Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

What about males have XY chromosomes and females have XX?

If I have XY chromosomes does it matter if I insist I have XX?

 

Why not do the rather obvious and honest thing?

Introduce two additional categories: MtF and FtM can anything be fairer than that?

Perhaps that won't work, perhaps we'll eventually see more categories like MtFtM or FtMtFtMtF...

 

Did you read my link. Nobody has ever consciously misrepresented their gender in high-level sport at the time of writing.

[Holmes]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Did you read my link. Nobody has ever consciously misrepresented their gender in high-level sport at the time of writing.

I don't see how one can misrepresent their gender in this day and age, one's gender is merely announced ("fluid" to use the trendy term) nowadays it seems, not imposed by nature.

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Was this "artificial dichotomy" not being used in CY's suggested solution? What exactly is the comparison as to whether a transgender has a remaining biological advantage?

I don’t know. I wasn’t responding to CY

56 minutes ago, Holmes said:

No I would not, and I don't know how "fair" could be defined in the context of this question. 

It seems to me that women in a women's category can never benefit from the inclusion of men who have transitioned, but the men who have transitioned are more likely to benefit, more likely than if there was a MtF category.

Therefore on this (admittedly informal) analysis, it is not equitable.

Thanks for recognizing this wouldn’t be equitable 

The expansion of women’s sports in the US was driven by the realization that there was rampant discrimination. To exclude anyone who isn’t XY or XX would be further discrimination.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Well these categories are defined on a long established traditional division based on XX or XY chromosomes.

“tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that.

56 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Men and Women have entered sports and competed on that understanding, it doesn't strike me as fair to now permit exceptions that could disadvantage Women.

What about disadvantages to trans women?

This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women.

56 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I don't know what you mean by "artificial", can you explain?

Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

“tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that.

What about disadvantages to trans women?

This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women.

Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

A lot can be done toward the social acceptance of that, without resorting to pseudo-science.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Since there are at least 58 genders, insisting that these can all be meaningfully and fairly partitioned in sports into just two categories not based on chromosomes strikes me as unscientific.

Yes, it is unscientific, and your earlier example shows you can’t use chromosomes to get you to 2 categories.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

Introduce two additional categories: MtF and FtM can anything be fairer than that?

Yes. Accept them as women, because they are. 

Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal. 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A lot can be done toward the social acceptance of that, without resorting to pseudo-science

The pseudo-science being…what?

[Holmes]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know. I wasn’t responding to CY

Thanks for recognizing this wouldn’t be equitable 

The expansion of women’s sports in the US was driven by the realization that there was rampant discrimination. To exclude anyone who isn’t XY or XX would be further discrimination.

I did not actually suggest that we exclude those who are neither XX nor XY, I just said that such individuals are neither male or female.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

“tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that.

Perhaps, but the division men and women is based on an objective scientific facts, the chromosome pairing. To tell women that they must now compete with men who claim to be females irrespective of this chromosome criteria is inherently prejudicing women, it makes their challenge more difficult while making the challenge for these men, more easy.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

What about disadvantages to trans women?

This is not a real disadvantage, if they no longer want to compete in the men's category then that's their choice, I do not see why women should be expected to suffer just because men who claim to be female decide to no longer participate as men.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women.

They quite obviously aren't, they have XY chromosomes whereas women have XX.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it is unscientific, and your earlier example shows you can’t use chromosomes to get you to 2 categories.

Yes, I have no problem with new categories being introduced.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. Accept them as women, because they are. 

Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal. 

What is my position on gay marriage and same sex unions?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

What is my position on gay marriage and same sex unions?

I have no idea and it’s irrelevant to my point 

[Holmes]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have no idea and it’s irrelevant to my point 

In which case the claim that my position on gender and sports is "akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal" is pure speculation.

In fact attempting to imply I am a racist is possibly a breach of forum rules.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

In which case the claim that my position on gender and sports is "akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal" is pure speculation.

In fact attempting to imply I am a racist is possibly a breach of forum rules.

It’s called a comparison. A suggestion of similarity. This isn’t exactly rocket science. 

[Holmes]

Just now, iNow said:

It’s called a comparison. A suggestion of similarity. This isn’t exactly rocket science. 

It's misleading speculation intended to disparage me, I fully support gay marriage, I fully support the fair and equal treatment of people irrespective of skin color.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Holmes said:

It's misleading speculation intended to disparage me, I fully support gay marriage, I fully support the fair and equal treatment of people irrespective of skin color.

