It is no different than an F -> M trans person being in the men's room. I don't care and probably wouldn't notice since I just go in to do my business and get out. I don't have to change a single thing about my day or life.
I also don't care if they line up next to me in a race. If they beat me so what? They are men as much as any biological male is. If someone comes into the office and says they are no longer a she, they are a he I just have to use new pronouns. That is the extent of having to "adjust" and it just isn't a big difference. I don't see how any of this is that big of an impact on our daily lives.
I think even though these things may not have any daily impact on anyone's lives, people to varying degrees take issue when "truth" as they perceive it isn't regarded or spoken. Then, when they notice that an "untruth" is being proliferated more, they feel unease, and even threatened to an extent.
For example, let's say you're at a restaurant and you overhear a person informing a soon-to-be driver that at traffic lights "the blue light means stop and you go at the white lights" and then "when you approach an upside triangular yield sign, that means you should close your eyes and step on the gas." Most would continue to listen and not comment about what they've just overheard. It's not their business and won't affect them in the slightest. But, some people believing themselves to be genuinely concerned for the new driver and others on the road would check and ask, "haha you're joking, right?" and then if the answer is no, they would say back, "well, that isn't correct".
For the most people who don't say anything, if they happened to witness or hear about increasing numbers of instances of fatal accidents at yield signs because drivers are closing their eyes and hitting the gas, then a number will start squawking more and believing that there's a problem that needs addressing even though the chances of this affecting them is quite low. "How can our society survive when we can't agree on these basic traffic rules!?", they will say.
In short, people will always have a tendency to be drawn to what they perceive the truth to be and to condemn others who are nonconforming to this "social norm". There are Make America Great Again people who eschew societal norms by openly promoting what many believe to be extreme racist and nazi-ist views. In the exact same way, there are others who choose to defy social conventions through sexual confusion and transitioning. Then, there are all the people who feel threatened by either of these extremes even though the likelihood of either of them directly affecting anyone in the near term is near zero.
I’d say there are a tiny fraction of people substantively impacted enough to care themselves (as opposed to transphobes caring on their behalf), and the only such people are women athletes whose livelihoods are tied to their rank in races, especially whether or not they are in the top three.
Transwomen face the exact same issue of fairness as cis women. There is no fairness problem if the fraction of transwomen winning medals is roughly the same as cis. But transwomen currently have zero chance to medal with the recent Tanner2/12/2.5 rules, yet folks here love to cry foul against trans.
I think I speak for a lot larger group of Dems when I say I do not care at all. The fact that somebody is posting about the 5th ranked cross country runner in Maine as if this is a critical political issue makes me thankful we are making the planet uninhabitable.
We as a species should drive ourselves to extinction as soon as possible.
Dear dumb dem,
If you don't care. Then why would you care if we make the following national law? "All athletes must compete in the birth of you biological sex. Additionally, it's illegal for any government entity to ever ask you about your gender."
Repeat after me. "A transgender woman isn't female." At best they are a transgender woman. Many would say they a male acting like a woman.
To the moronic Dem congresmman who said, "Letkidsplay", we are letting them play. NO one would prevent this person from playing in the sex of their birth.
It's like sex, no one is preventing a middle aged man like myself from having sex but they would prevent me from having sex with a child. How is that hard to understand?
The larger issue for me is we have to live in a society where objective facts matter. A transwoman isn't female and will never be female.
Dear benevolent co-flounderer, World Athletics disagrees with you. See C5 3.2.1. It defines a term called Transgender Female Athlete. It considered them female if they sign a declaration stating that their “gender identity is female”. The rest of the eligibility rules are about hormones and prepubertal transition.
You are probably conflating having ovaries with being female. A transgender female by definition is a person who doesn’t have those sex organs but identifies as one who does. They would agree with you they don’t have those organs. But it’s silly to say you are a woman but not female because there isn’t a place in sport or public bathrooms where that distinction, if defined as you would like it, matters.
I think even though these things may not have any daily impact on anyone's lives, people to varying degrees take issue when "truth" as they perceive it isn't regarded or spoken. Then, when they notice that an "untruth" is being proliferated more, they feel unease, and even threatened to an extent.
For example, let's say you're at a restaurant and you overhear a person informing a soon-to-be driver that at traffic lights "the blue light means stop and you go at the white lights" and then "when you approach an upside triangular yield sign, that means you should close your eyes and step on the gas." Most would continue to listen and not comment about what they've just overheard. It's not their business and won't affect them in the slightest. But, some people believing themselves to be genuinely concerned for the new driver and others on the road would check and ask, "haha you're joking, right?" and then if the answer is no, they would say back, "well, that isn't correct".
For the most people who don't say anything, if they happened to witness or hear about increasing numbers of instances of fatal accidents at yield signs because drivers are closing their eyes and hitting the gas, then a number will start squawking more and believing that there's a problem that needs addressing even though the chances of this affecting them is quite low. "How can our society survive when we can't agree on these basic traffic rules!?", they will say.
