I understand Megan Rapinoe is gay. I suspect her comments are largely a reflection of her LGBQT views. Her opinion on the trans in sports issue is thus an expression of "identity politics", and doesn't appear to be more deeply thought out than that.
I understand Armstronglivs is a jackass. I suspect his comments are largely a reflection of his jackass status. His opinion on the trans in sports issue is thus an expression of “bigoted politics” and doesn’t appear to be more deeply thought out than that.
I think trans kids are fine in sports through high school. Yes, it would suck as a girl to always get beaten in XC and track by a trans girl. But if you cut it off at HS, it would not affect the recruiting process and biological girls will be looked at for recruitment and moving on to college athletics. Through HS, there is no money or career on the line. After that, college and pro careers are on the line.
But if a biologicall9born female loses to a transgendered female in a sectional the biologically born female might not make the state championships, might not get recognition, honors or a chance to be recruited.
If transgirls were not allowed in NCAA, it wouldn't matter. The transgirls would not be eligible for recruitment no matter how well they place. Prior to college, it's a hobby and there is no long term implications or consequences of transgirls dominating.
No, being "woke" means that you view the world through the prism of critical theory and postmodernism. These theories fill the same gap in human psyche as religion. You are awake to "the realities of the world" in the same way a converted Christian is now awake to the truth of Jesus.
Note: My intention is not to insult religion, only to point out the religious nature of "woke."
Nothing you say here is factual.
The very term “Woke” has its current denotative origins in AAVE. It is a descriptor that the black community used to signal precisely what I said: awake to the bull. It is no way akin to a religious dogma.
What has happened recently is that an opposing group of people (overwhelming white and conservative) co-opted this positive phrase describing a progressive black person and turned it into what they feel is an insult.
It’s an old trick.
It may be true that "woke" originated in AAVE, but it is now used to describe exactly the quasi-religious viewpoint I described in my response to you. You can use a motte and bailey rhetorical tactic and continually change the meaning of the term woke to suit the purposes of your argument, but nearly everybody knows what I'm talking about, even if they don't know the philosophical and academic roots of the phenomenon.
The "woke" worldview can be traced to several sources, including the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, postmodernism, and those who drew upon and synthesized these schools of thought, most notably the theory of intersectionality (see Angela Davis, bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Derrick Bell, Kimberlie Crenshaw, and even the Combahee River Collective, a group of black lesbian feminists who started meeting in 1974 and published a famous political manifesto in 1977: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/). The stuff most pertinent to the trans issue comes from postmodernism, including work by Gayle Rubin, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler.
Interestingly enough, that worldview rejects objectivity--the idea that we ought to separate the morality and social standing of the person making a knowledge claim from the veracity of the claim--and replaces it with standpoint-based knowledge. Standpoint epistemology claims that oppressed people have special access to the truth. To be fair, the Combahee River Collective was an explicitly political group and did not make claims about how to generate knoweldge about the world. However, many of the people listed above are scholars who are making such claims, and nearly all of them reject the scientific method and the norm of objectivity. They view the world as a conflict between oppressor and oppressed (critical theory) and belive that the former created the social world to institutionalize their power and keep the oppressed class down. This is combined with postmodernism's rejection of truth claims, all of which they view as an attempt to capture and/or maintain power.
Therefore, we end up with this absurd claim that the sex binary is an effect of power and not a real thing that exists outside of human frameworks of meaning. This assertion is religious, not empirical, and it is precisely this kind of thinking that people are talking about when they use the term "woke." Critical theory and postmodernism both require one to adopt ideological tenets without question; they are self-referential bodies of thought that do not permit critique from outside.
Your response to me, which is to dismiss my claims by associating them with whites and conservatives while defending woke by associating it with African Americans is very much in line with standpoint epistemology. More to the point, I did not use "woke" in a pejorative way. I used it in a descriptive way to point out to you that your viewpoints are not grounded in shared reality; they derive in part from the religion-like truth claims inherent in wokeness.
Woke is spiritual not empirical. You think your opponents are stupid and blind to the truth. In fact, many have different assumptions about the nature of reality and how to generate knowledge about reality. You're also mistaken that the people who are critical of the woke worldview or do not share it are composed almostly entirely of whites and conservatives. Nearly the entire scientific community until about 10 seconds ago rejected the woke worldview. It was debated in academic circles throughout the 90s, pretty much dismissed outside of the humanities from about 2000-2010, then exploded in a bastardized version in the general public around the time social media use became widespread.
