Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[Metaphor]

If a trans black person makes an error, and uses a bathroom where the people in it clearly do not think they belong there, do you think it would be right that that person gets kicked out of it?

fify

Not quite sure what your point is here. You want race-segregated, as well as gender-segregated, bathrooms?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Just listen to what trans activists are saying.

We're here. We're queer. Get used to it?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Presenting metaphor: the world's foremost expert on what "trans activists" want.

You too can be an expert. Just listen to what trans activists are saying.

Typical anti-trans activism bs. Why do I have to go through a different process than you did?

 

[Metaphor]

Right, it's about competitive advantage. But where competitive advantage isn't present, it's still doesn't matter because transgender people are the wrong sex. And sex matters because of competitive advantage.

<snipped insufferable rant>And also menstruation (or lack of it) somehow matters even though all we have to go on is metaphor's speculation that it does despite the fact that not all cisgender women menstruate, and certainly their cycles don't all align according to competition calendars. Oh, and there are those tall kids who went on puberty blockers like Jazz Jennings at a whopping 5'2. But it's a trans 5'2, so in cis terms that's probably like 7'28.

Transwomen by definition do not menstruate. That is a systemic difference between transwomen and women you cannot 'adjust' for. It has nothing to do with whether competitions align with a particular competitor's period. The chance that it will align with a transwoman's period is zero, because transwomen as a category cannot have them.

Men have all kinds of systemic advantage over women in sports. That's why they are separated in the first place. You can imagine a testosterone reading below a certain number of nanomoles addresses that, but that's fantasy. Also, trans activists don't want 'testing'. That's discrimination.

You are continually dishonest about what you know trans activists want, kis.

If sex makes no difference, dissolve sex segregation in sports. If it does make a difference, then you play on the team that corresponds to your sex unless and until you can actually change sex and therefore you can guarantee that the reason you are segregating in the first place is addressed, because you are now the sex required.

 

[Metaphor]

Presenting metaphor: the world's foremost expert on what "trans activists" want.

You too can be an expert. Just listen to what trans activists are saying.

Typical anti-trans activism bs. Why do I have to go through a different process than you did?

Oh, luv, I don't mean 'listen' in the way social justice warriors mean it (roughly: accept as true without interruption). I mean I've seen and heard what trans activists say. I've seen what's on https://www.transathlete.com/. I've read pinknews and I know Stonewall's policies. I engage in Twitter and YouTube and other social media.

If you want something different from these trans activists, you should make that clear.

 

[Metaphor]

Just listen to what trans activists are saying.

We're here. We're queer. Get used to it?

No. In fact I've never heard that from a trans activist, and indeed some trans activists are not trans or queer.

I listen also to the voices of the smaller component of transgender people demonised by the more mainstream transgender movement. The ones who are alarmed by and disavow the radical demands of the trans movement. The ones who are truscum.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Transwomen by definition do not menstruate. That is a systemic difference between transwomen and women you cannot 'adjust' for. It has nothing to do with whether competitions align with a particular competitor's period. The chance that it will align with a transwoman's period is zero, because transwomen as a category cannot have them.

There is no evidence it needs to be adjusted for in order to equalize competitive advantage.

Men have all kinds of systemic advantage over women in sports. That's why they are separated in the first place. You can imagine a testosterone reading below a certain number of nanomoles addresses that, but that's fantasy. Also, trans activists don't want 'testing'. That's discrimination.

Some transgender rights advocates view it as discriminatory. There are many variables which affect advantage, many of them are measurable. If advantage is the concern, then address advantage. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU ARE DOING.

You are continually dishonest about what you know trans activists want, kis.

More of this 'I know you are but what am I' level bullshit. 'Trans activitsts' are not a monolith. Still, as a generalization, in most cases the shit you complain about tends to be more complicated and nuanced than you present.

If sex makes no difference, dissolve sex segregation in sports. If it does make a difference, then you play on the team that corresponds to your sex unless and until you can actually change sex and therefore you can guarantee that the reason you are segregating in the first place is addressed, because you are now the sex required.

Governing sports bodies are doing that. They are changing sorting to gender + level of biological advantage = competitive category, more or less.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Typical anti-trans activism bs. Why do I have to go through a different process than you did?

Oh, luv, I don't mean 'listen' in the way social justice warriors mean it (roughly: accept as true without interruption). I mean I've seen and heard what trans activists say. I've seen what's on https://www.transathlete.com/. I've read pinknews and I know Stonewall's policies. I engage in Twitter and YouTube and other social media.

If you want something different from these trans activists, you should make that clear.

