Male supremacist views are common, indeed the norm, amongst young, educated so-called "liberal feminist" women in the US today.
Well, why do you think that’s the case? I’ve been saying the same thing, and citing my children, which seems to enrage you when I do. Many say the reason is coercion and fear of cancellation, but I’m telling you, the feeling is far deeper than that. These progressive young women feel trans exclusion in shelters, in bathrooms, in sports, is a form of bigotry at their core and they reject yours and Rowling’s world view. If you lost them en masse, I’m the end, it’s a lost cause.
The preferred terms among trans activists are AMAB (assigned male at birth) and AFAB (assigned female at birth). You don't have to use those terms, but it might be good to know that those terms exist. (Or "natal male" and "natal female" which are less ideological terms.)
But here is the question. What's wrong with calling trans women just that. trans women? It is clear that we are not referring to cis women. Isn't that enough for the purpose of clarity?
If I say "trans women should not be allowed to compete against cis women in elite sports", isn't that clear enough?
Those terms are also loaded with bias.
"Assigned" implies that someone made a declaration of your sex, not that there was a penis or vagina or explicit physical markers of sex. It takes what is a material fact and obfuscates it as a fallible opinion.
'at Birth" further implies that this "assignment" of sex is something fluid, malleable, transient.
So true. My daughter wasn't assigned female at birth. She is female and will be female her entire life no matter how she identifies.
They actually told us she was female before she was born. My wife is pregnant right now. They have told us we're having a daughter. Same thing applies.
I'm not sure why we are asked our gender at all on government forms. How I dress or identify isn't relevant to much at all. If I get in a car accident, the doctor needs to know if anything my sex, not my gender.
But your gender is relevant from a legal standpoint because it’s a protected characteristic and discrimination in the work place at least based on gender is prohibited based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If you changed your gender and your employer fired you for that reason, that’s unlawful. Sex based discrimination is unlawful too. In just about every walk of life both gender based and sex based discrimination are unlawful by law or precedent. Rarely are these issues at odds with each other. The question is whether or not in one particular area, athletics, is there a carve out, so that gender based discrimination is now ok? You can argue that forcing a person to compete in a category not aligned with their gender, or creating a separate category, is not discriminatory, but that’s not clearly logical according to Title VII. If you were forced at work to be in a separate office because of your gender, that would be unlawful, but maybe a separate road race is ok? So people are left claiming that treating people differently because of their gender is unlawful in just about every case except athletics, or going back and claiming that gender should NOT be a protected category, and only sex matters after all.
Gender has nothing to do with it.
It's their sex.
Elite sport is/should be classified on sex.
By your logic we can't have gendered divisions either as that would be discrimination based on gender. So no women's sports at all? Is that what you want?
You want gender to trump sex but the limiting factor in sport isn't someone's gender, it's their sex.
I'm not sure why we are asked our gender at all on government forms. How I dress or identify isn't relevant to much at all. If I get in a car accident, the doctor needs to know if anything my sex, not my gender.
But your gender is relevant from a legal standpoint because it’s a protected characteristic and discrimination in the work place at least based on gender is prohibited based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If you changed your gender and your employer fired you for that reason, that’s unlawful. Sex based discrimination is unlawful too. In just about every walk of life both gender based and sex based discrimination are unlawful by law or precedent. Rarely are these issues at odds with each other. The question is whether or not in one particular area, athletics, is there a carve out, so that gender based discrimination is now ok? You can argue that forcing a person to compete in a category not aligned with their gender, or creating a separate category, is not discriminatory, but that’s not clearly logical according to Title VII. If you were forced at work to be in a separate office because of your gender, that would be unlawful, but maybe a separate road race is ok? So people are left claiming that treating people differently because of their gender is unlawful in just about every case except athletics, or going back and claiming that gender should NOT be a protected category, and only sex matters after all.
Gender has nothing to do with it.
It's their sex.
Elite sport is/should be classified on sex.
By your logic we can't have gendered divisions either as that would be discrimination based on gender. So no women's sports at all? Is that what you want?