If transgirls were not allowed in NCAA, it wouldn't matter. The transgirls would not be eligible for recruitment no matter how well they place. Prior to college, it's a hobby and there is no long term implications or consequences of transgirls dodominating
I understand what you are saying in regards to recruiting. The underling issue is that it is not all about recruiting/taking someone's spot. There is a larger issue at hand that will present itself down the road. This issue centers around the participation and promotion of girls in sport. There are not 60 transgender girls at every high school ready to displace every young girl athlete. But that does not mean you do not have safeguards in place to protect its integrity.
Beyond scholarships, HS's can have EOY awards, recognition in the announcements, record boards, hall of fame, etc. Over time, transgender girls will squeeze out biological girls. And no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you can admit that that is directly unfair to biological girls. In a venue that women are at a distinct disadvantage (post-puberty athletics), trans-women and biological males will overwhelm the spotlight.
Athletics and sports are very different compared to other areas in our society. Trans-inclusion is important, and can be successfully and thoughtfully implemented throughout our society. But there will not be a perfect solution in regards to sports, and therefore Trans inclusion needs to be done so in a way that does not cause more harm to a larger population (biological women).
I think folk don't tend to understand nuance in these discussions, and take everything too black and white & binary (part of the problem in itself).
The "general" point being made originally, is that overall in sports, most kids are fine playing alongside anyone who is of the same gender (as opposed to birth sex). 99% of the sports days, events, whatever, no one cares. There is no need to be strict in these cases by policy, when folks themselves would rather have inclusiveness.
This is naturally different when it comes to the top end of competitive sports, and it's not unreasonable to have a discussion with any transgender person at the top of their game, about their future in the sport, and how they well may not be able to compete in their gendered category. This is the 0.01% of trans people. There's no need to have blanket policies for the odd occasions. Deal with those when they happen.
Life isn't actually binary, just treat it as such with respect, and all will be fine.
The problem occurs when the one offs end up in court. What would have happened if Lia Thomas was banned from competing as a woman? I think we all know.
The very term “Woke” has its current denotative origins in AAVE. It is a descriptor that the black community used to signal precisely what I said: awake to the bull. It is no way akin to a religious dogma.
What has happened recently is that an opposing group of people (overwhelming white and conservative) co-opted this positive phrase describing a progressive black person and turned it into what they feel is an insult.
It’s an old trick.
It may be true that "woke" originated in AAVE, but it is now used to describe exactly the quasi-religious viewpoint I described in my response to you. You can use a motte and bailey rhetorical tactic and continually change the meaning of the term woke to suit the purposes of your argument, but nearly everybody knows what I'm talking about, even if they don't know the philosophical and academic roots of the phenomenon.
The "woke" worldview can be traced to several sources, including the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, postmodernism, and those who drew upon and synthesized these schools of thought, most notably the theory of intersectionality (see Angela Davis, bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Derrick Bell, Kimberlie Crenshaw, and even the Combahee River Collective, a group of black lesbian feminists who started meeting in 1974 and published a famous political manifesto in 1977: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/). The stuff most pertinent to the trans issue comes from postmodernism, including work by Gayle Rubin, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler.
Interestingly enough, that worldview rejects objectivity--the idea that we ought to separate the morality and social standing of the person making a knowledge claim from the veracity of the claim--and replaces it with standpoint-based knowledge. Standpoint epistemology claims that oppressed people have special access to the truth. To be fair, the Combahee River Collective was an explicitly political group and did not make claims about how to generate knoweldge about the world. However, many of the people listed above are scholars who are making such claims, and nearly all of them reject the scientific method and the norm of objectivity. They view the world as a conflict between oppressor and oppressed (critical theory) and belive that the former created the social world to institutionalize their power and keep the oppressed class down. This is combined with postmodernism's rejection of truth claims, all of which they view as an attempt to capture and/or maintain power.
Therefore, we end up with this absurd claim that the sex binary is an effect of power and not a real thing that exists outside of human frameworks of meaning. This assertion is religious, not empirical, and it is precisely this kind of thinking that people are talking about when they use the term "woke." Critical theory and postmodernism both require one to adopt ideological tenets without question; they are self-referential bodies of thought that do not permit critique from outside.
Your response to me, which is to dismiss my claims by associating them with whites and conservatives while defending woke by associating it with African Americans is very much in line with standpoint epistemology. More to the point, I did not use "woke" in a pejorative way. I used it in a descriptive way to point out to you that your viewpoints are not grounded in shared reality; they derive in part from the religion-like truth claims inherent in wokeness.