I'm not your luv, honeynipples. I mean 'listen' as in actually put a modicum of effort into understanding arguments being made rather than cherry picking what you find the most absurd sounding or what triggers a knee-jerk response. That's why you get made fun of on these boards. Your threads are ridiculous.

 

[Metaphor]

Some transgender rights advocates view it as discriminatory. There are many variables which affect advantage, many of them are measurable. If advantage is the concern, then address advantage. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU ARE DOING.

Advantage is the reason sexes were separated in the first place in sporting situations. But, as can be seen from the actually now completely forgotten original post in this very thread, trans activists don't want to address 'advantage' at all. They want to dismantle existing half-hearted attempts to manage advantage.

Now, there are no doubt other reasons sports are segregated by sex. There is also a social element to the single-sex spaces that segregated sports provide that would be lost when you no longer have single-sex spaces.

Governing sports bodies are doing that. They are changing sorting to gender + level of biological advantage = competitive category, more or less.

They should get rid of 'gender' as a categoriser all together, then. It seems to me somebody's gender identity does not make a difference in competitive advantage.

 

[Metaphor]

Typical anti-trans activism bs. Why do I have to go through a different process than you did?

Oh, luv, I don't mean 'listen' in the way social justice warriors mean it (roughly: accept as true without interruption). I mean I've seen and heard what trans activists say. I've seen what's on https://www.transathlete.com/. I've read pinknews and I know Stonewall's policies. I engage in Twitter and YouTube and other social media.

If you want something different from these trans activists, you should make that clear.

I'm not your luv, honeynipples. I mean 'listen' as in actually put a modicum of effort into understanding arguments being made rather than cherry picking what you find the most absurd sounding or what triggers a knee-jerk response. That's why you get made fun of on these boards. Your threads are ridiculous.

On the contrary. I'm all too aware and all too horrified by the details of the arguments made by some trans activists.

For example, the article that was linked in the OP of this thread.

 

[Toni]

Right, it's about competitive advantage. But where competitive advantage isn't present, it's still doesn't matter because transgender people are the wrong sex. And sex matters because of competitive advantage.

<snipped insufferable rant>And also menstruation (or lack of it) somehow matters even though all we have to go on is metaphor's speculation that it does despite the fact that not all cisgender women menstruate, and certainly their cycles don't all align according to competition calendars. Oh, and there are those tall kids who went on puberty blockers like Jazz Jennings at a whopping 5'2. But it's a trans 5'2, so in cis terms that's probably like 7'28.

Transwomen by definition do not menstruate. That is a systemic difference between transwomen and women you cannot 'adjust' for. It has nothing to do with whether competitions align with a particular competitor's period. The chance that it will align with a transwoman's period is zero, because transwomen as a category cannot have them.

Men have all kinds of systemic advantage over women in sports. That's why they are separated in the first place. You can imagine a testosterone reading below a certain number of nanomoles addresses that, but that's fantasy. Also, trans activists don't want 'testing'. That's discrimination.

You are continually dishonest about what you know trans activists want, kis.

If sex makes no difference, dissolve sex segregation in sports. If it does make a difference, then you play on the team that corresponds to your sex unless and until you can actually change sex and therefore you can guarantee that the reason you are segregating in the first place is addressed, because you are now the sex required.

Many cis womendo mot menstruate as has been pointed out to you before. Some cis women never menstruate. Menstruation is not a valid proxy for womanhood.

Men's sports have traditionally been the only athletic competition because women were believed to be uninterested and unfit for competitive sports in much the same way they were considered to be uninterested and unfit for anything other than domestic life.

Starting from false basis such as the ones you repeatedly express seems to be leading you to make unfounded conclusions and at the very least prevents anyone from taking you even a little bit seriously.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm not your luv, honeynipples. I mean 'listen' as in actually put a modicum of effort into understanding arguments being made rather than cherry picking what you find the most absurd sounding or what triggers a knee-jerk response. That's why you get made fun of on these boards. Your threads are ridiculous.

On the contrary. I'm all too aware and all too horrified by the details of the arguments made by some trans activists.

For example, the article that was linked in the OP of this thread.

The article linked in the OP doesn't actually include the recommendations to the NCAA. The article doesn't speak to any specific recommendation that women's categories be deregulated to remove testosterone suppression requirements. It only speaks to the need for inclusion of non-binary/ gender queer athletes, and transgender women beyond those who suppress testosterone. The proposal for actually doing that isn't clear. The only document I have available is the 2018 recommendations which do not drop medical requirements at the NCAA level. Only the K-12 policy recommendation (2016) suggest inclusion on the basis of gender identity alone.

Even so, 'trans activists' is more than Chris Mosier and Veronica Ivy. I am not totally sure wrt Mosier, but Ivy's stances are more nuanced than what you tend to present.

