Transgender athletes

[MigL]

I see rampant inequality in all three of INow's examples.

Those three brats are watching the game for free; all those suckers in the stands had to pay ...

One of the problems with analogies/memes 😄 .

 

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where's the one where they all get to play?

We haven't achieved it yet. Legislatures across the United States are making it illegal for transgendered humans to participate in sports aligned with their identified gender... hence this thread.

[TheVat]

 

Transgender seems to be something that can be honored, not disparaged, as something unusual and having unique attributes.  Trans-women and cis-women are not the same.  They do share something, in terms of a culturally-mediated femaleness, but I see no reason they couldn't recognize and respect each other's differences while still having solidarity on some matters.  It's odd to live in a society that spends so much time declaring the virtues of diversity, yet at the same time wants to stuff everyone into two simplistic categories.   Of course, few people really want true diversity.  They want a world where everyone is conservative or liberal, Dem or Repub, gay or straight, elite or common, etc.  Saves time and brain-strain.   Humans have a positive fetish for dichotomies and saying faux-pearls of wisdom that start with "there are two kinds of people in the world."  I suspect that is why some people go for the SA surgery, because they know being a chick with a dick will be too weird for their peer group.  If we were really open to diverse forms of sexuality, then being a chick with dick would be cool and identity wouldn't have to be so firmly attached to particular anatomy.  

Gender dysphoria can be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed with physical alterations until the person is grown.  Before you all jump on that:

1.  Just my opinion.  I'm not declaring any final or scientific insight here.  What I do know is that decisions made during the turbulence of adolescence are not always great decisions. 

2.  Also the opinion of mental health professionals I've known and respected in my work, and I will add quite progressive in their views on other matters.  So, no, being opposed to 14 year olds getting a sex change is in no way being opposed to sex change or thinking it's ungodly.  

 

Disclaimer:  this is, for me, a very rough and off-the-cuff post, so take this as coming from someone still trying out all the concepts and having reached no solid answers on the sports league/division questions.  (I doubt there are enough trans people at most high schools to form a separate league, though...)

 

[Intoscience]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

We haven't achieved it yet. Legislatures across the United States are making it illegal for transgendered humans to participate in sports aligned with their identified gender... hence this thread.

Making it illegal makes it sound like a crime, would not be my personal choice of words. For me there has to be a clear distinction between choice of identity and biological fact (I appreciate we have argued the latter over and over). What about those that choose not to identify as any particular gender? 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it's relevant, for instance:

Is it fair, that I was born in relative poverty, in a broken home with indifferent parents?

Is it fair, that the one thing I am good at and enjoy (javelin), I wasn't good enough to overcome the fact that I don't know the right people, who could invest in the chance that I could make it my career?

Is it fair, that I am good enough to make it my career, dispite my disadvantages, but I was born the wrong gender?

Is it fair, that those who have all the advantages of life and have the career of their choice, can also decide who can play with them?

   

No its not fair, I'm sorry to hear about your own experiences. I have witnessed the same in my time, seeing exceptional talent miss out on opportunity due to poverty, lack of funding, corruption or other influences.

This where my idealistic outlook I mentioned way back in this threads bears out. I didn't begin a discussion on this subject so as to keep the thread on track and not divert to other areas of "unfairness" in sports.

Just one point to mention, relevant to this discussion. You mentioned, "but I was born the wrong gender" (for those reading my reply please read dimreeper's post for context). Interesting that you say this, would I be wrong in saying that the argument for transgender is exactly this? 

If this is the argument then I don't think its a valid reason to ensure inclusion into a chosen gender category. I'm not saying this is the case, but pointing out that, choosing to identify as one gender but testing biologically as another is the whole point. 

I don't believe its fair to just simply allow inclusion in sporting categories by chosen gender identity, without any clear and conclusive evidence whether the biological gender they were born has any significant performance advantage. 

Surely its got to be investigated, and the current system expanded or amended if required?  

   

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

What I do know is that decisions made during the turbulence of adolescence are not always great decisions

Oh, poppycock! EVERY single decision I EVER made during my teenage years was PERFECT!!

 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I doubt there are enough trans people at most high schools to form a separate league, though

Correct, but even if there were it still reeks to me of "separate, but equal" treatment. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

What about those that choose not to identify as any particular gender? 

I reckon they should be allowed to participate in whatever division or classification they choose, so long as they meet and adhere to the (non-gender based) requirements of that division or classification. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I don't believe its fair to just simply allow inclusion in sporting categories by chosen gender identity, without any clear and conclusive evidence whether the biological gender they were born has any significant performance advantage. 

Seems obvious to me that we can just leave gender out of it entirely, and setup classifications and divisions based on other things (as StringJunky recently highlighted).

On 8/2/2021 at 6:32 PM, StringJunky said:

Talking solely in terms of two sets of chromosomes is not describing things properly. For sport, I think we need a set of classes that  are not based on gender, and compiling pertinent parameters suitable for each class.  I think it reflects the continuum nature of gender differentiation 

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, MigL said:

I shouldn't have to...