In short, people will always have a tendency to be drawn to what they perceive the truth to be and to condemn others who are nonconforming to this "social norm". There are Make America Great Again people who eschew societal norms by openly promoting what many believe to be extreme racist and nazi-ist views. In the exact same way, there are others who choose to defy social conventions through sexual confusion and transitioning. Then, there are all the people who feel threatened by either of these extremes even though the likelihood of either of them directly affecting anyone in the near term is near zero.
I’d say there are a tiny fraction of people substantively impacted enough to care themselves (as opposed to transphobes caring on their behalf), and the only such people are women athletes whose livelihoods are tied to their rank in races, especially whether or not they are in the top three.
So people only care about fairness if they are directly impacted?
I’d say there are a tiny fraction of people substantively impacted enough to care themselves (as opposed to transphobes caring on their behalf), and the only such people are women athletes whose livelihoods are tied to their rank in races, especially whether or not they are in the top three.
So people only care about fairness if they are directly impacted?
Most people are not as self involved as you.
No, can you not read what I wrote?
Most people have the capacity to read what is written.
If you don't care. Then why would you care if we make the following national law? "All athletes must compete in the birth of you biological sex. Additionally, it's illegal for any government entity to ever ask you about your gender."
Repeat after me. "A transgender woman isn't female." At best they are a transgender woman. Many would say they a male acting like a woman.
To the moronic Dem congresmman who said, "Letkidsplay", we are letting them play. NO one would prevent this person from playing in the sex of their birth.
It's like sex, no one is preventing a middle aged man like myself from having sex but they would prevent me from having sex with a child. How is that hard to understand?
The larger issue for me is we have to live in a society where objective facts matter. A transwoman isn't female and will never be female.
Dear benevolent co-flounderer, World Athletics disagrees with you. See C5 3.2.1. It defines a term called Transgender Female Athlete. It considered them female if they sign a declaration stating that their “gender identity is female”. The rest of the eligibility rules are about hormones and prepubertal transition.
You are probably conflating having ovaries with being female. A transgender female by definition is a person who doesn’t have those sex organs but identifies as one who does. They would agree with you they don’t have those organs. But it’s silly to say you are a woman but not female because there isn’t a place in sport or public bathrooms where that distinction, if defined as you would like it, matters.
Register an account on Letsrun, and stop trolling the boards.
Dear benevolent co-flounderer, World Athletics disagrees with you. See C5 3.2.1. It defines a term called Transgender Female Athlete. It considered them female if they sign a declaration stating that their “gender identity is female”. The rest of the eligibility rules are about hormones and prepubertal transition.
You are probably conflating having ovaries with being female. A transgender female by definition is a person who doesn’t have those sex organs but identifies as one who does. They would agree with you they don’t have those organs. But it’s silly to say you are a woman but not female because there isn’t a place in sport or public bathrooms where that distinction, if defined as you would like it, matters.
Register an account on Letsrun, and stop trolling the boards.
Register an account on Letsrun, and stop trolling the boards.
Registration is not a fix. You are exhibit A.
You're really brave when nobody knows who you are. You spend hours on a site that Rojo helped create, insult him, and are too afraid to disclose even an email address.
You're really brave when nobody knows who you are. You spend hours on a site that Rojo helped create, insult him, and are too afraid to disclose even an email address.
Nobody knows who you are either and you spend plenty of time on these threads as well. So what? Are you naive enough to think an email address means anything?
Teasing Rojo by misspelling “co-founder” as “co-flounderer” is quite common around here. There was no insult in the content of my post, and there never is in any of my posts except in return.
You're really brave when nobody knows who you are. You spend hours on a site that Rojo helped create, insult him, and are too afraid to disclose even an email address.
Nobody knows who you are either and you spend plenty of time on these threads as well. So what? Are you naive enough to think an email address means anything?
Teasing Rojo by misspelling “co-founder” as “co-flounderer” is quite common around here. There was no insult in the content of my post, and there never is in any of my posts except in return.
I participate sincerely in this community, I care about running, and the people who run this website can find out exactly who I am in the real world because I registered.
If it's no big deal to register, why don't you do it?
Nobody knows who you are either and you spend plenty of time on these threads as well. So what? Are you naive enough to think an email address means anything?
Teasing Rojo by misspelling “co-founder” as “co-flounderer” is quite common around here. There was no insult in the content of my post, and there never is in any of my posts except in return.
I participate sincerely in this community, I care about running, and the people who run this website can find out exactly who I am in the real world because I registered.
If it's no big deal to register, why don't you do it?
Same sincerity here.
I don’t have a reason to register. All the usual suspects know me through my intentionally predictably chosen handles. What’s the difference between you and me as far as people knowing it’s the same person is concerned? That’s all they know about you too, that it’s the same person.
For example, let's say you're at a restaurant and you overhear a person informing a soon-to-be driver that at traffic lights "the blue light means stop and you go at the white lights" and then "when you approach an upside triangular yield sign, that means you should close your eyes and step on the gas." Most would continue to listen and not comment about what they've just overheard. It's not their business and won't affect them in the slightest. But, some people believing themselves to be genuinely concerned for the new driver and others on the road would check and ask, "haha you're joking, right?" and then if the answer is no, they would say back, "well, that isn't correct".