Thanks for sharing that lovely insight. That remains irrelevant to my point and it seems clear you’re refusing to argue in good faith. 

[Alex Mercer]

There are only 2 genders in science: Male and Female. Scientists to the layman with common sense knows born men who identify as women have an advantage and born women have a disadvantage against men in sport that test physical strength including contact sport and running. If you can't see that clear fact then no one can help you.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing that lovely insight. That remains irrelevant to my point and it seems clear you’re refusing to argue in good faith. 

 

Why don't you attack Holmes' argument rather than accuse him of not arguing in good faith?

 

4 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

There are only 2 genders in science: Male and Female. Scientists to the layman with common sense knows born men who identify as women have an advantage and born women have a disadvantage against men in sport that test physical strength including contact sport and running. If you can't see that clear fact then no one can help you.

This is not true.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

There are only 2 genders in science: Male and Female

This is an extremely common talking point shared by the misinformed, but it’s wrong. 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why don't you attack Holmes' argument rather than accuse him of not arguing in good faith?

I’ve done both. Thx coach 

[Holmes]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing that lovely insight. That remains irrelevant to my point and it seems clear you’re refusing to argue in good faith. 

No, I'm refusing to argue with you at all in any thread in this forum from this point onwards. Your modus operandi is to seek out opportunities to disparage others, to discredit them and attribute to them negative characteristics, this is the case  just now where you introduced the suggestion that my position on this issue of gender and sports means that I must inevitably be opposed to gay marriage or that I must inevitably be a racist.

I've made many posts in this thread and nobody has stooped to this level despite my obvious disagreements with several people here.

Personally such conduct should not be tolerated but that's a matter for others, I simply want nothing more to do with you.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Holmes said:

you introduced the suggestion that my position on this issue of gender and sports means that I must inevitably be opposed to gay marriage or that I must inevitably be a racist.

That is not what I said. Not at all.

I’ve already clarified this for you more than once, yet you persist in your misrepresentation. 

It’s as if I’d said, “This is a lovely home. It reminds me of my grandmothers house,” and you replied, “I’ve never lived with your grandmother. I don’t even know her. Why are you lying? What’s wrong with you?”

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by iNow

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

There are only 2 genders in science: Male and Female. Scientists to the layman with common sense knows born men who identify as women have an advantage and born women have a disadvantage against men in sport that test physical strength including contact sport and running. If you can't see that clear fact then no one can help you.

It's not a sharp dichotomy. It's not male and female, it's a continuum: maleness to femaleness and vice versa. In the world of science, 'commonsense' is what it tries to avoid and is not a defence... it's a subjective position.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The pseudo-science being…what?

We can start with your claim that "This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#:~:text=Scientific claims that do not,see%3A Argument from ignorance).

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies

1,665 in 1,666 people are have xx or xy chromosomes. Very approximately half are xx and half xy. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well:

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.

Is there a reason I can't edit, to make it clear when I am quoting the Wiki article and when I am adding my own comments?

I apologize for any lack of clarity, but I have not been able to edit for some time now.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned,

I have previously explained why this is not like gay marriage at all.
Gay marriage doesn't disadvantage anyone.
Trans women ( male to female ) disadvantage ciswomen in sporting events which are predominantly strength based.

Pointing this fact out is not akin to being against gay marriage.
And your statement to dismiss, or silence, the argument that cis-women are disadvantaged by trans-women ( in some respects ), is not something I would expect from you.

edit:  just put quotation marks around the quotes, and be done with it, JC

Oh, and demerit points make for a poor choice of argument.
Discussion, and cosideration of other's posts, is much preferred.

Edited July 3, 2021 by MigL

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have previously explained why this is not like gay marriage at all.

My focus was on the separate but equal treatment being suggested. MtF and FtM as separate categories was the part to which I was responding.

I’m saying the responses are similar not that the topics are the same.

“You want to compete? Okay, but you can’t join any of the others and you must wear this yellow star on your armband.”

“You want to marry? Okay, but it can’t be called a marriage. It must be a civil union.”

Edited July 3, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

edit:  just put quotation marks around the quotes, and be done with it, JC

 

After I forget to do that...I can no longer edit to add them...not sure why but edit is no longer available to me.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pointing this fact out is not akin to being against gay marriage.

No. That is rather obviously not the proposal to which I was responding. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]