Woke is spiritual not empirical. You think your opponents are stupid and blind to the truth. In fact, many have different assumptions about the nature of reality and how to generate knowledge about reality. You're also mistaken that the people who are critical of the woke worldview or do not share it are composed almostly entirely of whites and conservatives. Nearly the entire scientific community until about 10 seconds ago rejected the woke worldview. It was debated in academic circles throughout the 90s, pretty much dismissed outside of the humanities from about 2000-2010, then exploded in a bastardized version in the general public around the time social media use became widespread.
Part of your problem, and you do have a problem, is that you are labeling people who are advocating for transgender rights as “woke” and then saying “woke” is a religion as if to say it is as substantial as a belief in Santa Claus. Science of course should play a role here but you write as if a respect for science cannot co-exist with respect for transgender rights. It is true that those who wanted to abolish slavery could have been labeled “woke” and dismissed as believers in a new and fake religion. You want to label people to control people. Some people are more complex than to exist with your easing concocted labels which are often used to describe a fringe element of “wackos.” It is too easy to play that game. Do better.
It's taken on a meaning of its own and is used to denote extreme-left and postmodern/critical theory views on society in general. It doesn't matter what the word used to mean, it matters what it means now. The system "woke" ideas have become their own dogma at this point and are treated as a religion - that is, they are accepted without empirical proof and anyone who questions them is immediately labeled as morally inferior (i.e. bigots).
If anyone actually uses the word "woke" now, it just means they watch Fox News. No one else uses it anymore.
Possibly, but that was not true even a year or so ago. If the people who formerly used "woke" as a positive term to describe themselves, are now refraining from it, that's a decision they made, perhaps cynically so that anyone who didn't get the memo and still uses it can be dismissed as a far right nutter. But as I've said in this thread, I've been a high school teacher for decades, I've seen thousands of neologisms go from trendy with the kids, to being adopted by wider society, to being abandoned by the kids just slightly younger because everyone says it and it isn't cool anymore. If that is happening with "woke," that's not surprising at all.
The other user wasn't far off either, though, when he said the word has taken on a life of its own to refer to the far left's postmodern/critical theory views, which - if anyone still doesn't know - are NOT liberal in either the "left of center in America" sense or the sense of "a system/philosophy that believes in empiricism, equality, individuality, free inquiry, the scientific method, etc." which most Americans, even so-called "conservatives," believe in. I know I'm veering off topic, but it would be worth it for liberals, whether "liberal" or "conservative," to recognize the common threat from illiberals, whether those illiberals are the postmodern/critical theory left or the evangelical/cult-of-personality right.
I understand what you are saying in regards to recruiting. The underling issue is that it is not all about recruiting/taking someone's spot. There is a larger issue at hand that will present itself down the road. This issue centers around the participation and promotion of girls in sport. There are not 60 transgender girls at every high school ready to displace every young girl athlete. But that does not mean you do not have safeguards in place to protect its integrity.
Beyond scholarships, HS's can have EOY awards, recognition in the announcements, record boards, hall of fame, etc. Over time, transgender girls will squeeze out biological girls. And no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you can admit that that is directly unfair to biological girls. In a venue that women are at a distinct disadvantage (post-puberty athletics), trans-women and biological males will overwhelm the spotlight.
Athletics and sports are very different compared to other areas in our society. Trans-inclusion is important, and can be successfully and thoughtfully implemented throughout our society. But there will not be a perfect solution in regards to sports, and therefore Trans inclusion needs to be done so in a way that does not cause more harm to a larger population (biological women).
You raise a very interesting issue. Trans gender people have been living in our society, yet up until now, notable cases of trans female athletes dominating competitions remain rare. The American HS record books, hall of fames, mvp awards, Etc are not full of trans girls. I suspect just about nobody on this board has been at a competition knowing a trans girl was competing, and even fewer have witnessed the trans athlete winning or placing. The counter argument is that the number of trans individuals is increasing, and yes, survey data over the last decade indicates a doubling of the numbers from around 0.7% to 1.3%. It’s not clear if these are all trans individuals or those who are non binary too. Also, the stability of the designation is uncertain as the number of trans adults has remained more constant (around 0.5%). Finally, the numbers very greatly by location. In the most politically conservative areas of the country, there’s been no change. In Wyoming the number in HS remains around 0.2%. Ok, all of this is to say, there are not a ton of data that suggest that trans participation in HS athletics is going to greatly undermine opportunities for biological girls if it has not already happened over the past 25 years. This argument does not satisfy the purists who argue that even one trans girl section winner is too many, but I think a sober assessment of the evidence would not lead one to conclude that there is going to be an avalanche of trans athletes in HS wiping out the achievements of biological girls.
