What is your opinion on transgendered persons competing in the Olympics?

Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by lechnerd, Mar 1, 2019.

?

Should transgendered athletes be allowed to compete in the Olympics and in what fashion?

  1. No, Shouldn’t be allowed at all

    11.6%
  2. Yes and can compete as a M/F depending on how they view themselves

    6.0%
  3. Yes but must compete according the genitalia they were born with

    53.0%
  4. Yes but create an entire new Olympics for the transgendered

    6.4%
  5. lechnerd is fat

    23.1%
  1. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    And I kind of feel like if people abuse the system, uh oh well??
     
  2. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    there are definitely some questionable cases. Jessica Yaniv the Canadian who was trying to ruin aestheticians who wouldn't wax her balls and was a young girl tampon fetishist and had tried to frivolously sue someone in human rights court for sexually harassing her is an example. does she really believe she is a woman? maybe. i don't know. the guy in britain who sexually assaulted women in a prison and had a history of seemingly opportunistic gender identity. real woman? maybe. i believe there was a male person in Washington who was going into the women's changing room at a pool and saying he was a woman. there was a trans woman in Washington too i believe who was posting on twitter about how he liked walking around with boners at the women's shelter he was living at.

    i do not know and there is no way to know how legitimate are the claims of these people. one of the good things about female biology=woman equation is that it eliminates these problems, which may be few but can be very serious.
     
  3. Lyrtch

    Lyrtch My second favorite meat is hamburger
    Staff Donor

    should really watch some of contrapoints videos imo
     
  4. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    i understand what you're saying but you guys are reducing my argument to the bad apples scenario. not the focus. women are a thing, eh? as a society we decide who is one. faced with the choice of much more concrete female biology vs. much more amorphous internal notions of oneself. i think the first is a much better principle. the bad apples or even just people who may be troubled or confused is just one part of it.

    and in your welfare example, the thing is in my scenario women are a protected class and transgender people are, too. they should have civil protections just like gay people but not those of the bio sex that they are not. and also, in the abuse scenario you mention, its not someone getting away with welfare but i think something that could be worse like a woman being sexually abused or maybe beaten badly by a male in an MMA fight.

    i just think my distinction is overall better.
     
  5. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    i promise i will! and im going to go ahead and apologize for my excruciating responses.
     
  6. Lyrtch

    Lyrtch My second favorite meat is hamburger
    Staff Donor

    i understand you think rigid lines is the best solution

    the problem is you have been dodgy about explaining what you think the problem its solving is vs kind of gesturing randomly at society defining gender and sex
     
  7. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    cool. will get back. gotta do some stuff now...
     
  8. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    In my experience when people are really concerned about this thing that may or may not be happening, it's a way of putting a veneer on their true intent. I just don't understand being that concerned about something that may not exist
     
    electronic and BellottiBold like this.
  9. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    1. Biology isn’t as concrete as you’d like it to be.
    2. That biology doesn’t always correspond to how people see themselves - which is the entire point. Why force these people to pretend to feel something they don’t or suffer in quiet just because their being honest with the world makes you uncomfortable?
     
    wes tegg and BWC like this.
  10. Sir Phobos

    Sir Phobos Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    Donor TMB OG
    Virginia Tech HokiesWashington NationalsLos Angeles LakersWashington Football TeamWashington CapitalsBayern Munich

    this is the whole "poor people buy lobsters and steak with their EBT card, we need more oversight on SNAP" argument
     
    Doc Louis and Lyrtch like this.
  11. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Sounds bad, right? Rigid lines. Hard and cold. I don't see it that way. Distinctions are made all the time and defining things is what we do. I think it's worth asking what does woman mean if anyone who says they are a woman is a woman. How do they know they are a woman? What does it mean to be one? I think saying a woman is biologically human female is coherent and saying a woman is whoever says they are is not.

    And further, I don't see human behavior in rigid terms. There is an amazing variety of expression in human behavior and hopefully people can do whatever they want in regards to their personal expression. Be a feminine man, be a masculine woman, or anything you want. You don't need to redefine woman or man to do that.

    And im not trying to gesture randomly about society. That's the big issue. What is best and makes the most sense? I'll say it again. I think that keeping the definition of woman grounded in scientific reality vs. highly politicized philosophy and idiosyncratic self-conceptions is the way to go. I don't think of it as solving problems so much as just a much better principle but I know we'll get into some problems with current gender activism soon.
     
