|
Post by stanfordvb on Dec 9, 2019 11:54:41 GMT -5
This article doesn't consider the effects of HRT, which I believe are in play I every situation mentioned here besides CT high school track. what i was pointing out that its not just physical advantages that men have over women. I doubt that higher levels of estrogen coupled with lower testosterone levels would negate/reverse EVERY advantage a biological male has vs a biological female when it comes to sports. They don't, it's been proven. Men naturally grow taller and stronger. You cannot completely reverse it.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 9, 2019 11:58:11 GMT -5
Apparently the federalist has done a bunch of research on this. The Federalist is not doing or sponsoring any of this research. The Federalist is an online supplier of “news” and opinion reporting. Incidentally, that makes the linked-to studies (when it is a study and not an opinion piece) -more- credible, just as a study funded by MSNBC would be less credible than a peer reviewed study -reported- on by MSNBC.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Dec 9, 2019 12:03:27 GMT -5
Apparently the federalist has done a bunch of research on this. The Federalist is not doing or sponsoring any of this research. The Federalist is an online supplier of “news” and opinion reporting. Incidentally, that makes the linked-to studies (when it is a study and not an opinion piece) -more- credible, just as a study funded by MSNBC would be less credible than a peer reviewed study -reported- on by MSNBC. The study is more credible than a study ran by the federalist, but it's still a badly done study.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 12:17:32 GMT -5
Either I made my point before badly, which is possible, or the new voices in the conversation didn't read it, which is also possible. So I'll try again.
Even if you assume there are physiological advantages for some trans athletes, so what? Really, so what?
In volleyball, there are physiological advantages for tall athletes. We do not ban them from competition because of it. It is decidedly unfair for the average adult woman, who is 5'-4'', to try to compete in NCAA D1 volleyball at any position other than libero -- and even most liberos are taller than 5'-4''. So NCAA D1 women's volleyball is already very unfair to the average woman.
But you know what? We shrug that off. In fact, more than that, we celebrate it. We list heights on rosters. We talk about how tall players are. We get into arguments about who has the highest touch. It does not usually bother us that we are being extremely unfair to the genetically and physiologically average woman.
Why not? Because we decide, collectively, that *this* physiological difference is "fair". It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. We draw a circle (with fuzzy boundaries) around the roughly half of all people who are women and we say "all genetic advantages inside this circle are fair, but all genetic advantages between people inside this circle and outside this circle are not fair".
The arguments about physiological capabilities and bone structure and hormones in puberty and blah blah blah are all utterly pointless, because we really don't give a crap about preventing athletes from having genetic advantages. What we care about is that circle I talked about in the last paragraph. The one where people inside it are "women" and outside it are "not women".
So any argument about physiological advantages is an intentionally misleading smokescreen. The real argument is still about the edges of where we draw that circle.
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 9, 2019 12:25:09 GMT -5
Either I made my point before badly, which is possible, or the new voices in the conversation didn't read it, which is also possible. So I'll try again. Even if you assume there are physiological advantages for some trans athletes, so what? Really, so what? In volleyball, there are physiological advantages for tall athletes. We do not ban them from competition because of it. It is decidedly unfair for the average adult woman, who is 5'-4'', to try to compete in NCAA D1 volleyball at any position other than libero -- and even most liberos are taller than 5'-4''. So NCAA D1 women's volleyball is already very unfair to the average woman. But you know what? We shrug that off. In fact, more than that, we celebrate it. We list heights on rosters. We talk about how tall players are. We get into arguments about who has the highest touch. It does not usually bother us that we are being extremely unfair to the genetically and physiologically average woman. Why not? Because we decide, collectively, that *this* physiological difference is "fair". It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. We draw a circle (with fuzzy boundaries) around the roughly half of all people who are women and we say "all genetic advantages inside this circle are fair, but all genetic advantages between people inside this circle and outside this circle are not fair". The arguments about physiological capabilities and bone structure, and hormones in puberty and blah blah blah are all utterly pointless, because we really don't give a crap about preventing athletes from having genetic advantages. What we care about is that circle I talked about in the last paragraph. The one where people inside it are "women" and outside it are "not women". So any argument about physiological advantages is an intentionally misleading smokescreen. The real argument is still about the edges of where we draw that circle. Yes, the real argument is about the edges of where we draw the circle. And the most obvious one that creates massive physioligical distinctions across the board is those born as biological males and those born as biological females (height, weight, strength, speed, jumping ability, muscle mass, bone density, speed of metabolization, etc). That’s not a fuzzy boundary, it’s a very clear one. Reading your entire argument it basically looks like let’s just get rid of all distinctions. No women’s sports. As one other poster mentioned, try finding the female to male transitioned who then performed well (or at all) in sport in their new gender. You won’t. This is a one way street, and it only affects women.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 12:30:20 GMT -5
