Huh? By likening the situation of male trans-identified athletes wanting in on girls's and women's sports to the male athletes being asked out on a date, you seem to be suggesting that girls and women initiated this conflict by inviting trans-identified males to join our sports. As though the female half of the American population one day decided, "Gee, wouldn't it be swell to open up girls' and women's sports to blokes!"
That's not what's happened at all.
What actually happened is that in recent years male trans-identified people and gender identity ideology campaign groups quietly went to sports policy makers and powerful institutions in society; sold them a bill of goods full of confusing, nonsensical gibberish about gender; told them some sad stories about unhappy men and boys who wish they were female and believe they were born "with girl brains in boys' bodies;" infomed them that it's now "settled science" that "transwomen are women;" and used a bunch of buzzwords and slogans about "diversity and inclusion," "respecting identity" and honoring people's "authentic selves" and "personal truths... And in the process, the campaigners convinced the powers-that-be to change the rules and regulations around sex segregation in women's and girls' sports behind closed doors - without alerting the public, without bothering to consult girls and women, and without asking or considering how girls and women felt about this revolutionary change.
Using your dating analogy, what's happening today with the intrusion of males into women's and girls' sports strikes me as more like a a situation where a pushy, arrogant, entitled, self-centered, massive strong man built like Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson shows up at the home of the woman he fancies, bangs down her door with his mighty man strength and size, and informs her that she and her home now belong to him, and she has no choice in the matter - he's not going to take no for an answer.
When the woman reacts with alarm, horror and hesitancy - and tells the man lording it over her that she wants nothing to do with him and he needs to get out of her house immediately - the man who has suddenly intruded upon her private domain gets red in the face, screams abuse at her, flexes his muscles and orders her to shut up and put up - or else!
When the woman continues resisting the man - and repeats that she wants nothing to do with him, reminds him he barged in uninvited, and asks him to please leave her home and let her be - the man starts twisting her arm, smacking her on the head with his fist and alternates between threatening to punch her lights out, shouting that she's a hateful bxtch, bigot and manphobe who is hurting him and denying his existence, and telling her that if she doesn't yield and comply with his demands, he and all his guy friends are going to kill themselves - and it will be all her fault.
Here is the inconvenient truth for you.
Do you think transgender athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity (or) should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender?
Men - Play on teams that match gender identity 24%, Play on teams that match birth gender 72%.
Women -
Play on teams that match gender identity 43%, Play on teams that match birth gender 53%.
Your view is supported slightly over half of women, but nearly three quarters of men. There is nothing wrong with that. Both men and women disagree on this issue. However, you cannot present your view as THE women's view because almost half of women do not agree with you. It's just your opinion and opinions of other women who agree with you. (And far greater number of men.)
Mate, I don't believe I have ever said on LRC or anywhere else that my view is the view of all women and girls or that it's THE women's view.
I've been thinking and writing about sexism, sex discrimination, women's rights, feminism, Title IX, the physical differences between human males and females, the different life experiences of girls/women and boys/men, and other sundry so-called "women's issues" for many decades... So I know full well that women in the USA (and around the world) have many divergent, conflicting and opposing views on issues with special relevance to our lives as females, such as the topic under discussion here, as well as on virtually every other topic under the sun. Just as men do.
For the record, some of the biggest advocates of gender identity ideology, and the prime movers behind the push to "medically transition" children, are women. Moreover, a woman, Judith Butler, is genderism's chief theoretician. Some would even say Butler is to the Church of Genderology as L Ron Hubbard is to Scientology and Joseph Smith is to Mormonism/LDS.
Rojo is obsessed with trans. He must think about them constantly between his hourly naps, and probably dreams about them during. freudian analysis might be useful for rojo to come to grips with his deep seated desires.
I've never actually heard of a 25-year-old doing this, so it's a bit of a moot point, but even if it was not, age and gender are not equally fluid. For instance, you can go to your state's DMV or your company's HR department and change your gender. You cannot do the same thing with your age.
You can do more than that. In some states, you can change your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And I think both of those things are absurd. The state shouldn't be asking peope what gender they are. That's like asking what religion you are on a driver's license. If anything, they should just ask for your sex. I'd rather them not ask for you sex at all - just say Robert Johnson, height, weight and photo - than to ask for gender.