You picked a really bad example for your argument. Traffic signals and traffic rules are social construct reinforced by law that has no basis on the material reality. Green means "go" and red means "stop" because that's what the society agreed. During the Cultural Revolution, red meant "go" and green meant "stop" in China. (Because red was the "right" color of revolution.) While that would be extremely confusing to people who are used to the current system, it had no less connection to the material reality than the current system, which is none.
Is this really what you mean by "truth"? If that's the case, then any social construct reinforced by law can be "truth." So a trans woman who has changed her legal gender is now a "woman." Are you okay with that?
If you don't care. Then why would you care if we make the following national law? "All athletes must compete in the birth of you biological sex. Additionally, it's illegal for any government entity to ever ask you about your gender."
What is the "birth of your biological sex?" Which division is Christine Mboma required to compete in?
If you don't care. Then why would you care if we make the following national law? "All athletes must compete in the birth of you biological sex. Additionally, it's illegal for any government entity to ever ask you about your gender."
What is the "birth of your biological sex?" Which division is Christine Mboma required to compete in?
He said “birth of you biological sex”, so maybe he’s calling “Dear dumb dem” “biological sex” and asking everyone to compete in that poster’s birth.
The main point I was trying to convey to frumundacheese was to explain why people care about issues when they does not appear to affect them.
But, yeah, I think it is pretty obvious that we live in "post-truth" world where "truth" is determined by what people feel / believe. Society has to pretty much play along according to the rules that are essentially determined in a Might-Makes-Right fashion. You disagree with that?
Since you seem unaware of this: the loophole that WA put in the new rules for athletes with the kinds of differences/disorders of male sex development that notables like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Christine Mboma all have, through no fault of their own, happens to be a sop too. A politcally pragmatic sop that's inevitably going to serve as a stopgap measure solely for the time being.
DSD policy could change again if Mboma runs too fast in her return. (She seems to be the only one with any realistic chance to make the Olympics or the World Championships.)
I think it's pretty much a certainty that WA's new policy for athletes with disorders or differences of male sex development in women's competition is going to change down the line.
I also think the policy will change in such a way that women's competition ends up being completely closed, finally, to athletes who have male chromosomes, male genetics, male goands (testes) that produce natural levels of T in or above the normal male range, and enough male androgen receptors in good working order to give them male-typical sensitivity to the massive amounts of testosterone their testes pump out, as is the case with athletes subject to the current rules like Semenya and Mboma.
In fact, it might even be that one day in the future the rules change to exclude everyone who isn't female.
The question is when and exactly how these changes will unfold.
BTW, I wouldn't be so sure that Mboma will be the athlete who prompts the next change in the policy, or even that Mboma will be among the athletes involved in bringing it about. My hunch is that athletes from India will play a big role - perhaps the primary role.
Just this week during and after the Asian Games, a big flap has developed in Indian athletics, social media and the Indian press about the thorny issue of Indian athletes with DMSDs and "transgender identity" competing and winning in elite women's track & field.
Asian Games | A controversy has erupted among Indian heptathletes at the Asian Games 2022 in Hangzhou, China. Swapna Barman accused fellow athlete Nandini Ag...
A new twist was added to the story when Dutee Chand stepped in to defend the athlete accused by another Indian national women's team member of being "transgender" - by which the athlete who made the charge seemed to mean having male gonads and thus male levels of natural T that Chand euphemistically calls merely "high testosterone levels." Chand told Times of India:
"In India we have six-seven athletes with high testosterone levels, and they are competing even now. I won't take names but in the India squad there are four athletes who have this condition. "It's not just me or some other athlete who has this problem.”
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
If you don't care. Then why would you care if we make the following national law? "All athletes must compete in the birth of you biological sex. Additionally, it's illegal for any government entity to ever ask you about your gender."
What is the "birth of your biological sex?" Which division is Christine Mboma required to compete in?
He clearly hasn’t thought that rhetorical proposal through. WA already requires proof of natal sex like a birth certificate or passport for intersex, but erasing gender altogether like he’s suggesting would mean Mboma competes as female *as-is*, and participation eligibility is vulnerable to non-uniformity of birth certification processes across the world.
Either that or you are forced to define an objectively refutable definition of female sex and have all women be subjected to sex verification, a mostly twentieth century practice WA long abandoned.
Swapna Barman, the Indian women's heptathlete champion who accused teammate Nandini Agasara of being "transgender" (by which she seems to have meant male with a DMSD) after Asagara beat out Barman to take the women's bronze at the Asian Games recently has since deleted the tweet/X post in which she first made the allegation.
Barman has also profusly apologized for appearing to throw shade on people who identify as transgender (a term that in South Asia often is taken to have a different meaning than it has in Western countries like the USA and UK).
But Times of India has also reported that Barman has lodged an official complaint alleging that Agasara is in violation of WA's new "DSD policy" with the organizers of the Asian Games, who in turn are forwarding it to the Asian Athletics Association. Under the rules, AAA will inform WA.
Asian Games 2023 News: Olympian Dutee Chand has criticized athlete Swapna Barman for calling teammate Nandini Agasara a transgender. Dutee, who has experienced a ban herself