To be fair, she's not wrong (entire quote): “We’re talking about people’s lives. I’m sorry, your kid’s high school volleyball team just isn’t that important. It’s not more important than any one kid’s life.”
You can debate whether her underlying assumptions are true (that inclusivity prevents deaths, which seems a reasonable position), but if you're arguing that the purity of a high school sport is more important than someone's life, I've got to disagree.
Though she goes off the rails with this one, so if it's one of her core assumptions, she has a problem: "Show me the evidence that trans women are taking everyone’s scholarships, are dominating in every sport, are winning every title. I’m sorry, it’s just not happening." She's putting a lot of weight on "everyone's" and "every," and that's some pretty weak sauce.
Yeah so about the above opinion.
Trans activists are big on hyperbole. "if I don't get MY way, we will D*E!"
I don't believe that in this case. We aren't talking about lives. We are talking about fairness in sports.
Trans lives do matter and are important. We need to let transitioning be between doctors and patients. Sure there is stuff that makes me feel squeamish about medical transitions, but you know what? I'm not a doctor! It's not my expertise! It's not my body so it doesn't affect me.
The same thing goes with bathrooms. Ladies, are we really looking around at who we are in the bathroom with? No, we're doing our business, checking our hair and leaving. Also, you want trans men in our bathrooms?? That's weird right?
Sports are different. Trans women have clear unfair advantages and cis women are impacted unfairly. Rules have to change. It's not going to end lives. It's going to create a fair playing field.
trans activists have utterly lost the thread on their cause because they kept equating everything to d**th. We can't simply identify as female and enter any sport we choose! That's killing us! You misgendered us once by accident? violence! You don't blindly support everything we say? Murder!
There are actual things that kill trans people. Mainly violence (as it's originally defined) against trans people. But there was something about the whole movement that was selfish and manipulative. And the result was that well meaning people chose to back away.
I'm impressed with the quality of the discussion on this thread given where it started. There are going to be people hurt regardless of the decision. What is hard is that in HS, sports is a big deal and trans girls will likely excel over bio females. Yes, the numbers are low now but it's likely that over time, more people will feel comfortable with the idea of changing genders and the numbers will grow. Probably not in our lifetime but i see it like people coming out as gay. As society becomes more accepting, more people come out. On the upside of this, if there are enough trans girls, a new category is created and that solves the problem.
also--I'm not sure if this was discussed on another board but this stuff just sends me. "I'm not trying to cancel anyone, I'm just going to write a long sob story of a post about how I was accidentally misgendered because I changed my pronouns a year ago, and not everyone has caught on. Oh and the people who did it apologized but I can't help but play victim anyways."
I'm sorry this is stupid and exhausting. Not the pronouns but the persistent shaming of people who accidentally misgender other people. Get a grip! Everyone is trying here.
It's really hard to extend sympathy to a privileged runner who writes paragraphs about an honest mistake. There are real issues affecting the running community, and I haven't seen Nikki champion any of them.
This ties back into my point that trans activists have lost the thread. They equate accidental misgendering to something massive, that when something massive needs attention (like the inexcusable murder rates of trans folks, employment issues, trans kids getting kicked out of their homes, and yes--the right to gender affirming care), people don't really know how to tell the difference.
I understand Megan Rapinoe is gay. I suspect her comments are largely a reflection of her LGBQT views. Her opinion on the trans in sports issue is thus an expression of "identity politics", and doesn't appear to be more deeply thought out than that.
I understand Armstronglivs is a jackass. I suspect his comments are largely a reflection of his jackass status. His opinion on the trans in sports issue is thus an expression of “bigoted politics” and doesn’t appear to be more deeply thought out than that.
So Rapinoe isn't gay and an advocate for LGBQT? But not all female sports, apparently. I can always count on you to show your handicap.
I understand Armstronglivs is a jackass. I suspect his comments are largely a reflection of his jackass status. His opinion on the trans in sports issue is thus an expression of “bigoted politics” and doesn’t appear to be more deeply thought out than that.
So Rapinoe isn't gay and an advocate for LGBQT? But not all female sports, apparently. I can always count on you to show your handicap.
So you aren’t a jackass and a basher of trans athletes? I can always count on you to show your bigotry.