This is what grates my gears - Wanting to preserve a sporting category for biological women does not make one “anti-Trans” they are two totally seperate and unrelated situations. I am firmly against Trans males competing within the women’s division. But I fully support any person who is born one gender and yet relates as another to transition. I gained the outcry if an alien being from a planet with 20 times earths gravity with physical qualities that allowed it to blow away any male athlete, suddenly came to earth and decided it identified as a male…..No problem, unless they then used their alien advantage to gain an unfair and unbeatable advantage in a professional (or amateur) sporting arena.
rojo, as i understand it, the tucker position is that T, and sex, are really just proxies, and not very good ones, for the problem he's worried about. the problem he's worried about is the set of advantages conferred by the process of androgenization, right? the snapshot of T levels at age 22 doesn't tell us much at all about the androgenization process that has occurred before, and thus the focus on T is often a problematic distraction. most of the androgenization process that tucker, and you, and perhaps alex jones disciple runragged are worried about occurs during, and post-, (and to some extent pre-) puberty, yes? is that your position as well?
if it is, i have the following question: if, in a woke state, where they don't force kids to accept for life the gender assigned at birth, a kid realizes she's a girl at say, age 12, and she's allowed to start transitioning medically at that point--is she still not allowed to compete in women's sport? is that also true for the kid who starts transitioning at age 10? 6? . . . if the answer is, right, if she was born with a Y chromosome, she's never allowed--does that mean we're not talking about the process of androgenization at all, but instead something else? and if something else, what's the something else?
This issue certainly reveals here the inadequacies of some in following a reasoned argument.
The car analogy, as used by Tucker, is nothing more than saying an advantage denied to all other competitors is an unfair advantage, and that just as no runner can compete with a car, no female runner can compete against males. The issue isn't about cars or technological doping. That is merely the analogy to make the point that in every sense males and females are a different class of competitor and to be male is to be undeniably better - males have a better bigger engine, so to speak, and more gears, to continue that analogy.
Although the analogy can be questioned for being too absolute - there may be some male athletes who are inferior to females, whereas cars will always be faster than anyone - it would be generally true that being male is an undeniable advantage, and in most competitions where males and females would compete against each other the males would win.
However those who do not accept that is the case, or that it simply doesn't matter, because "inclusivity" is more important to them, will not accept the car analogy. To them, to be trans isn't to be better like a car is or they may think, quite simply, trans athletes should be allowed to drive cars if they want because participation matters more than fairness.
This issue certainly reveals here the inadequacies of some in following a reasoned argument.
The car analogy, as used by Tucker, is nothing more than saying an advantage denied to all other competitors is an unfair advantage, and that just as no runner can compete with a car, no female runner can compete against males. The issue isn't about cars or technological doping. That is merely the analogy to make the point that in every sense males and females are a different class of competitor and to be male is to be undeniably better - males have a better bigger engine, so to speak, and more gears, to continue that analogy.
Although the analogy can be questioned for being too absolute - there may be some male athletes who are inferior to females, whereas cars will always be faster than anyone - it would be generally true that being male is an undeniable advantage, and in most competitions where males and females would compete against each other the males would win.
However those who do not accept that is the case, or that it simply doesn't matter, because "inclusivity" is more important to them, will not accept the car analogy. To them, to be trans isn't to be better like a car is or they may think, quite simply, trans athletes should be allowed to drive cars if they want because participation matters more than fairness.
Having an advantage though is not in itself disqualifying. After all, when Kenenisa Bekele won 8 Track Gold medals and 12 World Cross Country Gold Medals he clearly had an advantage. So let us be clear: having an advantage is not in itself a reason for disqualification. After all, having an advantage is a huge part of what sports is about. I am fine with preventing trans from competing against women but the car is one of the most absurd analogies to persuade the intelligent. After all, if Kenenisa’s engine was superior why was he permitted to compete?
What if the person wasn't actually disabled but felt disabled? Should they enter the Paraolympics?
What if a fit strong athlete promised to wear a weight belt to compete against obese people of a higher weight? Do you see how that could be a problem?
We have strict rules defining who is which category for the Paraolympics. We don't just let The Rock or David Goggins throw on a weight-vest and destroy people in some event for obese people.
It mostly matters that people transition primarily in their hearts and minds. Their fist bones and hip-angle-ratios and shoulder tendons and skull thickness don't "transition." And for lots of sports, those are the things you are measuring in a women's division. The physical traits are the precise parts that don't transition.
But guess what? The paralympic categories are NOT based on the nature of disability. It is based on the degree of disadvantage. So people with different kinds of disability can be put in the same category simply because their degree of disability is deemed to be at the similar level. Moreover, this is not a fixed thing. If you regain some of the functions of your disabled body parts through rehab, you could be placed in a different category or lose your para eligibility altogether. (A person legally "disabled" can be denied eligibility for all categories.)