You want gender to trump sex but the limiting factor in sport isn't someone's gender, it's their sex.
I agree that elite sports are best categorized by sex, but as a matter of the law, it’s not clear that’s what the courts will find. You asked why gender is asked on forms and I’ve told you why. It’s because sex AND gender are considered protected categories according to the US Civil Rights Act. Whether or not Title VII and IX will be found to require that gender identity or biological sex be controlling as it pertains to inclusion in sports remains to be adjudicated. You may not like it, but in the end, the courts are going to have to sort this out.
If every time someone mentioned being Catholic you made it your business to point out “you know, that’s not really the blood and body of your savior.” I’d consider that hostile. It’s unnecessary and only done to assert some kind of power and authority over a group you feel is lesser than your own.
If you said, “you can call yourself Catholic all you want, but this organized athletic events are only for non-Catholics.” That’s most certainly hostile.
Jeff, most catholics (i grew up one and have several in my family) - and most people from almost all religions - do their rituals (such as "body and blood") in a church/temple/building of some sort. It's pretty rare to see them celebrating an integral part of their religion in public, especially compared to how often religious people observe/celebrate their religious tenents/commandments in private settings.
Thus, if I went IN to their private setting and said "you know, that's not really the body and blood of Christ," then yes, I'd be a jackass. Difference is that they're doing most all of this in private settings.
Trans"women" are FORCING their mental disorder (according the authoritative medical text of the land) upon a vast number of female athletes, IN PUBLIC, and without those females consent.
Guys, settle down. Trans women have every right to compete.
In the OPEN division.
The other division is female. Hormones and surgery don't make a female. Wejo is right.
I think South Park had an episode on this.
We (athletics) are all INCLUSIVE. How long are we going to kowtow to these snowflakes? I'm all for being who you want, but not stepping on females heads to do it.
Just like age, there is a right answer. 20 year olds can't compete in U20, even if they are immature.
Guys, settle down. Trans women have every right to compete.
In the OPEN division.
The other division is female. Hormones and surgery don't make a female. Wejo is right.
I think South Park had an episode on this.
We (athletics) are all INCLUSIVE. How long are we going to kowtow to these snowflakes? I'm all for being who you want, but not stepping on females heads to do it.
Just like age, there is a right answer. 20 year olds can't compete in U20, even if they are immature.
OPEN = right
The evidence seems to indicate that trans women who have gone through male puberty retain some advantage relative to cis women in most physical sports, even after well more than the one year on hormones that used to be the standard. For example, Lia Thomas, after 3 years on hormones, was about 5-6% slower in her main event, the 500 free. However, the like-to-like difference between men and women of the same level in swimming is more like 10%. It's similar in running, much bigger in weightlifting, and hard to measure, but probably bigger still, in, say, basketball. Not sure how much the gap closes with transition.
The decisions on this need to be made on a sport-by-sport basis, but "you're ineligible for the length of time, from first modifying your hormones to the allowed female levels, that any other woman would be banned for testosterone doping" seems like a good place to start. In some sports it probably makes sense to keep anyone who ever went through male puberty out of the women's division. Trans women who didn't probably don't have a meaningful advantage, if they have one at all.
Women's sports exist so that women have a realistic chance of victory -- I don't need to rehash here why that is. Still -- sure, in something like road racing, trans women can compete in the open division. But it sucks for them not to have a realistic chance of winning anything -- and post-transition trans women probably won't be making many teams in team sports where they're competing against men, either. Trans men probably won't reach quite the same level as comparable cis men, either.
Generally, too, trans people want to get to a point where they're not readily identifiable as trans, so having trans-specific divisions might not work well either.
"Assigned" implies that someone made a declaration of your sex, not that there was a penis or vagina or explicit physical markers of sex. It takes what is a material fact and obfuscates it as a fallible opinion.
'at Birth" further implies that this "assignment" of sex is something fluid, malleable, transient.
So true. My daughter wasn't assigned female at birth. She is female and will be female her entire life no matter how she identifies.