You raise a very interesting issue. Trans gender people have been living in our society, yet up until now, notable cases of trans female athletes dominating competitions remain rare. The American HS record books, hall of fames, mvp awards, Etc are not full of trans girls. I suspect just about nobody on this board has been at a competition knowing a trans girl was competing, and even fewer have witnessed the trans athlete winning or placing. The counter argument is that the number of trans individuals is increasing, and yes, survey data over the last decade indicates a doubling of the numbers from around 0.7% to 1.3%. It’s not clear if these are all trans individuals or those who are non binary too. Also, the stability of the designation is uncertain as the number of trans adults has remained more constant (around 0.5%). Finally, the numbers very greatly by location. In the most politically conservative areas of the country, there’s been no change. In Wyoming the number in HS remains around 0.2%. Ok, all of this is to say, there are not a ton of data that suggest that trans participation in HS athletics is going to greatly undermine opportunities for biological girls if it has not already happened over the past 25 years. This argument does not satisfy the purists who argue that even one trans girl section winner is too many, but I think a sober assessment of the evidence would not lead one to conclude that there is going to be an avalanche of trans athletes in HS wiping out the achievements of biological gigirls.ylu
You are correct in stating that the occurances of displacement are not high, but you are understating its prevalence as well. Anecdotally, I have witnessed transgender girls being recognized/awarded over biological girls. There are also plenty of cases you can find from the middle school level, all the way up to Leah Thomas. Is it widespread? No. But that is what policies are made to do: bring clarity and be proactive. Our society should not be reactive on either side of the aisle, or on any challenging situations for that matter.
Whether you believe it will be due to increased promotion, fads, or the ability to express oneself freely without judgment, the number of individuals who identify as trans are going to increase. I may have my own opinions on the dangers of promoting/encouraging kids to transition, but that is not relevant. The bottom line is I hope that as more information becomes available, the trans community can be included into society and not feel ostracized.
And with that, it cannot come at the expense of something else. If one averagely talented trans girl goes out for the girls track team once every two years, thats high school record book will be irrevocably changed very quickly. And some will say "who cares" or "it does not matter". I believe that matters when you are completely changing the impact of girls sports. It might take 5 years, ten years, or you could get 2 trans girls that do it in a season.
Apart from the records, scholarships, and money, biological girls deserve to be allowed to compete in a fair environment. If athletics/sports could genuinely be set up to include trans girls fairly, then there would be an argument for anyone that is not prejudice.
But I also think that there is a trendiness right now to being trans for teens, usually awkward teens who aren't getting enough attention or who don't have enough friends -- see the recent New York Post article on detrans teens, for example. People don't like to talk about that, because it's seen as degrading to LGBT people, but I would argue the opposite -- using an LGBT identity as a trendy thing ought to be seen as degrading to actual LGBT people. I'm almost 99% sure that the current medical philosophy is to simply believe the patient and push them to transition, though that may vary from place to place. Largely, the by-word is "affirm, affirm, affirm." I'm not comfortable with that, and I'm not sure that's the best approach for minors, who may be end up doing something they seriously regret later, and which is not always as reversible as trans activists like to argue. If it's just a weird phase, but you pumped the dude full of estrogen, that won't have zero effect. We don't indulge teen's worst impulses in any other area, but we seem to have lost our stomach for it when we might have to question whether a teen is really making the right choice with his/her body. At 18 and beyond, it's their choice, and my concern here goes away.
I'd recommend you watch the Australian documentary I posted on this thread earlier. Dr. Michelle Telfer (a former Olympic gymnast) says more than 20% of youths who are referred to her hospital are turned awasy after the initial assessment. They have to go through multiple counseling and psychological evaluation sessions for at least two years before they get any medication. These sessions are constant push back AGAINST mecial transitioning, which one former patient described as "interogation." Out of more than 1500 kids who went through mecial transition at her hospital over the years, fewer than TEN decided to detransition.
So the question is, should we deny medical procedure that makes the life easier for 99% of kids because 1% will regret later in life? Maybe it is the case that her hospital has more rigorous procedure to approve medical transition. If that's the case, why shouldn't we try to learn from that process and improve the practice at other places, instead of banning the medical transition completely?
Trans kids before transition are often awkward and have few friends, because they are encourage to be something they feel extremely uncomfortable, and befriend people that you do not feel comfortable with. They often become less awkward and make more friends after transition.
It is unusual for a Trans and Trans Youth to speak candidly with each other, sharing their respective and unique journeys. We present Michelle Sheppard inter...
Stories of Pride celebrates all the stories of strength, resilience, and connection that shape LGBTQ young people’s sense of pride. Everyone’s story is diffe...