And here is another interesting fact about para sports. Able bodied people are eligible for at least some wheelchair basketball games, as long as they stay in the wheelchair for the entire game. The same thing for sitting volleyball. So able bodied people and disabled people can actually play with or against one another in those games.
Sports eligibility rules are based on the perceived competitive fairness, and not on some immutable categories that divide people. "Change of allegiance" rules are different for different sports, and this is all for the sake of competitive balance.
But some people are so dead set against trans athletes, they don't even want to allow trans boys to be in boys' competition. Obviously, that has nothing to do with competitive fairness.
But some people are so dead set against trans athletes, they don't even want to allow trans boys to be in boys' competition. Obviously, that has nothing to do with competitive fairness.
Just saying, if the trans boys are on synthetic testosterone, then that could legit affect competitive fairness, unless you let all competitors take unrestricted synthetic testosterone. I'm not saying it affects the winner necessarily, but a trans boy juiced to the gills on T might take a team place from a low T boy who doesn't have the advantage of taking drugs for performance.
Is it anti-transgender, or is it just plain common sense?
Common sense isn't so common when most people are no more complex than a simple virus.
They get "infected" by some opinions from someone they usually respect, they incubate by "doing their research" and by reading a bunch of "unbiased" media sources and online forums, and then they replicate by trying to convert strangers on the internet to their point of view.
What if the person wasn't actually disabled but felt disabled? Should they enter the Paraolympics?
What if a fit strong athlete promised to wear a weight belt to compete against obese people of a higher weight? Do you see how that could be a problem?
We have strict rules defining who is which category for the Paraolympics. We don't just let The Rock or David Goggins throw on a weight-vest and destroy people in some event for obese people.
It mostly matters that people transition primarily in their hearts and minds. Their fist bones and hip-angle-ratios and shoulder tendons and skull thickness don't "transition." And for lots of sports, those are the things you are measuring in a women's division. The physical traits are the precise parts that don't transition.
But guess what? The paralympic categories are NOT based on the nature of disability. It is based on the degree of disadvantage. So people with different kinds of disability can be put in the same category simply because their degree of disability is deemed to be at the similar level. Moreover, this is not a fixed thing. If you regain some of the functions of your disabled body parts through rehab, you could be placed in a different category or lose your para eligibility altogether. (A person legally "disabled" can be denied eligibility for all categories.)
And here is another interesting fact about para sports. Able bodied people are eligible for at least some wheelchair basketball games, as long as they stay in the wheelchair for the entire game. The same thing for sitting volleyball. So able bodied people and disabled people can actually play with or against one another in those games.
Sports eligibility rules are based on the perceived competitive fairness, and not on some immutable categories that divide people. "Change of allegiance" rules are different for different sports, and this is all for the sake of competitive balance.
But some people are so dead set against trans athletes, they don't even want to allow trans boys to be in boys' competition. Obviously, that has nothing to do with competitive fairness.
It sounds like you’re saying we need to create a whole movement toward trans-only competitions where transwomen can compete against other transwomen to their heart’s content, and transmen against transmen. We can hold the events in the same city as the equivalent able-minded events, about two weeks later.
Is he basing his argument on a false notion that people who support trans athletes competing in their gender are also in favor of athletes using cars in races? If so, that’s…. dumb.
Using a car is against the rules in men’s and women’s races. Running a race as a man is not against the rules. You can’t make an analogy between those two things.
Another point that Ross is missing is that most trans-inclusive supporters are not basing their support on these “fairness” arguments.
His fifth point is the most flimsy. The kind of folks who seem obsessed with monitoring T levels for each athlete are the ones who it seems would allow cars with speed limiters. On the contrary, I support trans athletes running in a race regardless of their T levels. Their gender is what is important, not their body chemistry.
Let the human beings run against each other and see who gets to the line first. It’s a simple sport. If that person is a man, woman, or otherwise, I don’t care, so long as it is human body vs. human body.
dude you missed the point. he was responding to a pro trans in womens sport who used the analogy. so thick
Serious question: Why do people give this stuff the amount of thought they do? This issue has been blown way out of proportion.
In Utah, a conservative state, their republican governor vetoed a bill banning transgender students from playing in girls' sports just last year. Why? Out of 85k HS athletes, there were only 4 trans athletes, and only 1 in girls' sports. Are those percentages that cry out for this much coverage of the perceived injustices in girls' sports? Might it be a better use of time to fight for more resources or coverage of girls' sports? We don't need a thread about this & we don't need to be talking about this. People pile on the trans community every single time this discussion happens.