They actually told us she was female before she was born. My wife is pregnant right now. They have told us we're having a daughter. Same thing applies.
I've been in and around the trans community for a long time and I've never liked "assigned male/female at birth" -- it's trying to weasel around the anatomical and physiological facts while still pointing at them. I get why trans people reach for terms like that, though, when those anatomical and physiological facts cause them the consistent distress that they do.
That said, I think popular sentiment will prevent a male from facing off against popular female athletes like Mikhala Shiffrin, Alex Morgan, Coco Gauff, Breanna Srewart et al. Even if courts forced the federations to allow males to compete against females, sponsors and the public would not support any male who tried to compete in a popular womans sport and the situation would resolve itself within months.
Who are these women? Skimo athletes?
Sponsors don’t care about trans athletes competing. The public doesn’t care about trans athletes competing. A very vocal, small minority of bigoted Q-anon followers make a fuss about it, but this is a complete non-issue.
Correct. Q-anon types including anonymous LR posters including those with a registered handle. No one of consequence or power in society cares about these transphobe crybabies.
I'm not sure why we are asked our gender at all on government forms. How I dress or identify isn't relevant to much at all. If I get in a car accident, the doctor needs to know if anything my sex, not my gender.
But your gender is relevant from a legal standpoint because it’s a protected characteristic and discrimination in the work place at least based on gender is prohibited based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If you changed your gender and your employer fired you for that reason, that’s unlawful. Sex based discrimination is unlawful too. In just about every walk of life both gender based and sex based discrimination are unlawful by law or precedent. Rarely are these issues at odds with each other. The question is whether or not in one particular area, athletics, is there a carve out, so that gender based discrimination is now ok? You can argue that forcing a person to compete in a category not aligned with their gender, or creating a separate category, is not discriminatory, but that’s not clearly logical according to Title VII. If you were forced at work to be in a separate office because of your gender, that would be unlawful, but maybe a separate road race is ok? So people are left claiming that treating people differently because of their gender is unlawful in just about every case except athletics, or going back and claiming that gender should NOT be a protected category, and only sex matters after all.
Gender has nothing to do with it.
It's their sex.
Elite sport is/should be classified on sex.
By your logic we can't have gendered divisions either as that would be discrimination based on gender. So no women's sports at all? Is that what you want?
You want gender to trump sex but the limiting factor in sport isn't someone's gender, it's their sex.
Everybody understands that your sex organs in the common case correlate with a performance advantage or lack thereof. It is also true that those advantages lie on a distribution, and that intra-group differences far outweigh the average inter-group advantage.
There is no inherent reason why sport “should be” any particular way. It’s primary purposes are entertainment for society and money-making for organizers, so sport is just what society wants it to be. Right now, trans women as a whole don’t seem to causing any apocalyptic upheavals with their alleged performance advantages. Let those who are most affected by it — the women athletes — talk if they feel like something is egregiously unfair to them.
Everybody understands that your sex organs in the common case correlate with a performance advantage or lack thereof. It is also true that those advantages lie on a distribution, and that intra-group differences far outweigh the average inter-group advantage.
There is no inherent reason why sport “should be” any particular way. It’s primary purposes are entertainment for society and money-making for organizers, so sport is just what society wants it to be. Right now, trans women as a whole don’t seem to causing any apocalyptic upheavals with their alleged performance advantages. Let those who are most affected by it — the women athletes — talk if they feel like something is egregiously unfair to them.
Sport is not for entertainment and making money, it is for health, competition and helping young people to improve their physical being.
That includes trans people, they deserve a chance to participate is sports, the problem is deciding what competitions they should be allowed in. In some of the examples cited, I would say they should not be allowed because of an unfair advantage. But banning 100 percent of them is not the answer. Some who are far down the road of taking female hormones, etc., should not be competing with men, because they have lost their unfair advantage. So far nobody has given an answer to where that person should be allowed to compete.