  12. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    I see that kind of thing a lot online. Oh sure, he may be spending time making a lot reasonable arguments but he's really just being a bigot or reactionary or whatever. I hope that even if you don't agree with me you can take my stance as the principled one it is.

    And also, in some of these instances. There is no "may" about it. Self-id opened women up to assault and harassment regardless of the unknowable true feelings of the trans men.
     
  13. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    You're not making a reasonable argument and that's the point
     
    Eamudo229 and Lyrtch like this.
  14. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    1. I def didn't say adamantium. I understand that there are some really interesting biological outliers worth noting and there are some interesting conversations about intersex to be had but none of those things mean that any male is a woman just because he says he is.

    2. I know! People should see themselves however they like. They should pursue whatever they want free from discrimination. But that does not mean that the law needs to redefine womanhood and enforce ANYONE'S self conception on someone else. I think trans women should go to all woman book clubs, pursue any womanly things they want. But I don't think people should be forced by law to agree with them about who and what they think they are.
     
  15. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    What is unreasonable?
     
  16. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    That is a dumb argument. I'm glad what I'm talking about is very different.
     
  17. Lyrtch

    Lyrtch My second favorite meat is hamburger
    Staff Donor

    you give the game away sometimes

    this conversation would make sense if you just said what you believed instead of trying to couch it in this really anodyne construction
     
  18. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    The law isn’t going to do that. The law can never change how you think about someone. The law can only ever say how you can actually treat them. The focus on bathrooms is so bizarre. There’s literally nothing stopping cis-men from going into a woman’s restroom right now There’s no penis detector that will set off an alarm. There’s a real issue with sport - which is where we actually bother to define sex for the sake of competition. We are in transition right now but eventually will settle on a place to draw the line and we’ll all move on. It all seems like this is just pointless blustering because of a fear of the world changing.
     
    wes tegg likes this.
  19. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    I gave it away freely. This is something I think. What is you think I really believe that I'm couching?
     
  20. Lyrtch

    Lyrtch My second favorite meat is hamburger
    Staff Donor

    what laws do you want removed or implemented
     
  21. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Since you said I wasn't saying what I really believed could you answer my question before I answer the question that you answered my question with?
     
  22. Lyrtch

    Lyrtch My second favorite meat is hamburger
    Staff Donor

    it comes off like you're backfilling your internalized fear of trans people with arguments and sporadic propaganda as compared to coming to the conclusions from the evidence you find. it's why you tend to yadda yadda past the substantive parts for societal proclamations but the most concrete things you post tend to be similar to the article you shared on this topic.

    you gotta watch that video too babe
     
  23. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Well, what I'm concerned with is the law enforcing this new definition. If self-id is the law, then say a woman's shelter could be sued or lose gov funding for say not allowing a trans person in. Jessica yaniv could force women to wax her or they could be tried in court and lose their businesses. Women's sports would have to include whomever wanted to compete no matter what the advantage. And so on.

    I'm glad you mentioned bathrooms because thats def a very tricky subject. I think like you that bathrooms have long regulated themselves and I hated the whole NC bathroom thing. I think like you that we can figure that out withOUT legislation and continued growth. That said, I do think the notion of any male person who wants to have access to a woman's or girls changing room is a diff ballgame and another reason self ID as policy is not the best solution.
     
    #523 CloudBerry, Jun 12, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
  24. Doc Louis

    Doc Louis Well-Known Member
    Donor

    Sadly, can confirm there aren't any on Amazon.
     
    CloudBerry likes this.
  25. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    The fans of Non-Racist to Be Named Later U in Upstate SC still undefeated
     
  26. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Surprise, Wrong again! :smile: But i'll check out the vid and get back 2 u
     
  27. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    1. I didn’t say there needs to be legislation
    2. Gendered bathrooms are dumb anyway. Everybody shits.
    3. Every man already has access to women’s changing rooms. Anything bad that the person does in there - regardless of how they identify - would still be a crime.
    4. Sports will be allowed to establish their own rules on how to define gender. That isn’t going to be something done by legislative (or at least shouldn’t be).
    5. Male athletes aren’t going to undergo hormone therapy just so they can win a blue ribbon at a track meet.
     
  28. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Real quick just wanted to say "with" was a typo. Changed it to withOUT, which was what I meant. Will address other stuff later...
     
