|
Post by Seahawks 1972 on Dec 9, 2019 15:25:15 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. Agree
|
|
|
Post by Seahawks 1972 on Dec 9, 2019 15:29:03 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. What about those who were born with both a penis and a vagugu?
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 9, 2019 15:50:52 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. What about those who were born with both a penis and a vagugu? The fact that you bring that up just proves the point. We don’t make rules based on the exceptions to what is normative.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 9, 2019 15:56:17 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. Someone said it earlier but it bears repeating: ok boomer The very real and scientific distinction between men and women goes back millennia before boomer was even a word -- or a generation.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Dec 9, 2019 15:56:34 GMT -5
What about those who were born with both a penis and a vagugu? The fact that you bring that up just proves the point. We don’t make rules based on the exceptions to what is normative. What? That's not an answer to the question. If you're gonna draw these lines, you have to figure out where intersex people fit into the equation. Either that or accept that people should be categorized by what gender they identify with, seeing as that's how most intersex and transgender people fit into society.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 15:57:10 GMT -5
We don’t make rules based on the exceptions to what is normative. That's backward. We certainly do make rules based on the edge cases. That's the main reason why we have rules in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Dec 9, 2019 15:58:37 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. What about those who were born with both a penis and a vagugu? No no no. If you're going with vagugu, you're going to have to say penunu. (I like this way better than mango and banana as used in the Jobs Thread.)
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Dec 9, 2019 16:03:50 GMT -5
Someone said it earlier but it bears repeating: ok boomer The very real and scientific distinction between men and women goes back millennia before boomer was even a word -- or a generation. And yet in recent years, along with most other science, the consensus has changed. If I go back millennia, I'll find people who think the sun revolves around the earth. Old =/= correct.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 9, 2019 16:11:40 GMT -5
The very real and scientific distinction between men and women goes back millennia before boomer was even a word -- or a generation. And yet in recent years, along with most other science, the consensus has changed. If I go back millennia, I'll find people who think the sun revolves around the earth. Old =/= correct. Biology isn't exactly a new science. Neither is genetics. I'd like to know what consensus you are talking about. If you think the consensus on the anatomical, biological, genetic and physiological differences between men and women has changed, you are even more horribly uninformed than you have seemed to this point. If you think scientific reality can be altered by political and social changes, you are irrational to the point that mental disorders are indicated.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Dec 9, 2019 16:21:01 GMT -5
And yet in recent years, along with most other science, the consensus has changed. If I go back millennia, I'll find people who think the sun revolves around the earth. Old =/= correct. Biology isn't exactly a new science. Neither is genetics. I'd like to know what consensus you are talking about. If you think the consensus on the anatomical, biological, genetic and physiological differences between men and women has changed, you are even more horribly uninformed than you have seemed to this point. If you think scientific reality can be altered by political and social changes, you are irrational to the point that mental disorders are indicated. Ah, HappyVolley. Making Pennsyltucky proud.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Dec 9, 2019 16:28:05 GMT -5
And yet in recent years, along with most other science, the consensus has changed. If I go back millennia, I'll find people who think the sun revolves around the earth. Old =/= correct. Biology isn't exactly a new science. Neither is genetics. I'd like to know what consensus you are talking about. If you think the consensus on the anatomical, biological, genetic and physiological differences between men and women has changed, you are even more horribly uninformed than you have seemed to this point. If you think scientific reality can be altered by political and social changes, you are irrational to the point that mental disorders are indicated. Seeing as sex chromosomes were only discovered in the early 1900s and studies on how chromosomes affect sex have only been done since the 50s, it's definitely a recent field. The fact that there is little to no research on something so basic as athletic performance in transgender people means there's a lot of work to be done. Even if research eventually proves that there are differences that can't be adjusted for with HRT, just because in the 1800s they believed penis=man and vagina=woman doesn't mean they were right for any good reason, they just happened to hit on it. Additionally, the sociological consensus on trans people is pretty solid and stretches back for the millennia you mentioned in many nonwestern cultures. It might not have taken as much hold in the political sphere but it is certainly alive and well in academia.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 9, 2019 16:33:40 GMT -5
Also, they’re finding that a small, but noticeable percentage of “XX-women” react to various drugs as if they were “XY-men” (and vice versa).
Tossing people into two distinct bins only works when you insist that there are only two bins.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Dec 9, 2019 17:15:45 GMT -5
New way of testing who you can compete with?
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 9, 2019 17:47:33 GMT -5
Biology isn't exactly a new science. Neither is genetics. I'd like to know what consensus you are talking about. If you think the consensus on the anatomical, biological, genetic and physiological differences between men and women has changed, you are even more horribly uninformed than you have seemed to this point. If you think scientific reality can be altered by political and social changes, you are irrational to the point that mental disorders are indicated. Ah, HappyVolley. Making Pennsyltucky proud. I'm from Colorado. That was before it became Calirado.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Dec 9, 2019 18:33:49 GMT -5
|
|