Yes, but a woman taking so much testosterone she grows a beard isn't even the microdosing that likely occurs among all elites. It's like 1990s level EPO usage.
The so-called "transphobes" aren't arguing that trans people are literally erasing women. They're arguing that replacing sex with gender in law and social discourse logically leads to the erasure of women as a coherent category in said laws and policies. They also believe that women, whom they define as adult human females, exist as a distinct type of person regardless social and cultural context. In other words, they are an incontestable fact of human existence.
You really don’t see the irony in what you write, do you? The trans folks have an exactly analogous argument for their figurative erasure. You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.
There is no irony in arguing that women exist in the material world, independent of what we think about them.
Trans is a cultural category. Even in the US context over the past 20 years, the category lacks a stable meaning. There is nothing about trans-identified people that unifies them as a group in the material world except for performative speech acts (i.e. "I say that I'm trans, therefore I am"). They don't exist, as such, independent of historical and cultural context. It's ethnocentric to suggest that they do.
I'll take it even one step further: people who sincerely struggle to accept their sexed bodies and decide to live as if they are members of the other sex have been colonized by narcissists and psychopaths who are doing more damage to their ability to exist peacefully in the world than the so-called TERFS can ever do.
The biggest issue here is that we have groups of people (postmodern identitarians) whose entire sense of self is filtered through a contested political ideology. They experience political disagreement as an existential threat. They respond with totalitarian tactics but belive they're the harbingers of liberation.
BTW, I am NOT a postmodern identarian. So I don't know why you continue to insist that I am. Isn't that the very definition of twisting other people's words and being manipulative?
Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with GD must agree among themselves? Has it ever occurred to you that two people who both disagree with you actually may not agree with each other?
“Postmodern identarian”, ha ha ha hah! GD seems perfectly well educated in the very social sciencey crock of which she is blithely contemptuous when it’s convenient.
You really don’t see the irony in what you write, do you? The trans folks have an exactly analogous argument for their figurative erasure. You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.
There is no irony in arguing that women exist in the material world, independent of what we think about them.
Trans is a cultural category. Even in the US context over the past 20 years, the category lacks a stable meaning. There is nothing about trans-identified people that unifies them as a group in the material world except for performative speech acts (i.e. "I say that I'm trans, therefore I am"). They don't exist, as such, independent of historical and cultural context. It's ethnocentric to suggest that they do.
Trans folk have been around and documented for millenia in cultures around the world in spoken mythology as well as written history. Their social ostracism throughout history would be a heavy price to pay just for the sake of a kinky performance.
What part of a “man trapped in a woman’s body” or the other way round lacks stability or meaning? You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.
Cal is a non binary runner who was assigned female at birth. But now Cal competes in non-binary categories, and will do so at the Chicago Marathon. They were reported to USADA for testosterone use, which obviously they use.
On the one hand, it's clear they are using testosterone because they are trans, not because they want an athletic advantage. On the other hand, testosterone is a classic banned substance in athletics.
On the one hand, they compete in non binary categories, not against other female runners. Good on them. On the other hand--well, testosterone is still...banned.
Ultimately, the question I keep coming back to is this: why should any category exempt athletes from using banned substances, even non-binary? Men can't take testosterone, women can't take testosterone. Why are non-binary athletes, even female non binary athletes an exception?
As bad as this is for Cal, I think thems the rules. Cal should have gotten a TUE for testosterone, not blissfully taken a banned substance while competing in a category that at times has prize money.
This was reported in bad faith but trans/nonbinary athletes can't keep skirting the rules choosing whatever category they want, and then acting like it's an injustice when they are told no. Testosterone is banned! They should have gotten a TUE!
Ooof. Tough one. One possibility: allow the testosterone use for this category as that is consistent with the intent (i.e. to create a space for non-binary individuals). But take away the prize money so as that this does not devolve into a pharmaceutical arms race, where people take higher-than-necessary doses to win cash. Participation in the non-binary category must be declared in advance.
Cal is a non binary runner who was assigned female at birth. But now Cal competes in non-binary categories, and will do so at the Chicago Marathon. They were reported to USADA for testosterone use, which obviously they use.
On the one hand, it's clear they are using testosterone because they are trans, not because they want an athletic advantage. On the other hand, testosterone is a classic banned substance in athletics.
On the one hand, they compete in non binary categories, not against other female runners. Good on them. On the other hand--well, testosterone is still...banned.
Ultimately, the question I keep coming back to is this: why should any category exempt athletes from using banned substances, even non-binary? Men can't take testosterone, women can't take testosterone. Why are non-binary athletes, even female non binary athletes an exception?
As bad as this is for Cal, I think thems the rules. Cal should have gotten a TUE for testosterone, not blissfully taken a banned substance while competing in a category that at times has prize money.