Reading your entire argument it basically looks like let’s just get rid of all distinctions. No women’s sports. As one other poster mentioned, try finding the female to male transitioned who then performed well (or at all) in sport in their new gender. You won’t. This is a one way street, and it only affects women. Sorry, but no, you are not allowed to replace my words with some that are more simplified and easy to attack, and then attack your version as if you were actually rebutting what I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Dec 9, 2019 12:30:22 GMT -5
Well there aren't a whole lot of them. Watch abreu in the Brazilian pro league. She is dominating teams and playing in the top clubs in the league. Hitting harder than anyone else. New York hs state track was dominated by 2 trans girls, I'm not sure if they are still in hs. Or the handball world championships. Australia had a trans women who was previously on the men's national handball team. She was the MVP and doubled opposing teams score by herself. There are tons of examples, it's just that there are a first of all, not a lot of trans people compared to the regular population, so the likelyhood that you are trans and a top athlete in the world / country is very very slim Well the Olympics have started allowing Trans athletes since 2004--none of them are winning at the highest level. (I want to say the NCAA's current policies have beena round since 2010...)
Anyway, to me, professional leagues can do whatever they want. The NCAA is still amateur for goodness sakes.
The one volleyball player I know who transitioned quit the sport 2 years after her transition because she wasn't the same player she was as a male and couldn't deal with the drop in her competivity. (But is otherwise much happier)
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 9, 2019 12:49:05 GMT -5
Reading your entire argument it basically looks like let’s just get rid of all distinctions. No women’s sports. As one other poster mentioned, try finding the female to male transitioned who then performed well (or at all) in sport in their new gender. You won’t. This is a one way street, and it only affects women. Sorry, but no, you are not allowed to replace my words with some that are more simplified and easy to attack, and then attack your version as if you were actually rebutting what I wrote. Then please explain your argument. Where would you draw a distinction? Because others earlier in this post read your arguments in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 13:01:43 GMT -5
Sorry, but no, you are not allowed to replace my words with some that are more simplified and easy to attack, and then attack your version as if you were actually rebutting what I wrote. Then please explain your argument. Where would you draw a distinction? Because others earlier in this post read your arguments in the same way. I didn't say where I would draw the distinction. It's not my place to draw the distinction, actually. I'm just saying that trying to draw the distinction based on genetic/physiological advantages is a red herring to distract away from the fact that the real discussion is a social question. Who do we, as a society, decide are "women"? That's the real issue here that people are trying to dodge. You were the OP in this discussion. You raised this whole thing. If anyone here has the burden of trying to provide a definition of who counts as a woman, it's you.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 9, 2019 13:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Dec 9, 2019 13:55:35 GMT -5
Either I made my point before badly, which is possible, or the new voices in the conversation didn't read it, which is also possible. So I'll try again. Even if you assume there are physiological advantages for some trans athletes, so what? Really, so what? In volleyball, there are physiological advantages for tall athletes. We do not ban them from competition because of it. It is decidedly unfair for the average adult woman, who is 5'-4'', to try to compete in NCAA D1 volleyball at any position other than libero -- and even most liberos are taller than 5'-4''. So NCAA D1 women's volleyball is already very unfair to the average woman. But you know what? We shrug that off. In fact, more than that, we celebrate it. We list heights on rosters. We talk about how tall players are. We get into arguments about who has the highest touch. It does not usually bother us that we are being extremely unfair to the genetically and physiologically average woman. Why not? Because we decide, collectively, that *this* physiological difference is "fair". It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. We draw a circle (with fuzzy boundaries) around the roughly half of all people who are women and we say "all genetic advantages inside this circle are fair, but all genetic advantages between people inside this circle and outside this circle are not fair". The arguments about physiological capabilities and bone structure and hormones in puberty and blah blah blah are all utterly pointless, because we really don't give a crap about preventing athletes from having genetic advantages. What we care about is that circle I talked about in the last paragraph. The one where people inside it are "women" and outside it are "not women". So any argument about physiological advantages is an intentionally misleading smokescreen. The real argument is still about the edges of where we draw that circle. Very well said.