Certain media outlets make sure that you hear about every successful trans athlete and make sure that you get mad about it. Who does that serve? They'd rather you be mad at trans kids & devote your time to "saving girls' sports" rather than being angry at income inequality, politicians being bought, military spending, etc.
This issue certainly reveals here the inadequacies of some in following a reasoned argument.
The car analogy, as used by Tucker, is nothing more than saying an advantage denied to all other competitors is an unfair advantage, and that just as no runner can compete with a car, no female runner can compete against males. The issue isn't about cars or technological doping. That is merely the analogy to make the point that in every sense males and females are a different class of competitor and to be male is to be undeniably better - males have a better bigger engine, so to speak, and more gears, to continue that analogy.
Although the analogy can be questioned for being too absolute - there may be some male athletes who are inferior to females, whereas cars will always be faster than anyone - it would be generally true that being male is an undeniable advantage, and in most competitions where males and females would compete against each other the males would win.
However those who do not accept that is the case, or that it simply doesn't matter, because "inclusivity" is more important to them, will not accept the car analogy. To them, to be trans isn't to be better like a car is or they may think, quite simply, trans athletes should be allowed to drive cars if they want because participation matters more than fairness.
Having an advantage though is not in itself disqualifying. After all, when Kenenisa Bekele won 8 Track Gold medals and 12 World Cross Country Gold Medals he clearly had an advantage. So let us be clear: having an advantage is not in itself a reason for disqualification. After all, having an advantage is a huge part of what sports is about. I am fine with preventing trans from competing against women but the car is one of the most absurd analogies to persuade the intelligent. After all, if Kenenisa’s engine was superior why was he permitted to compete?
The issue is not an advantage as such - every competition is decided by some kind of superiority (as Bekele had) - it is an advantage automatically denied other competitors by category - such as weight or age, or sex - or by chemical enhancement such as through doping.
Your example about Bekele isn't the same argument. Yes - he may have had a better "engine" than other competitors but they all had their own variety of "engine", as he and they were all male. But - to use your analogy - to be a trans competing against females is to have the kind of engine no female can have. That goes against the very reason for having a female category.
Let's be fair. Rojo is not anti-transgender but rather anti-transwomen in women's sport. There is a HUGE difference. If you think this debate is just a Trojan horse for haters to sneak in so more hate on trans people, you are wrong.
Most every single person I know (I am liberal) is not anti-trans. But we are 100% against having transwomen in women's competitive sport.
Heck, we don't even care if transwomen want to jog along mid-pack at the New York marathon (for example), but if they are competing, taking prize money, standing on podiums, bumping girls off teams, then yes, we are 100% against that.
But we are not anti-trans. We support people to live their best possible lives; you do you! I'll support that unless you are stepping on other people's toes. Because, obviously, we also support those rights for biological women too.
A blanket ban on anything is a sign of being against that thing. It is saying that all transgender athletes have an unfair advantage, which isn't always the case.
It means they don't want to try and understand the point of view of the transgender athletes. It means they don't want to find an appropriate arena for transgender athletes. It means they just want to ban people so they don't have to wrap their minds around it any more.
I agree that the examples being used are egregious and those trans athletes should not be allowed in women's sports. But there are other trans athletes who should not be forced into men's sports, because they don't have the unfair advantage, so it would be unfair to them.
Yes - he may have had a better "engine" than other competitors but they all had their own variety of "engine", as he and they were all male.
haha, that's just circular, and you know it. that's why i brought up the tucker position. it may well be that androgenization gives an advantage that is different in kind from whatever advantage bekele had. i'm not certain that's right, but i'll concede it for our purposes here. but i don't believe tucker, or anyone thinking about the "evidence," would conclude that "being male" tells us much at all, whereas the car does. i think this part of the argument may be over, as it sounds like we're talking about a kind of feeling.
But - to use your analogy - to be a trans competing against females is to have the kind of engine no female can have. That goes against the very reason for having a female category.
same logic problem, right? trans doesn't = advantage, androgenization does, according to tucker. i could see an argument that says, well, it's too hard to draw the line as to when androgenization starts to provide benefits, so if the potential for androgenization is there in a way it isn't for female athletes, ban it. this, in my view, is akin to the pro-slavery argument that life begins at conception, but it's at least justifiable in the sense that there isn't any obvious response, other than that we draw lines all the time, and we're probably capable of doing that here, so we might as well try in a way that achieves socially productive goals, only one of which is "keep women separate, for the sake of women." but the argument that "to be trans is to have a different engine" is just circular and silly, unless trans here is a stand-in for "to be trans and have gone through the process of androgenization." but i don't think, for most women's separatists, that's actually what it means. and so i think again possibly this argument is over, as we're just talking about some kind of feeling.