This was reported in bad faith but trans/nonbinary athletes can't keep skirting the rules choosing whatever category they want, and then acting like it's an injustice when they are told no. Testosterone is banned! They should have gotten a TUE!
Ooof. Tough one. One possibility: allow the testosterone use for this category as that is consistent with the intent (i.e. to create a space for non-binary individuals). But take away the prize money so as that this does not devolve into a pharmaceutical arms race, where people take higher-than-necessary doses to win cash. Participation in the non-binary category must be declared in advance.
I must be a transphobe. Whatever that thing in the picture on page 1 of this thread is, is frightening!
your comment sucks. And comments like this undermine people who really want to see policies in place that protect women's sports and all sporting categories because it makes it look like people who want to see these policies enacted would also say stuff like this.
Also, I don't like to comment on appearance, but whatever you think about the situation, this is an objectively good looking individual.
Ultimately, what Cal is trying to argue for is special treatment, and they are spinning the facts around to make it seem like they are being banned for being trans, which is NOT true here. The reality is Cal competes in races for prize money and has sponsorships. They also take testosterone, a banned substance without properly informing USADA of doing so, and so USADA is following up because they were duly notified of an athlete breaking the rules.
Had Cal sought a TUE the way they should have done in the first place, this wouldn't be happening. But they did not, and like any athlete who takes a banned drug without a TUE, they are facing the consequences. Honestly Cal is lucky they still have a chance to run Chicago at all and isn't currently serving a ban.
You cannot get a TUE for low testosterone. This was famously an issue for Ryan Hall who had clinically diagnosable low T near the end of his career but could not get treatment.
There is no irony in arguing that women exist in the material world, independent of what we think about them.
Trans is a cultural category. Even in the US context over the past 20 years, the category lacks a stable meaning. There is nothing about trans-identified people that unifies them as a group in the material world except for performative speech acts (i.e. "I say that I'm trans, therefore I am"). They don't exist, as such, independent of historical and cultural context. It's ethnocentric to suggest that they do.
Trans folk have been around and documented for millenia in cultures around the world in spoken mythology as well as written history. Their social ostracism throughout history would be a heavy price to pay just for the sake of a kinky performance.
What part of a “man trapped in a woman’s body” or the other way round lacks stability or meaning? You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.
How does a human being get trapped into the wrong body, besides being eaten by a whale, bear, lion, etc.?
It seems far more parsimonious (in the scientific or Occam's razor sense and not the sense of stinginess (of compassion)) to believe that someone is thinking wrongly rather than to believe that he or she was, somehow, born into the wrong body. Far, far, far, more parsimonious.
Trans folk have been around and documented for millenia in cultures around the world in spoken mythology as well as written history. Their social ostracism throughout history would be a heavy price to pay just for the sake of a kinky performance.
What part of a “man trapped in a woman’s body” or the other way round lacks stability or meaning? You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.
How does a human being get trapped into the wrong body, besides being eaten by a whale, bear, lion, etc.?
It seems far more parsimonious (in the scientific or Occam's razor sense and not the sense of stinginess (of compassion)) to believe that someone is thinking wrongly rather than to believe that he or she was, somehow, born into the wrong body. Far, far, far, more parsimonious.
This is exactly correct. "Trapped in the wrong body" is a completely new idea. People can feel uncomfortable or "dysphoric" about their gender. This doesn’t mean their innthe wrong body. As if there is some supernatural "true gender" separate from the body.
It certainly doesn't mean the treatment for feeding uncomfortable with your body is to take drastic, permanent measures to take away the dysphoria.
Cal is a non binary runner who was assigned female at birth. But now Cal competes in non-binary categories, and will do so at the Chicago Marathon. They were reported to USADA for testosterone use, which obviously they use.
On the one hand, it's clear they are using testosterone because they are trans, not because they want an athletic advantage. On the other hand, testosterone is a classic banned substance in athletics.
On the one hand, they compete in non binary categories, not against other female runners. Good on them. On the other hand--well, testosterone is still...banned.
Ultimately, the question I keep coming back to is this: why should any category exempt athletes from using banned substances, even non-binary? Men can't take testosterone, women can't take testosterone. Why are non-binary athletes, even female non binary athletes an exception?
As bad as this is for Cal, I think thems the rules. Cal should have gotten a TUE for testosterone, not blissfully taken a banned substance while competing in a category that at times has prize money.
This was reported in bad faith but trans/nonbinary athletes can't keep skirting the rules choosing whatever category they want, and then acting like it's an injustice when they are told no. Testosterone is banned! They should have gotten a TUE!
how will this effect LRC's non-binary Chicago preview?
You stated that people are erasing others' existence because they don't view non-binary-identified people as a group that warrants their own category in sport and major social institutions.
Umm.. where did I state that, either on this thread or anywhere else on this board?