    AlternativeFactsRule likes this.
  29. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    i'm back! sorry, picked a bad time to be internet arguing.

    so i watched the video. pretty standard fare for that side really. starts with an anecdote about Germain Greer being mean to a trans woman. sidesteps the crucial questions about biology vs. gender right away, just accept what they say, and comes to the final conclusion that the only reason people have any problems with goals of the trans activists is bigotry. i mean, in a debate, you'd take a big L for talking around the issues, refusing to engage with "weaponized" arguments and saying your opponents are just full of hate, but in the real world these things do work, so gotta respect the hustle.

    she did provide a rationale for being a woman that was kind of interesting tho. she, unlike most of the trans activists, isn't claiming some metaphysical womanhood status that she always had but says she was a man until she decided she was a woman and is a woman because she's out there every day living as one (or at least living as a certain stereotype of feminine womanhood). so one the one hand, good that she isn't buying into the nebulous magical thinking of that crowd but the whole "living the life" argument is weak too. so just living according to certain stereotypes or your view of a different kind of person makes you exactly like them? this is pretty much exactly the argument that Rachel Dolezal was making and this approach to transgenderism is pretty much exactly the same as transracialism. i hope you guys will support Rachel if she tries to claim legal status as African-American.

    if there are any particular things from the video that i'm missing and you think i should address, Lyrtch, please let me know.

    a quick word about analogies. analogies in this issue are hard! this is an entirely unique situation and can be difficult to analogize. i wanted to address Lyrtch's welfare analogy again because i think it's structurally different from what i'm arguing, it obscures the principles i'm talking about, and a lot of you seemed to buy it. in that analogy, there's a public good and because people might abuse it, i'm the jerk saying we shouldnt have it. but that's wrong. a better analogy would be that wealthy people are seeking welfare because of an internal sense that they are poor as well and so should be qualified as such. i'm not saying end welfare, i'm saying don't completely redefine what a category is based on deeply personal self-conceptions and therefore open a gate to anyone who wants to claim a status just by saying so. let the poor keep their welfare, let people believe whatever they want about themselves, but don't have the state mandate that anyone must be recognized as their own personal self-conception. is there any other situation that you guys would think that doing that is OK? fundamentalist Mormons? Black Hebrews?

    it's just bad policy to do things that way for any reason, and then the bad effects just write themselves. in this case, government would essentially be mandating that male physiology, strength, and aggression have access to women's spaces that were created specifically to protect them from those things. this seems like more then enough a downside to outweigh what the claimed good of self-ID is. i think that some trans people would feel more validated in their identities and it may have some good mental health returns? that I guess it is somehow a civil right to be seen as sexed according to your notions of gender? i just don't see how the case has been made that the fundamental definitions of woman and man need to be rewritten to "whatever people say they are".

    some odds and ends:

    eh, the world is changing all the time. i'm all for a lot of change. inevitably, some groups push for change based on iffy, self-serving ideas that might not be the best thing for most people or their rights. if you see this, it's a good thing to speak up. and i think if groups are specifically using disingenuous tactics or intimidation to push their point across, it's even more important that people bring up the actual issues at play for a look.


    I'm against making self-ID law. That's really about it. i think everything else essentially flows from there. outside of law, i do think there are some issues with how TAs push a lot of unscientific ideas and well-meaning people who are afraid of being called a bigot go along with them. one reason why i think it's important that good people don't just parrot accusation of bigotry or whatever but give these issues a good critical look.

    you're right in a sense that this is not an evidentiary argument. considering this is about a huge change that people are trying and sporadically succeeding in pushing across, the evidence just isnt in yet. as i've exhaustively detailed above, my argument is based on principles about law and government. if a Senator from Utah wants to legislate his ideas on the angel Moroni, i'm against it on principle. if police want to arrest someone for being mean to them online, i'm against it on principle. we don't need to see how these things will play out or if they will be a big deal or not, the govmt just shouldnt be doing them. if you mean that i havent been looking at facts and arguments on both sides, that's not true.

    also, I think you're putting the onus on the wrong side. i'm not the one calling for a radical change to fundamental definitions in law and society. if you do that, you kinda need to gather your own evidence and make a good case why. trans activists have said that self-ID wont impact biological women negatively in things like sports and assaults in female spaces and whatnot. even at this early date, we've already seen instances of this. have there been enough lost sports competitions or harassments or assaults to matter to people? i think, in pursuit of misguided policy, one is too many.