Everybody understands that your sex organs in the common case correlate with a performance advantage or lack thereof. It is also true that those advantages lie on a distribution, and that intra-group differences far outweigh the average inter-group advantage.
There is no inherent reason why sport “should be” any particular way. It’s primary purposes are entertainment for society and money-making for organizers, so sport is just what society wants it to be. Right now, trans women as a whole don’t seem to causing any apocalyptic upheavals with their alleged performance advantages. Let those who are most affected by it — the women athletes — talk if they feel like something is egregiously unfair to them.
They are talking. They talked in the wake of the Penn swimmer; the tweet at the top of this thread is from a women's sports account. They speak out and are tarred with the epithet TrAnSpHoBe for doing so. Don't underestimate the power of social media psychos to shut down conversations these days, and don't underestimate the bravery it takes to speak against what seems to be prevailing trends (backed with threats) no matter what the subject. In many cases, people making the same argument you're making are basically saying loudly, "well if I haven't heard complaints from the 15 year old girls, I guess it's all fair!" and often then whispering "and I might send death threats to her if she does, but that's totally unrelated." But regardless of whether the whispered bit is there, it should never be incumbent on minors to fix problems of adults' making, the adults should be the sensible ones.
Indeed, everyone with an interest in fair sport ought to speak up, regardless of whether their event is afflicted by the issue or not. Bear in mind too that on average, women are more likely to take an agreeable, don't-rock-the-boat approach. It's awesome when women stand up and stop taking crap, but as in all things, men and women bring different advantages to any situation, on average. Sometimes you need someone who DGAF about personal attacks and will just say what needs to be said. I love when a person like that is a woman but let's be honest, there are more men like that. If you care about fair sport, you should be talking about this regardless of sex.
Everybody understands that your sex organs in the common case correlate with a performance advantage or lack thereof. It is also true that those advantages lie on a distribution, and that intra-group differences far outweigh the average inter-group advantage.
There is no inherent reason why sport “should be” any particular way. It’s primary purposes are entertainment for society and money-making for organizers, so sport is just what society wants it to be. Right now, trans women as a whole don’t seem to causing any apocalyptic upheavals with their alleged performance advantages. Let those who are most affected by it — the women athletes — talk if they feel like something is egregiously unfair to them.
They are talking. They talked in the wake of the Penn swimmer; the tweet at the top of this thread is from a women's sports account. They speak out and are tarred with the epithet TrAnSpHoBe for doing so. Don't underestimate the power of social media psychos to shut down conversations these days, and don't underestimate the bravery it takes to speak against what seems to be prevailing trends (backed with threats) no matter what the subject. In many cases, people making the same argument you're making are basically saying loudly, "well if I haven't heard complaints from the 15 year old girls, I guess it's all fair!" and often then whispering "and I might send death threats to her if she does, but that's totally unrelated." But regardless of whether the whispered bit is there, it should never be incumbent on minors to fix problems of adults' making, the adults should be the sensible ones.
Indeed, everyone with an interest in fair sport ought to speak up, regardless of whether their event is afflicted by the issue or not. Bear in mind too that on average, women are more likely to take an agreeable, don't-rock-the-boat approach. It's awesome when women stand up and stop taking crap, but as in all things, men and women bring different advantages to any situation, on average. Sometimes you need someone who DGAF about personal attacks and will just say what needs to be said. I love when a person like that is a woman but let's be honest, there are more men like that. If you care about fair sport, you should be talking about this regardless of sex.
You know this thread is about a skimo athlete, right?
Everybody understands that your sex organs in the common case correlate with a performance advantage or lack thereof. It is also true that those advantages lie on a distribution, and that intra-group differences far outweigh the average inter-group advantage.
There is no inherent reason why sport “should be” any particular way. It’s primary purposes are entertainment for society and money-making for organizers, so sport is just what society wants it to be. Right now, trans women as a whole don’t seem to causing any apocalyptic upheavals with their alleged performance advantages. Let those who are most affected by it — the women athletes — talk if they feel like something is egregiously unfair to them.