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 9, 2019 14:36:28 GMT -5
Then please explain your argument. Where would you draw a distinction? Because others earlier in this post read your arguments in the same way. I didn't say where I would draw the distinction. It's not my place to draw the distinction, actually. I'm just saying that trying to draw the distinction based on genetic/physiological advantages is a red herring to distract away from the fact that the real discussion is a social question. Who do we, as a society, decide are "women"? That's the real issue here that people are trying to dodge. You were the OP in this discussion. You raised this whole thing. If anyone here has the burden of trying to provide a definition of who counts as a woman, it's you. Usually the burden of proof lies with those trying to overturn what everyone for the entire history of the human race, not to mention scientists, have believed to be the case. But ok, I’ll bear that burden. Call me old fashioned, but I think if you are born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. If we go by your non-standards and refuse to impose any of what you call “arbitrary” lines that are smokescreens, then man, as men without transitioning or undergoing any hormone therapy, should just be allowed to compete in women’s divisions.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Dec 9, 2019 14:39:30 GMT -5
I didn't say where I would draw the distinction. It's not my place to draw the distinction, actually. I'm just saying that trying to draw the distinction based on genetic/physiological advantages is a red herring to distract away from the fact that the real discussion is a social question. Who do we, as a society, decide are "women"? That's the real issue here that people are trying to dodge. You were the OP in this discussion. You raised this whole thing. If anyone here has the burden of trying to provide a definition of who counts as a woman, it's you. Usually the burden of proof lies with those trying to overturn what everyone for the entire history of the human race, not to mention scientists, have believed to be the case. But ok, I’ll bear that burden. Call me old fashioned, but I think if you are born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. Someone said it earlier but it bears repeating: ok boomer
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 9, 2019 14:47:56 GMT -5
Usually the burden of proof lies with those trying to overturn what everyone for the entire history of the human race, not to mention scientists, have believed to be the case. But ok, I’ll bear that burden. Call me old fashioned, but I think if you are born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. If we go by your non-standards and refuse to impose any of what you call “arbitrary” lines that are smokescreens, then man, as men without transitioning or undergoing any hormone therapy, should just be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. Ah, wonderful. We’ll go back to inspections of (purportedly) female genitalia by officials, to be sure that the person in front of them is female in the eyes of men. Those certainly were the good old days.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Dec 9, 2019 14:53:59 GMT -5
I didn't say where I would draw the distinction. It's not my place to draw the distinction, actually. I'm just saying that trying to draw the distinction based on genetic/physiological advantages is a red herring to distract away from the fact that the real discussion is a social question. Who do we, as a society, decide are "women"? That's the real issue here that people are trying to dodge. You were the OP in this discussion. You raised this whole thing. If anyone here has the burden of trying to provide a definition of who counts as a woman, it's you. Usually the burden of proof lies with those trying to overturn what everyone for the entire history of the human race, not to mention scientists, have believed to be the case. But ok, I’ll bear that burden. Call me old fashioned, but I think if you are born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. If we go by your non-standards and refuse to impose any of what you call “arbitrary” lines that are smokescreens, then man, as men without transitioning or undergoing any hormone therapy, should just be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. I can't even imagine the amount of political indoctrination one would have to subject themselves to in order to reject your line of delineation.
|
|