I'm as far left as you can get - and I don't want trans women in women's sports either. So F you.
Sorry jonno but you do support trans women in women's sports, 100% you do. Just look how your leftist party just voted in the house, unanimously supporting men masquerading as women for athletic achievement. As a self-proclaimed "far left" person, trans issues are at the top of your party's list so by extension, you are a massive supporter of this nonsense by voting for them.
Yes - he may have had a better "engine" than other competitors but they all had their own variety of "engine", as he and they were all male.
haha, that's just circular, and you know it. that's why i brought up the tucker position. it may well be that androgenization gives an advantage that is different in kind from whatever advantage bekele had. i'm not certain that's right, but i'll concede it for our purposes here. but i don't believe tucker, or anyone thinking about the "evidence," would conclude that "being male" tells us much at all, whereas the car does. i think this part of the argument may be over, as it sounds like we're talking about a kind of feeling.
But - to use your analogy - to be a trans competing against females is to have the kind of engine no female can have. That goes against the very reason for having a female category.
same logic problem, right? trans doesn't = advantage, androgenization does, according to tucker. i could see an argument that says, well, it's too hard to draw the line as to when androgenization starts to provide benefits, so if the potential for androgenization is there in a way it isn't for female athletes, ban it. this, in my view, is akin to the pro-slavery argument that life begins at conception, but it's at least justifiable in the sense that there isn't any obvious response, other than that we draw lines all the time, and we're probably capable of doing that here, so we might as well try in a way that achieves socially productive goals, only one of which is "keep women separate, for the sake of women." but the argument that "to be trans is to have a different engine" is just circular and silly, unless trans here is a stand-in for "to be trans and have gone through the process of androgenization." but i don't think, for most women's separatists, that's actually what it means. and so i think again possibly this argument is over, as we're just talking about some kind of feeling.
It isn't a circular argument. The advantage a trans athlete has is an advantage that comes from being different in kind, that absolutely no female can have. It isn't the advantage a superior athlete has over athletes in the same category or class - such as in age, weight, or sex. The latter is the Bekele advantage; not the former.
The issue isn't androgenization, either. The car analogy was not used in respect of those athletes who are female but have a "masculinization" of certain biological features. The analogy was used in respect of athletes who are male that identify as female. I would add that all trans who have gone through puberty have the advantage of "androgenization". In this context, the terms mean effectively the same thing - trans or male characteristics that give male advantage (and we aren't talking about children here).
But some people are so dead set against trans athletes, they don't even want to allow trans boys to be in boys' competition. Obviously, that has nothing to do with competitive fairness.
Just saying, if the trans boys are on synthetic testosterone, then that could legit affect competitive fairness, unless you let all competitors take unrestricted synthetic testosterone. I'm not saying it affects the winner necessarily, but a trans boy juiced to the gills on T might take a team place from a low T boy who doesn't have the advantage of taking drugs for performance.
Okay, so let me get this straight.
A trans girl cannot erase all the genetic advantage even after lowering her T to the female level.
But a trans boy can erase all the genetic disadvantage plus some by elevating his T level to the male level?
Can't this be easily regulated by requiring TUE for the exogenous T, and setting the upper limit?
If a trans boy beats some cis boys, that means those boys are less talented. There are cis girls who can beat some cis boys without changing their T level. Some boys just have to accept that they don't always beat every natal female.
Serious question: Why do people give this stuff the amount of thought they do? This issue has been blown way out of proportion.
In Utah, a conservative state, their republican governor vetoed a bill banning transgender students from playing in girls' sports just last year. Why? Out of 85k HS athletes, there were only 4 trans athletes, and only 1 in girls' sports. Are those percentages that cry out for this much coverage of the perceived injustices in girls' sports? Might it be a better use of time to fight for more resources or coverage of girls' sports? We don't need a thread about this & we don't need to be talking about this. People pile on the trans community every single time this discussion happens.
Certain media outlets make sure that you hear about every successful trans athlete and make sure that you get mad about it. Who does that serve? They'd rather you be mad at trans kids & devote your time to "saving girls' sports" rather than being angry at income inequality, politicians being bought, military spending, etc.
You should expect to see Lia Thomas featured in a lot of campaign ads next year.
"My democratic opponent voted to include men's bodies in women's sports. She is the enemy of all women, and I am the true protector of women!"
Never mind that HR734 has nothing to do with Lia Thomas, but everything to do with kids like that one student in Utah. But the Rs have already won the propaganda war.