I didn't ask about biological males vs. women because we aren't talking about biological males vs. women. We're talking about transgender women vs. ciswomen. Your answer is not convincing at all. If there is no measurable advantage between trans women and ciswomen, then there is no reason to take analysis any further. If you're not a huge feminist per se, then you're doing this for some other reason, and your citation of "progressives" is telling on yourself. Finally, you should start admiring Ernest Hemingway instead of Walt Whitman.
And since I'm diving back into the middle of a discussion, just for purposes of clarification, I do think that women's sports are important, so I would listen to legitimate criticism of allowing transgendered women in competitions. But I need some sort of empirical evidence that there is a problem first.
1. i think this is a convenient avoidance of important issues. if Caitlin Jenner had come out before the Olympics, she would have been a transgender woman right? i'm not sure her take on it, was she always? my point is that under self-ID, the distinction between transgender woman and man is non-existent. if a 6'10" , 280 lb man decides late in the game that she is in fact a woman, she is a now a transgender woman with the same biology as a man. the kids in Connecticut were transgender women but had had no sort of gender therapy of any sort. physically, they are indistinguishable from men. males on average are bigger, stronger and faster. transgender women lie within the category of biological males so they will usually possess these advantages. again, i think the bio dividing line just makes more sense. it prevents potentially way out of whack advantages from very masculine trans women and also rewarding someone with mediocre male physiology for beating an exceptional biological woman. 2. yeah, i stated all my reasons for my positions and nothing here is outside of my worldview. this is just another attempt to invalidate someone's position by saying they shouldnt be talking about it for whatever reason. did you have a long history of transgender activism before this current push started? maybe you did, but my guess is that like me, you have opinions and views and when this issue came to the forefront, you picked a side and were informed by your views in general. although i dunno with you guys, sometimes it feels like you get a newsletter or something. and yeah, i guess i am outing myself as someone who is generally progressive but does disagree with the orthodox positions sometimes. you got me. 3. this is solid
rude just curious, what are your thoughts on the Connecticut case? did those trans girls have an advantage? too little data to say anything on this issue? i don;t see how someone can make a meaningful distinction about trans women vs. natal women if trans woman means literally any male who says they are a woman. to me, the only distinction there is physiology. open to an argument otherwise.
My thoughts on the "Connecticut case" is that it is 1 occurrence and is not statistically significant. The rest of this post is your opinions and feelings about transwomen vs. ciswomen, and is completely devoid of any factual evidence. I find your positions to be completely unpersuasive.
I don't know, but if Caitlin Jenner was living her life as a woman and wanted to compete, I'd have no problem with that. Mostly because I don't believe that men are going to try to take advantage of potential physiological advantages by faking being a transgender woman. I also think that people should be included in participation until and unless data shows that they have unfair advantages. Show me the data for your positions. If transgender women have such an athletic advantage, please show me the data that they are winning a statistically significant portion of their events. You can talk about whatever you'd like. But I don't believe that you actually care about women or equality, so I think your position is borne out of transphobia. Me having a "history of transgender activism" doesn't matter, because I'm arguing in their favor. To the extent that your tortured analogy matters (which it doesn't) I've been posting about transgender discrimination since at least 2016 on this board.
I honestly don't know the textbook sense of "biologically male," and I think it's a fairly fine point, so I want to make sure we get a clear idea of the starting place.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I have no idea what this means. Obviously there are men who cannot produce sperm. And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm going to hold you to the strict terms of the definition of male because we're talking about discriminating based on this definition. We need to know what it is and what it isn't.
Lol. You're obviously being pedantic. I did say in a healthy example. The sex that creates the sperms
I'm not trying to be. You're talking about keeping people from competing based on sex. I'm just trying to figure out where you're drawing those lines. My guess is that you can't do it because sex isn't nearly as easy to define as you make it seem.
You recognize this isn't that simple, right? That category includes some intersex individuals. You're essentially stating that intersex doesn't exist with your line drawing here, not that you are ignoring it.
No you didn't. You gave a very loose example with two immediate exceptions. You're saying that "men" can't compete against women. The only criteria you've put forward is "the sex that produces sperm when healthy," but that doesn't make any sense to me. How do you tell the difference between "unhealthy" men and non-men?