    2. Conceded

    3. just because someone can do something doesn't mean you have to drop barriers to it. i mean we have laws against crimes. the difference to me is this: i think women can mostly regulate this kind of stuff themselves. will there be problems? sure. but i think the complete redefinition of women and potential liability for someone who won't wax a guy's balls or who objects to a male in a changing room are going way too far.

    4&5. That's the thing. sports won't be able to discriminate if self-id becomes law and "transwomen are women" as the saying goes. if a woman happens to have male biology, that doesn't matter. she's by law a woman so sports would be discriminating if they put special requirements on someone. i agree that this should not be legislated and i think the most useful and pertinent dividing line is right there. it's biological sex, not internal notions of gender. now it does get interesting in rare cases with biology, but that is a separate issue that can be handled in its own way

    sorry for so much writing. will try to answer any further questions, accusations, and psychological analyses as they come.
     
  30. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    This is a bullshit response. You are out absolutely nothing if the trans movement gets what they want. It’s just gross and weird to you and you want to not think about it. This isn’t ISIS looking to remake a country. It’s just people asking to not be treated like shit for being who they are.
     
    Daniel Ocean and BWC like this.
  31. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    On 3, no there is no difference. Trans women already use women’s restrooms and change rooms. The criminal behavior is perving on the people in the restroom or change room and that criminality is independent of gender. Cis women setting up cameras in a women’s locker room are commuting a crime. The activity is the problem.

    On 4&5, sports will be able to discriminate just as they do now. We have strict laws against sex discrimination but we have these specifically female only sports right now. That isn’t going to change. There will still be female sports that discriminate against who can participate. They’ll just have to be more explicit about that definition.
     
    Lyrtch likes this.
  32. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    You're right, I'm not out anything. It's not about me as much as many of you would like to make it so. I agree that trans people should be treated better. I'm all for policies that help that. I'm not for sex being based on declarations.
     
  33. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    Luckily for you, they aren’t asking for that.
     
    Daniel Ocean and BWC like this.
  34. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    3. i'm not sure who you're arguing against here. you're right, trans women do use those facilities. under a Cloudberry regime, that would continue because i wouldnt change anything. those things largely regulate themselves. under self-ID though, say if a local gym had guy coming in the ladies rooms who made everyone uncomfortable but claimed he was a woman, he would have every right to be there. he could sue people for discriminating against him. i think largely, restrooms and changing rooms would be inclusive places that women could monitor fine on their own, and i don't want to take away their ability to exclude someone if they see fit. clear enough? feel free to disagree, of course.

    4,5. you're just wrong here. yes, we have carve-outs for womens sports. that;s part of non-discrimination. when you have participants who are women just like any other woman in the eyes of the law, i dont see how you can discriminate against them by keeping them out. i;ve seen these arguments made explicitly by TAs. they ARE biological women. what we have thought of as male physiology is just part of the diversity of womanhood. they should not have to modulate anything to participate in sports.
     
  35. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    are you sure? i'm pretty sure that's what self-ID is all about. you could quibble about gender instead of biological sex, but legal sex (or "gender identity" trumping bio sex) is the issue. and biological sex has been claimed as well after feminists started playing up the bio sex vs. gender distinction.
     
  36. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    No he wouldn’t.
     
  37. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    We have explicit discrimination in sports right now. That will continue going forward and will likely revolve around hormone levels and possibly post-op confirmation surgery. That type of self-governance by sport isn’t going to be prevented by any trans-tolerance movement.
     
  38. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    Why are you endorsing unfair treatment of these women, transphobe?!

    Haha seriously, that's not what I'm seeing. It's implicit in the arguments, argued explicitly at times, and I don't see how it's not the logical endpoint. And like what high school is going to do hormone testing and such. Don't see it.
     
  39. electronic

    electronic It’s satire!
    Donor
    Georgia BulldogsSeattle MarinersCharlotte FC

    Sounds great! What’s the problem?
     
  40. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    Women’s sports are already (and have always been) discriminatory based on sex. It’s always been there. All this is doing is redefining the line. It’s a non-issue.
     
  41. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    You're right! I think all the testing and stuff is unnecessary. For reasons why biological women should retain their protected status, see previous posts. :smile:
     
  42. dblplay1212

    dblplay1212 Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Alabama Crimson TideNew York YankeesJacksonville Jaguars2pacSneakersFormula 1

    Why do you give a fuck what someone wants to be recognized as? It doesn't affect you at all.
     
