time pressured to go through female puberty to ensure being being in sports? Yikes.

People on the trans side will use ANY concession as a thin edge of the wedge to massively expand the exceptions and never stop. They just don't give a fuck and have no honor. Almost no one has honor to be fair.

 

[Half-Life]

The point is they are identifying as something other than what they are in reality. That's the whole point.

If someone says, "I identify as a millionaire!," the proper response is, "That's great but you're not a millionaire."

Likewise if a man says, "I'm a woman!," the proper response is, "That's great, but you're not a woman."

It's cute you think you are in a position to explain something to me.

Yes, I am fully aware of the point you are trying to make, but the situations aren't analogous. I do understand you won't be able to follow along with the rest of this post, but I feel compelled to write it all the same.

Acknowledging transgender identities isn't based merely on the idea that we say we are women or men.
"But wait!" you cry, "don't transgender people argue self-identification is all that matters? Is all that is needed?"

Kind of. The acceptance of transgender identities in principle isn't based merely off of self-identification. There is a history of practical medicine and scientific research which supports the validity of transgender identities. However, there is no satisfactory test to objectively and indisputably measure that an individual person is transgender. We rely on self-reported feelings for diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We rely on self-reporting for understanding people's gender identities. This approach is not unique to transgender identities.

But even if we set that aside, to say one is a millionaire at the bank is a statement of the wealth one possesses in their account. Factually, the money isn't there.

But to say one is a transgender woman when talking to one's doctor and seeking medical transition, let's say, is pretty much doing the opposite. It's saying I have a female gender identity, but my body doesn't align with that.

If we translate that back to the millionaire analogy, it's like walking into the bank and saying, "I a millionaire's identity, but it troubles me that my identity doesn't align with my bank balance." And to that the bank says, "Well, we don't have the means to make you a millionaire, but we can take what you do have, set you up with a financial advisor and get you as close as we can. Not only that, but if you show up the the yacht club, we won't talk down to you like you're poor as shit because we recognize--despite your bank balance--we recognize you're cut from the same cloth."

But even then, still not analogous. There are reasons to believe there is a biological root to gender identity and that a misalignment between neurology and the rest of our physiology is plausible. We also recognize a shit ton of what we label 'male' and 'female' or 'masculine' and 'feminine' has fuckall to do with anatomy or biology. A lot of it is social convention which can be applied to someone regardless of what they have going on in their pants.

But that doesn't apply to being a millionaire. There is no known biological root cause to identifying as a millionaire neither is there a reason to believe one exists. Millionaire, by and large, is just a singular statement on how much wealth you have.

But you say it is all social convention, so how can you feel you are a woman or a man if its just a social convention?

Aren't you just playing into the stereotypes?
You hear stories about trans women who say, "I grew up playing with dolls and cooking! I knew I was a woman when I was very young!" This would be playing right into the exact stereotypes of gender roles that leftists are trying to demolish. You see that, right?

Also, the majority of leftists do not believe a trans person needs surgery or gender dysphoria to be trans. They have Keith's view where if a man says he's a woman, then gosh darn it, he's a woman! Or if a woman says she's a man, then she's a man! All it takes is the person being serious about it. These are the extremely "woke" leftists who will tell you that a bunch of "LeBron James type men" who identify as women should be allowed in the WNBA no questions asked.

At that point, men and women become truly meaningless terms. It's insane!

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There are reasons to believe there is a biological root to gender identity and that a misalignment between neurology and the rest of our physiology is plausible.
... A lot of it is social convention which can be applied to someone regardless of what they have going on in their pants.

But you say it is all social convention, so how can you feel you are a woman or a man if its just a social convention?

Do I? (Hint: no, I don't)

Aren't you just playing into the stereotypes?

No, I am not.

You hear stories about trans women who say, "I grew up playing with dolls and cooking! I knew I was a woman when I was very young!" This would be playing right into the exact stereotypes of gender roles that leftists are trying to demolish. You see that, right?

No one is transgender because they play with dolls. Some people will gravitate strongly to certain gender norms because they are transgender, either because that is their natural preference, or because they are seeking belongingness as is the case with most people. It isn't a transgender or cisgender thing.

Also, the majority of leftists do not believe a trans person needs surgery or gender dysphoria to be trans.

So? It's about gender identity.

They have Keith's view where if a man says he's a woman, then gosh darn it, he's a woman! Or if a woman says she's a man, then she's a man!

I am going to go out on a limb that this is not Kieth's actual view. It's not really what most are saying anyway. We realize self-reporting is the only tool we have, and that acceptance of one's identity is important to mental and emotional health. Again, not a transgender thing, per se. It's just when it comes to gender identity, cisgender people won't face the same issues.

These are the extremely "woke" leftists who will tell you that a bunch of "LeBron James type men" who identify as women should be allowed in the WNBA no questions asked.

At that point, men and women become truly meaningless terms. It's insane!

It comes from your brain, not reality. LeBron cannot walk into the WNBA and compete 'no questions asked'. If anyone believes he should be able to, they are currently on the fringes.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

One way would be to say that no XY male should ever be allowed in individual competition for female leagues. Even one that never went through male puberty and instead went theough female puberty inasmuch as it can happen for a male. Will a sports interested boy who feels trans-ish feel time pressured to go through female puberty to ensure being being in sports? Yikes.

This makes no sense. By your reasoning, if this child was not able to compete as a girl, wouldn't they feel pressured to not transition even if that was the right decision for them? "Yikes".

It doesn't matter anyway. The pressure is there without sports. Puberty results in irreversible effects which, in most cases, are substantially more distressing than being excluded from sports.

People on the trans side will use ANY concession as a thin edge of the wedge to massively expand the exceptions and never stop. They just don't give a fuck and have no honor. Almost no one has honor to be fair.

Never stop? What 'exceptions'? Most of the 'exceptions' I get in life are things cisgender people have had for decades or longer, but simply take for granted.

 

[seanie]

As above, I will note that the reason for gender segregation is historical, rather than the post hoc justification which is why we don't observe all these divisions. In any case, please answer the question.

Why gender, but nothing else?

We don’t segregate by gender, we segregate by sex.

And we do so for very real and obvious reasons. Males have physiological advantages over females when it comes to most sports, so we segregate from around the onset of puberty to ensure females can enjoy fair competition and be rewarded for success. We organise sports by sex to ensure that the rewards of high achievement don’t go almost exclusively to men: scholarships, sponsorships, prize money, medals.

There are other ways that sports could be organised, but there are obvious reasons why half the population are better served by the current way of doing things.