I acknowledged intersex right up front. Intersex also does not mean unsexed. They have a sex and also very rare conditions that blend some of the two sexes characteristics. I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert but I do know from reading that many dont like being used by transgender people and their allies as gotcha devices.
I mean come on guys. I mentioned intersex and the possibility of sexual problems right up front. The male sex is the one that is required to fertilize an egg to reproduce. Can they all do that? Of course not but we know what biological male is, allowing for the 1 percent or so of intersex conditions. Again, if we can't define male, we can't define trans woman, so what are we even talking about? Lol. As always, let's distract
Dude, you're the one trying to discriminate on the basis of something you apparently can't define. Based on what definition are you going to keep athlete A from competing against women? My proposed system has no such problems.
I did define it. You just decided to use the intersex defense which I've gathered that most intersex people do not care for. I've always maintained that the experts can figure out issues related to intersex, which are interesting and complex, but none of those things means that a biological male should be considered a woman. I get that we will never agree
You didn't give me a definition at all, and I'm not even talking about intersex people. I'm talking about you being a person who is keeping Athlete A from competing against women. Let's say this person was born without testicles or had cancer or a million other reasons men can't produce sperm. Production of sperm is a terrible definition of being male.
Maybe that's fair. I have not invoked them in this argument because I agree with them that they have their own issues and that transgender issues are not their deal.
To clarify, I didn't say an individual that produces sperm. I did say the sex that is capable, which I guess is bad? Typically capable? I'll be glad to read up. Again, I've always held that the experts can figure out the very small percentage of issues related to atypical biology. I still think sex, even with those rare issues, is a better divider than self-declaration.
My entire point is that sex isn't as bright of a line as you make it out. AND, if you're talking about unfair advantage based on physiology, you start getting into some weird ass areas. For example, women who are born outside of the standard deviation of height, strength, speed, arm length, size, etc., but are all xx chromosomal. AND AND, then you have to do really shitty and dehumanizing things like checking anatomy of women to "prove" they're women. Fuck all that.
I get it. My point has been that I already acknowledged intersex conditions and that none of those change the facts of sexual dimorphism. Therefore I think sex, even if not perfect, is a better line. And I know what you mean, I dont like that stuff either. If you're a genetic woman and have some crazy testosterone issue, I don't care. You go girl! Let doctors and scientists figure out standards for the rare intersex cases.
Am I stupid or are you stupid, because one of us is stupid. I swear it's like you're talking to another person. I haven't discussed intersex at all. Stop saying it. You keep defining a word by using the word.
Fair enough. When I see people refer to the line between sexes not being clear that's usually what they are referring to. Otherwise, its pretty damn clear. One sex provides the small gamete and the other provides the big one. Members of these sexes are occasionally unable to do this. So, sorry for mischaracterizing what you said. Believe me, I know how you feel.
Reading this thread has always made me wonder how many genders there are. I’ve always believed there are 2. Who has some good reading material to help me understand why I am wrong about that. Before you guys jump on my case I don’t mean that to sound dumb it’s just a product of my lack of research and knowledge on the subject. I guess I could see 6 genders (male, female, trans m2f, trans f2m, none and fluid). But, here is my problem with understanding for example in the case of trans you’re transitioning from A to B. In the case of None or fluid you’re also saying you’re not either or you go from A2B. It is not like you’re saying your going from 1 choice to 1000 others. I guess my problem is the belief I’ve always held that gender is a a social construct that corresponded to the 2 “biological” sexes. Had that definition changed over time? Is the definition of gender more tied to sexuality now? I don’t ask because I care how anyone identifies. I just ask for my own knowledge. TIA
This is an interesting topic because these notions of gender and identity can be so fluid and amorphous but sometimes transgender activists can be oddly essentialist. I know Judith Butler laid a lot of groundwork for these ideas about gender and it being very fluid and had to backtrack a little because of views that it is a more fixed quality. I see it as a philosophical construct that helps people interpret reality but I'll definitely defer to people who know more.
Theres no physical distinction, but you can be dragged into a semantic discussion about what male means. Xy is obv usually the indicator but i figured that rare exceptions would be raised. And of course, my question about what distinguishes trans women from males wasn't answered. Obv they have to be male in order to be trans women.