But essentially, society ( and sporting bodies ) should provide for equal opportunity for all, which means cis females should be able to compete against people of similar capabilities ( which we have been saying all along ); not cis men, or trans females who have the capabilities of cis men.

Once that is provided by society, you, personally have to make the extra effort to excel and come in first in the competition.

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream; if everyone gets gold, even the person who strolls to the finish line in the 100m race, that is not competition.

But it might be the 'game' you keep referring to.

It's the game of life, Castor Semenya IS A FEMALE, she just happens to have a physiology that gives her a natural advantage so she gets the gold; or at least she should do, if she didn't kinda look like a man...

21 hours ago, iNow said:

He already did, did he not?

I thought the sarcasm was implied.

The whole thread has revolved around a level playing field, but that only exists in an artificial game; one that doesn't involve money.

Only a supercharged ego cares about a tin pot trophy, that has no other value; so why do the rest of us cry foul when a man shaped athlete beats the one we bet on to vicariously win for us?

Edited August 5, 2021 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

Transgender seems to be something that can be honored, not disparaged, as something unusual and having unique attributes.  Trans-women and cis-women are not the same.  They do share something, in terms of a culturally-mediated femaleness, but I see no reason they couldn't recognize and respect each other's differences while still having solidarity on some matters.  It's odd to live in a society that spends so much time declaring the virtues of diversity, yet at the same time wants to stuff everyone into two simplistic categories.   Of course, few people really want true diversity.  They want a world where everyone is conservative or liberal, Dem or Repub, gay or straight, elite or common, etc.  Saves time and brain-strain.   Humans have a positive fetish for dichotomies and saying faux-pearls of wisdom that start with "there are two kinds of people in the world."  I suspect that is why some people go for the SA surgery, because they know being a chick with a dick will be too weird for their peer group.  If we were really open to diverse forms of sexuality, then being a chick with dick would be cool and identity wouldn't have to be so firmly attached to particular anatomy.  

Gender dysphoria can be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed with physical alterations until the person is grown.  Before you all jump on that:

1.  Just my opinion.  I'm not declaring any final or scientific insight here.  What I do know is that decisions made during the turbulence of adolescence are not always great decisions. 

2.  Also the opinion of mental health professionals I've known and respected in my work, and I will add quite progressive in their views on other matters.  So, no, being opposed to 14 year olds getting a sex change is in no way being opposed to sex change or thinking it's ungodly.  

 

Disclaimer:  this is, for me, a very rough and off-the-cuff post, so take this as coming from someone still trying out all the concepts and having reached no solid answers on the sports league/division questions.  (I doubt there are enough trans people at most high schools to form a separate league, though...)

 

People who identify in between genders, or spread across them, will probably have the hardest time because, even amongst some of their peers, they may be told to "make up their minds" which group they fall in.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only a supercharged ego cares about a tin pot trophy, that has no other value; so why do the rest of us cry foul when a man shaped athlete beats the one we bet on to vicariously win for us?

I don't particularly care, or bet on sporting events, but maybe you should ask all those athletes who cry, after a bad performance at the Olympics places them out of medal contention, or Bukayo Saka, who cried on international TV after having his penalty stopped in the Euro final.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 8/4/2021 at 1:51 PM, MigL said:

I see rampant inequality in all three of INow's examples.

Those three brats are watching the game for free; all those suckers in the stands had to pay ...

One of the problems with analogies/memes 😄 .

 

In defence of the medium and big one...I'm pretty sure the little one was the ring leader that put the other two up to it. (How else could one explain the unequal sharing of the viewing supports?)

But does your average, run-of-the-mill, SJW notice that? Nope. (takes a trained, somewhat malicious, dyed-in-the-wool-conservative establishmentarian, eye..😜)

Edited August 6, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

In trying times, a sense of humor helps keep things in perspective.

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

a sense of humor helps keep things in perspective.

So does seeing otherwise decent people nonchalantly use as an incentive slur the act of advocating for social justice.

No offense intended to my buddy James Clerk M, but anyone who thinks it’s an insult to refer to others as warriors of social justice are to be dismissed as knuckle dragging fools. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't particularly care, or bet on sporting events, but maybe you should ask all those athletes who cry, after a bad performance at the Olympics places them out of medal contention, or Bukayo Saka, who cried on international TV after having his penalty stopped in the Euro final.

Of course people care if they win a meddle, but you'll note a bronze meddle winner is punching the air in celebration, not crying because they didn't win the gold.

But you're quoting the irrelevant part of my post, it's generally not the athlete that cries foul because they're facing someone with an advantage; unless they're the one who's trying to cheat.

On 8/4/2021 at 6:37 PM, TheVat said:

Trans-women and cis-women are not the same.

What two women are???

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

So does seeing otherwise decent people nonchalantly use as an incentive slur the act of advocating for social justice.

No offense intended to my buddy James Clerk M, but anyone who thinks it’s an insult to refer to others as warriors of social justice are to be dismissed as knuckle dragging fools. 