Sport is not for entertainment and making money, it is for health, competition and helping young people to improve their physical being.
That includes trans people, they deserve a chance to participate is sports, the problem is deciding what competitions they should be allowed in. In some of the examples cited, I would say they should not be allowed because of an unfair advantage. But banning 100 percent of them is not the answer. Some who are far down the road of taking female hormones, etc., should not be competing with men, because they have lost their unfair advantage. So far nobody has given an answer to where that person should be allowed to compete.
We are talking about organized competitive sport here, not just sport generally or exercise or child’s play etc., and my view is that organized competitive sport’s purpose is entertainment and money-making, that’s it.
So it’s a business and entertainment is the product being sold, thus 1) the people selling the product, 2) the people buying the product, 3) the athletes embedded in the product itself, and 4) the product’s regulatory bodies are the people whose opinions matter, all constrained by laws or the constitution of the region as applicable.
Right now, the regulatory bodies of the broad sporting categories seem to be doing a fine job with the eligibility rules (for the most part) for your question in bold.
They are talking. They talked in the wake of the Penn swimmer; the tweet at the top of this thread is from a women's sports account. They speak out and are tarred with the epithet TrAnSpHoBe for doing so. Don't underestimate the power of social media psychos to shut down conversations these days, and don't underestimate the bravery it takes to speak against what seems to be prevailing trends (backed with threats) no matter what the subject. In many cases, people making the same argument you're making are basically saying loudly, "well if I haven't heard complaints from the 15 year old girls, I guess it's all fair!" and often then whispering "and I might send death threats to her if she does, but that's totally unrelated." But regardless of whether the whispered bit is there, it should never be incumbent on minors to fix problems of adults' making, the adults should be the sensible ones.
Indeed, everyone with an interest in fair sport ought to speak up, regardless of whether their event is afflicted by the issue or not. Bear in mind too that on average, women are more likely to take an agreeable, don't-rock-the-boat approach. It's awesome when women stand up and stop taking crap, but as in all things, men and women bring different advantages to any situation, on average. Sometimes you need someone who DGAF about personal attacks and will just say what needs to be said. I love when a person like that is a woman but let's be honest, there are more men like that. If you care about fair sport, you should be talking about this regardless of sex.
You know this thread is about a skimo athlete, right?
Why does that matter? I'm talking about the issue in general terms. Because that's ultimately what the issue is. It isn't "oh, well, in swimming they cant compete, but skimo they can, baseball no, football maybe, speed skating definitely not except on Tuesdays..."
We do have sports that are always co-ed (equestrian) or are sometimes co-ed (sailing) where you wouldn't care about trans participation, but in any single-sex sport it's an issue.
Though I'm starting to notice this about you. You always have some excuse about why any given situation isn't a big deal because some circumstance: it's only the one swimmer, it's skimo so who cares, stuff like that. I would think that after like the 100th time you've been forced to come up with a circumstantial reason to say "the whole trans sports issue isn't a big deal because (something that applies to the particular instance discussed in the thread)" you'd recognize the silliness and emptiness of your reasoning. It's only a slight exaggeration to say you're saying, 'this is the 100th time I've had to tell you this never happens.'
You know this thread is about a skimo athlete, right?
Why does that matter? I'm talking about the issue in general terms. Because that's ultimately what the issue is. It isn't "oh, well, in swimming they cant compete, but skimo they can, baseball no, football maybe, speed skating definitely not except on Tuesdays..."
We do have sports that are always co-ed (equestrian) or are sometimes co-ed (sailing) where you wouldn't care about trans participation, but in any single-sex sport it's an issue.
Though I'm starting to notice this about you. You always have some excuse about why any given situation isn't a big deal because some circumstance: it's only the one swimmer, it's skimo so who cares, stuff like that. I would think that after like the 100th time you've been forced to come up with a circumstantial reason to say "the whole trans sports issue isn't a big deal because (something that applies to the particular instance discussed in the thread)" you'd recognize the silliness and emptiness of your reasoning. It's only a slight exaggeration to say you're saying, 'this is the 100th time I've had to tell you this never happens.'