  43. electronic

    electronic It’s satire!
    Donor
    Georgia BulldogsSeattle MarinersCharlotte FC

    I’ve read them, but I’m not sure why allowing transwomen to compete in sports threatens any of those things.
     
  44. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

     
  45. dblplay1212

    dblplay1212 Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Alabama Crimson TideNew York YankeesJacksonville Jaguars2pacSneakersFormula 1

    lol if you think I'm reading all of that.
     
    Daniel Ocean and CloudBerry like this.
  46. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    i've laid out why i think the biological basis for woman is better than the proposed alternative. in sports, i think it's important because women's sports was basically created so girls and women could participate in sports without having to deal with the huge advantages supplied by male physiology. so yeah, this is another area where i think a biological basis is better than someone's declaration.
     
  47. electronic

    electronic It’s satire!
    Donor
    Georgia BulldogsSeattle MarinersCharlotte FC

    Is there a scientific basis for your inference that transwomen have a huge advantage over ciswomen?

    Secondly, and maybe even more importantly, have you ever posted anything on this board about the importance of protecting women or women’s equality outside of the context of transgendered women? If not, why not? If so, kindly direct me to the thread and I’ll find it myself.
     
  48. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    i mean, i get that you guys disagree but yeah, redefining the line is what im talking about. if the options are sports based on bio sex and sports based on someone's self-conception, which could involve huge intrinsic advantages from male physicality, i think #1 is the way to go. it may cause some trans athletes not to be able to compete as their gender identity but i think the impact on bio women and girls would be far greater.
     
  49. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    The point is that women’s sports aren’t going to be open sports. There are going to be biological barriers to entry - be they hormone tests, physical exams, or both. There is no gigantic threat looming that will destroy women’s sports. They will continue to exist and continue to be allowed to discriminate - just as they as they always have.
     
  50. CloudBerry

    CloudBerry Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Clemson Tigers

    1. yes. there's really good science that males have some really big physical advantages over females. if self-ID is law, any male who says he is a woman could compete, meaning that person could have a big advantage, like the kids who placed first and second in the state championships in Connecticut. i know where you coming from, of course. what about some trans woman who doesn't have some huge advantage. maybe she is a women's bronze medalist at the Olympics. that's fair, right? of course, a male high school sprinter who was like 400th in his state could do that. the only "study" i have looked at comparing trans vs. natal was done by a trans woman who wasn't a scientist but a medical physicist and involved her contacting weekend warriors on facebook. i think there may be more but i think this is essentially the wrong question. the better question is "does male physiology confer advantages in most sports?" it unquestionably does. so then we get into hormone levels and bone density and stuff to figure out how to accommodate a very small group of people. i just think there is a much simpler and fairer dividing line and it was provided to us millions of years ago.

    2. Please check the thicc bitches and Emily Ratajkowski threads for my long, storied history of supporting women's freedom of expression.

    but seriously, i get this argument, too. "why the sudden interest in women's rights, Gloria Steinem?" well, as i've mentioned before, i think this situation is unprecedented and it calls out things that i believe but never had to mention and also clarifies things that i never had to think about. it's pretty obvious to me that women's sports is a good thing worth protecting but i never worried about it until i saw something that seemed to be threatening it. i never knew that i would have to decide if a woman should be sued for not waxing a dude's balls but i figured it out pretty quickly.

    and btw, yes, i would say that i have. in the "Robert Kraft sex slaves" thread, a lot of people were basically repeating propaganda about sex trafficking and i called out some of the misconceptions and mentioned how these women were in a tough spot. i didn't like them being arrested and treated like they had no agency of their own. i talked about how tho i support sex work just on basic principles of freedom (a lot of my gender critical pals vehemently disagree) that i would like to see economic reform, no more arrests and more community support so that women wouldn't need to do sex work if they don't want to.

    i think there may be something else here or there about how i think brittle modern gender politics might be doing a disservice to women, but yeah, i'm not some huge feminist per se, which is why i never laid out my argument in those terms.

    i get that you're trying to show inconsistency that supposedly reveals that i'm just focused on this one issue but i think my record (though small compared to a lot of posters) is pretty consistent as a guy who occasionally takes issue with a bigger group of people about an issue where i think there is a lot of groupthink or progressives bypassing sense and reason in pursuing admirable goals. and finally, in the words of the immortal Walt Whitma