Yep.  Have to say,  it's odd to me that fighting for social justice would somehow be the basis of a pejorative.   So,  um,  Thomas Paine,  Nelson Mandela,  Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass,  Rosa Parks, Margaret Sanger, Jane Addams, Bertrand Russell and countless others... we should dismiss their legacies because they advocated for societal reforms and helping the disadvantaged and oppressed?

Seems like a tough case to make.  Have to re-change a lot of street names,  too... 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Seems like a tough case to make.

Only when you don't understand the argument...

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only when you don't understand the argument...

A neg rep only adds validation to my argument. 

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only when you don't understand the argument...

A neg rep only adds validation to my argument. 

But I'm open to, misunderstanding... 

[MigL]

Fighting for social justice is a valid and noble endeavor.
Fighting for inclusion of a few trans females ( into sports ) at the expense of the whole ( cis ) female gender is not social justice.

And speaking of Nelson Mandela ...

Nelson Mandela, Adolf Hitler and Michael Jackson are on the deck of the Titanic as it is sinking.
Nelson Mandela says "We must save the children ."
To which Adolf Hitler replies "Screw the children !"
After a pause, a confused but also excited Micnael Jackson  says "Ok ... but do we have the time ?"

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

So does seeing otherwise decent people nonchalantly use as an incentive slur the act of advocating for social justice.

No offense intended to my buddy James Clerk M, but anyone who thinks it’s an insult to refer to others as warriors of social justice are to be dismissed as knuckle dragging fools. 

Careful INow. Somewhat malicious, dyed -in-the-wool-conservative establishmentarians are quickly becoming a suppressed minority...once we learn to quickly take offence...we'll be a political force!

[iNow]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

So,  um,  Thomas Paine,  Nelson Mandela,  Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass,  Rosa Parks, Margaret Sanger, Jane Addams, Bertrand Russell and countless others... we should dismiss their legacies because they advocated for societal reforms and helping the disadvantaged and oppressed?

You and I are aligned here, and I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but I can't in good conscience allow you to conflate posting points and counter points on a discussion forum like SFN (and various other social media channels) with the great work those great people did often at great personal risk to truly change the world. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Somewhat malicious, dyed -in-the-wool-conservative establishmentarians are quickly becoming a suppressed minority...once we learn to quickly take offence...we'll be a political force!

Too late.  

The right wing outrage machine has been a dominant force for a few decades already now.

[TheVat]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

You and I are aligned here, and I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but I can't in good conscience allow you to conflate posting points and counter points on a discussion forum like SFN (and various other social media channels) with the great work those great people did often at great personal risk to truly change the world. 

 

Seems at least two misunderstood my post,  so let me clarify I was not conflating discourse here with the great works aforementioned.  I was simply pushing back (bit of a digression, perhaps)  on the pejorative usage of SJW.   It was a point about language,  not about this debate here.   

[iNow]

Totally understand. No worries. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yep.  Have to say,  it's odd to me that fighting for social justice would somehow be the basis of a pejorative.   So,  um,  Thomas Paine,  Nelson Mandela,  Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass,  Rosa Parks, Margaret Sanger, Jane Addams, Bertrand Russell and countless others... we should dismiss their legacies because they advocated for societal reforms and helping the disadvantaged and oppressed?

Seems like a tough case to make.  Have to re-change a lot of street names,  too... 

Probably why no one refers to them as Social Justice Warriors.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

"The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

[iNow]

So, just to clarify: Your stance is that I’m being disingenuous and mostly looking for personal validation. Fascinating 

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, just to clarify: Your stance is that I’m being disingenuous and mostly looking for personal validation. Fascinating 

It was actually tongue in cheek, using 'SJW", and "somewhat malicious, dye-in-the wool-conservative establishmentarian" in the same post.

I'm sure any disingenuousness or search for personal validation on your part are completely subconscious...

...mine of course...not so much.😜

Edited August 6, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Probably why no one refers to them as Social Justice Warriors.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

"The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

Thanks for defining your term - my joy at that too-often skipped part of discourse is a little dampened,  though, at what seems like some pretty unkind implications.   Not sure a discussion is well served by choosing a term that's so entirely pejorative.   I know people who fight for social justice,  and do have conviction,  sound arguments, and often take on some personal risk... so I'm not too concerned if they pick up some personal validation along the march.   

If SJW is to become so utterly ironic,  then maybe "humanitarian reformer" is better.   

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  

If SJW is to become so utterly ironic,  then maybe "humanitarian reformer" is better.   

Different terms. We should strive to be the second, as much effort as it might take. 

20 hours ago, MigL said:

In trying times, a sense of humor helps keep things in perspective.

And at times I think this helps. It's a long road with no short cuts.

Thank God Frederick Douglass took no short cuts of the SJW, circa 2021, kind. He might not have had the same influence on Lincoln...or the rest of the World.

[iNow]

In fairness to JCM, I’ve been a bit unkind toward those who have challenged my position. I’m okay with some rough and tumble once in a while. I certainly won’t be crying myself to sleep bc someone online said I might have a tendency to support social justice like a warrior.