You seem to believe that 220K NCAA athletes should be protesting about a skimo athlete, but it’s ridiculous to expect them to be outraged based on an issue in general terms and not actual people.
International Ski Mountaineering Federation governs skimo and it’s their problem and no one else’s. You seem to think millions should be worked up over skimo and Canadian masters running but, sorry, they’re not.
"Assigned" implies that someone made a declaration of your sex, not that there was a penis or vagina or explicit physical markers of sex. It takes what is a material fact and obfuscates it as a fallible opinion.
'at Birth" further implies that this "assignment" of sex is something fluid, malleable, transient.
So true. My daughter wasn't assigned female at birth. She is female and will be female her entire life no matter how she identifies.
They actually told us she was female before she was born. My wife is pregnant right now. They have told us we're having a daughter. Same thing applies.
The intentionally misleading "assigned at birth" terminology used by trans activists is a tipoff or tell that the people employing and promoting this phrasing have little to zero knowledge of what's actually involved in human pregnancy, childbirth, women's prenatal care, embryology, newborn care and birth registration.
Sonograms that can tell the sex of fetuses based observation of genital anatomy have been a standard part of prenatal care for nearly 40 years. These are usually done in the second-semester, anywhere from 14 to 20 weeks of pregnancy - long before birth.
Genetic testing that can tell the sex of a fetus based on sex chromosomes has been around since the 1970s - and testing to see if the male-determining SRY gene is present has been possible since 1990-91.
Fetal genetic testing through amniocentesis, which has been used for 50 years, is usually performed at 16-20 weeks. Since the mid-late 1980s, another method of fetal genetic testing, CVS, has been used - it can tell fetal sex at 8-9 weeks.
Today, however, the invasive methods of fetal DNA testing, amnio and CVS, are no longer needed to find out the sex of a human fetus long before birth. Now an inexpensive test known as the NIPT makes it easy to find out the chromosomnal and genetic sex of a fetus as early as 9 weeks of pregnancy using a small sample of a pregnant woman's blood drawn from the arm or fingertip in the standard way.
So true. My daughter wasn't assigned female at birth. She is female and will be female her entire life no matter how she identifies.
They actually told us she was female before she was born. My wife is pregnant right now. They have told us we're having a daughter. Same thing applies.
Congratulations on being a "normal" parent of "normal" daughters. You should be really proud of your normalcy.
Unfortunaely, some people are not as lucky as you and your daugthers. This person's mother had a traffic accident while being pregnant, and had to go through all kinds of tests at a hospital. She was told the baby would be a boy, so they were preparing for a boy's name and all that.
And then, they were completely surprised when this person was born.
This week, hear Alicia’s experience of being intersex, how her childhood and the rest of her life has been affected by this, and what we can do as allies to ...
So true. My daughter wasn't assigned female at birth. She is female and will be female her entire life no matter how she identifies.
They actually told us she was female before she was born. My wife is pregnant right now. They have told us we're having a daughter. Same thing applies.
Congratulations on being a "normal" parent of "normal" daughters. You should be really proud of your normalcy.
Unfortunaely, some people are not as lucky as you and your daugthers. This person's mother had a traffic accident while being pregnant, and had to go through all kinds of tests at a hospital. She was told the baby would be a boy, so they were preparing for a boy's name and all that.
And then, they were completely surprised when this person was born.
Good for you that you and your daughters do not have to go through all this.
Yeah, lots of strong stands on these threads, but things are a lot different when you have to confront these issues in real life. If you are the actual parent of a non binary or trans or intersex child and have to tell them, no, they can’t can’t compete in the category in which they identify as belonging. That’s not easy and takes empathy to see how hard that would be. Wejo, you ready for that if it happens in your family? I’m sure you are. Yes, I realize it also would be hard to console your child who was out of the medals because of a trans athlete won instead. Everybody should visualize these scenarios before posting, especially when dealing with children (middle school, high school athletes).
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.