 

[Metaphor]

Many cis womendo mot menstruate as has been pointed out to you before. Some cis women never menstruate. Menstruation is not a valid proxy for womanhood.

I don't know how many different times I have to point out what I've said. Transwomen cannot menstruate and that means that they are systemically different to women. I have no idea why you wrote contradicts what I've written.

I did not say or suggest that menstruation was a 'proxy' for womanhood. It's one of the systemic differences between men and women that may be relevant to athletic performance.

Men's sports have traditionally been the only athletic competition because women were believed to be uninterested and unfit for competitive sports in much the same way they were considered to be uninterested and unfit for anything other than domestic life.

Starting from false basis such as the ones you repeatedly express seems to be leading you to make unfounded conclusions and at the very least prevents anyone from taking you even a little bit seriously.

Ah, so women were considered to be uninterested in sports. And now that we've shown they are interested, why are the sexes segregated in sports?

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not your luv, honeynipples. I mean 'listen' as in actually put a modicum of effort into understanding arguments being made rather than cherry picking what you find the most absurd sounding or what triggers a knee-jerk response. That's why you get made fun of on these boards. Your threads are ridiculous.

On the contrary. I'm all too aware and all too horrified by the details of the arguments made by some trans activists.

For example, the article that was linked in the OP of this thread.

The article linked in the OP doesn't actually include the recommendations to the NCAA. The article doesn't speak to any specific recommendation that women's categories be deregulated to remove testosterone suppression requirements. It only speaks to the need for inclusion of non-binary/ gender queer athletes, and transgender women beyond those who suppress testosterone. The proposal for actually doing that isn't clear. The only document I have available is the 2018 recommendations which do not drop medical requirements at the NCAA level. Only the K-12 policy recommendation (2016) suggest inclusion on the basis of gender identity alone.

Even so, 'trans activists' is more than Chris Mosier and Veronica Ivy. I am not totally sure wrt Mosier, but Ivy's stances are more nuanced than what you tend to present.

I haven't spoken particularly about Ivy, but I note only that he called cis women who can't compete with him 'losers'.

 

[Toni]

Many cis womendo mot menstruate as has been pointed out to you before. Some cis women never menstruate. Menstruation is not a valid proxy for womanhood.

I don't know how many different times I have to point out what I've said. Transwomen cannot menstruate and that means that they are systemically different to women. I have no idea why you wrote contradicts what I've written.

I did not say or suggest that menstruation was a 'proxy' for womanhood. It's one of the systemic differences between men and women that may be relevant to athletic performance.

Again you use a false premise. Menstruation Is often suppressed due to the physical rigors of extreme physical training and is likewise often suppressed via medical intervention such as birth control pills. Menstruation is not a factor for women participating in competitive sports and cannot be logically used as a proxy or definition

Ah, so women were considered to be uninterested in sports. And now that we've shown they are interested, why are the sexes segregated in sports?

Men are not fond of competition from women.

 

[Metaphor]

Again you use a false premise. Menstruation Is often suppressed due to the physical rigors of extreme physical training and is likewise often suppressed via medical intervention such as birth control pills. Menstruation is not a factor for women participating in competitive sports and cannot be logically used as a proxy or definition

....what? I can't make heads nor tails of this gobbledygook. A proxy for what? A definition for what?

"Not a factor"? How do you know? Has performance in athletics been measured over the menstrual cycle?

When a particular female friend of mine spends a day in bed cramping from her cycle, are you suggesting she is at her physical peak?

When feminists propose menstrual leave because of the particular effect it has on performance, you are suggesting menstruation has no effect?

Men are not fond of competition from women.

Haha okay luv.

 

[Toni]

Again you use a false premise. Menstruation Is often suppressed due to the physical rigors of extreme physical training and is likewise often suppressed via medical intervention such as birth control pills. Menstruation is not a factor for women participating in competitive sports and cannot be logically used as a proxy or definition

....what? I can't make heads nor tails of this gobbledygook. A proxy for what? A definition for what?

"Not a factor"? How do you know? Has performance in athletics been measured over the menstrual cycle?

When a particular female friend of mine spends a day in bed cramping from her cycle, are you suggesting she is at her physical peak?

When feminists propose menstrual leave because of the particular effect it has on performance, you are suggesting menstruation has no effect?

Some women do have debilitating menstrual periods and generally should seek medical help for coping with these symptoms.

If many/most elite female athletes do not menstruate, then menstruation is not an issue for them.

Menstruation is not a good proxy for womanhood. Many cis women do not menstruate for a variety of reasons. Some because of the high level of performance of whatever sport they engage in; some because of their age; some because of surgery; some because of diet; some because of a variety of medications, some but not all of which are designed to eliminate or minimize menstruation, some because of pregnancy. They are all still women. Some of them are athletes.

Men are not fond of competition from women.

Haha okay luv.

Oh, I've found that to be true all my life.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can shake your fist at the clouds for all I care. Sex-segregation is a reality across the world. If you don't want sex-segregation, you will have to deal with that reality.

I am doing something about it by actively participating in a movement to clarify gendered language used in the public sphere for general.sockal interaction as directing towards gender, not "sex".

I don't care how you personally use the term 'man.'

Which is why you fail at linguistics. Because the definition of words comes about through how people use those words, and what people collectively decide through zeitgeist or other means, what some utterance "means".

My arguments have been for the sake of the cultural.movement I participate in, the sake of disambiguating in favor of gender rather than sex.

I point to the fact that there are as many different definitions of "man" as there are people who hear the word. Definitions are meaningless in and of themselves.

Alright luv.

the fact that you don't seem to understand linguistic cluster concepts is sad

Especially group definitions like 'man' and 'woman'. They are not useful in this context

Also...

Alright luv. Declare definitions not useful by fiat. Very convincing. So learned.

you have the burden here. You claim a positive attribute: that your definitions are useful in and of themselves. My counter to this is that they are not. They are proxies. If you want to find out if someone is competent to accomplish some feat, you test them on the accomplishment of the feat. You don't test someone "like them", and then say "they failed the test for you". No, you test them, not someone else.

Then when I mentioned someone born XY with a vagina (or any other configuration, I suspect), that that person is NOT a man.

That person is probably an intersex male, but whether you would call them 'male with an intersex condition' or 'intersex' isn't too relevant. There would be other people who are intersex but might appear closer to female.

you still have yet to justify why I should care what your dictionary says or how it pigeonholes people. Reality doesn't care either. There isn't some magical file our on the internet that you can read that says "sex:male". There's a pile of meat, and chemicals, and cartilage and blood. That's how reality actually works. Your categorizations are powerless to change the physical realities of my body or anyone else's by uttering 'he', other than the natural way by which we hear sound or see light and then the person so hearing or seeing laughs and says "what idiocy!"

The point of words is to have them be useful, and you already know where I stand on what is the best use of gendered language.

Edit: are you seriously too old to even believe that hot trans dudes exist, and that you wouldn't know unless you had them with their pants down?

Gospa moja, it's like talking to a religionist who doesn't understand why all people everywhere have not heard the Good News.

I'll go you one better than transmen. I've once or twice seen a young, soft butch lezza from a distance and thought 'he has a cute face', and then, upon closer inspection, have seen her tits and hips and realise I had momentarily mistaken her for a twink.

I am certain that there are transmen whose face I would find pretty. Hell, there are probably post-op transmen whose bodies (depending on how closely it resembled a fit male body) I would also find attractive. But those transmen are women, because people can't change sex. I'm not bisexual and nor, even if I were, would I find female genitalia on an otherwise relatively male-looking body a 'thing' I'd be in to.

I'm glad for you that transmen could be something you are into. That doesn't make them men.

As for 'not knowing'... what? Would you have me believe that I need to inspect somebody's genitals before I know what sex someone is? If you cannot distinguish transmen from cis men, I don't know what to say to you. Spend a second of time with them.

Hey, I'm not the one who claims psychic powers to know what's in someone else's pants. Honestly, one of the most recreational parts of this thread is watching as you throw tantrums and insist that you can "tell the difference".

Honestly. You sound ridiculous. We aren't talking about genitalia, we're talking about the whole rest of the person, for who the genitalia has not even been brought up.

Because you will, absolutely some time in your life, encounter a man who was born with a vagina. And you will probably never even know it. Yes, metaphor would in fact need to physically examine some people's genital regions to know what "sex" they were.

 

[Emily Lake]

You too can be an expert. Just listen to what trans activists are saying.

For the most part, I'm more inclined to believe what transgender people say they want than what a random collection of transactivists (which sometimes includes allies that seem a lot more zealous than the transgender people, but maybe that's just the internet) want, let alone your interpretation of what you think they "really' want.

Some people are pushing for self-id alone, and they get a lot of attention. I'm not so sure whether they represent a majority view or whether they're just really noisy.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not your luv, honeynipples. I mean 'listen' as in actually put a modicum of effort into understanding arguments being made rather than cherry picking what you find the most absurd sounding or what triggers a knee-jerk response. That's why you get made fun of on these boards. Your threads are ridiculous.

I haven't noted anyone making fun of kis, except you. With respect to cherry picking... are you certain you're not doing the same thing from the other direction?