Do you have any problem with reading comprehension? If English happens to be your third or fourth language, is there any other language you are more comfortable with?
How does a human being get trapped into the wrong body, besides being eaten by a whale, bear, lion, etc.?
It seems far more parsimonious (in the scientific or Occam's razor sense and not the sense of stinginess (of compassion)) to believe that someone is thinking wrongly rather than to believe that he or she was, somehow, born into the wrong body. Far, far, far, more parsimonious.
This is exactly correct. "Trapped in the wrong body" is a completely new idea. People can feel uncomfortable or "dysphoric" about their gender. This doesn’t mean their innthe wrong body. As if there is some supernatural "true gender" separate from the body.
It certainly doesn't mean the treatment for feeding uncomfortable with your body is to take drastic, permanent measures to take away the dysphoria.
It's not a new idea to be fair. Trans people have always existed, and have even been written into ancient literature.
But I do wonder how much of gender dysphoria today is A) tied to other mental health issues and mental illnesses and B) over diagnosed.
With that being said, I am a huge proponent of taking people at face value. There are issues with sports and fairness, and cis women's need for their own spaces. But other than that, trans people deserve to live lives with dignity, privacy, and opportunity like everyone else. And I think this means believing them when they say they are trans. I don't have all the answers of the universe, ya know?
So I'm not a big fan of interfering in someone's medical choices, just as I am not one to interfere in someone's right to plastic surgery, birth control pills, an abortion etc.
I don't criticize what clothes they wear, or what pronouns they use, and I also don't have a heart attack every time I see pronouns in a bio.
Debating the reality of trans people devolves quickly into bigotry. But fairness in sports is a legitimate argument to make.
Trans is a cultural category. Even in the US context over the past 20 years, the category lacks a stable meaning. There is nothing about trans-identified people that unifies them as a group in the material world except for performative speech acts (i.e. "I say that I'm trans, therefore I am"). They don't exist, as such, independent of historical and cultural context. It's ethnocentric to suggest that they do.
Here is the fallacy in your reasoning. Just because there is no stable definition for a concept, that does not mean that the concept itself does not exist independent of historical and cultural context.
What you are doing here is classical conservative self-preservation. "I don't understand what it means to be transgender, therefore I decide it is a made-up concept. That makes me comfortable."
It is quite rich that you mention ethnocentrism because your entire argument is highly ethnocentric. What is known as "trans trender vs. trans medicalist" debate in the US today had already taken place more than a decade ago in another country, although each group was described by different names. It's not well-known in the US because it has never been reported in English language media.
So my question to you is, why did this exact same debate take place in two different countries at two different times if the entire concept totally depends on cultural and historical context? I don't think many people in the US were aware they were repeating the same debate that had already taken place somewhere else.
I appreciate that this post pointed out the need for empathy as I think that's necessary to create an environment where people are welcome to our sport. Here are some of my thoughts after reading this discussion. (I find these conversations interesting, because they require us to balance empathy, fairness, science, etc, and I appreciate that this thread has a mostly polite discussion.)
Protecting women's sport is important. As a female, I have a vested interest in this and it isn't just performative for me. At the same time, I don't want to exclude or push down another group of people, because that would be repeating the history that happened to us.
Most people on this thread except the Fairness poster agree that it is best to divide people by biological sex in running competitions for many reasons previously stated. But we also know that sex isn't completely binary, see DSD athletes like Caster and trans people who don't easily fit into one of these two categories. Then there is the additional issue of gender, which is a social construct based on sex, but really has nothing to do with a person's athletic abilities.
If we start considering all of the ways to divide people by sex, we'll have categories for Male, Female, Trans MtF, Trans FtM, and maybe a few different DSD categories. Wouldn't we need a nonbinary/biological male and nonbinary/biological female category? Then are there awards for all of those categories? What if there is a person who doesn't fit in any of these categories? Do we make a new one?
I'm not convinced that this is the most reasonable/fair solution.
A often-suggested solution is for two categories: Open and Female. If your sex, gender, puberty experience, and hormone profile fit the Female category - go there. If they don't, you're welcome to participate in the Open category. One of the arguments against three categories (M/F/nonbinary) is it gives men the chance to win twice. This takes that away. It's also quite simple to change the wording from "Male" to "Open" which (in my opinion) is much more inclusive.
So back to Cal and the reason for this discussion. It's important to be inclusive and allow a person like Cal to participate in sport, but you also have to draw the line with PEDs. Maybe a trans person who is going through hormone therapy has the chance to compete in the Open category, but isn't eligible to win monetary prizes because PEDs are banned substances. I don't think anyone would argue that trans people take testosterone or go through a transition specifically to get on the podium of a 5k. But there are advantages to taking PEDs or going through puberty as a male and we have to figure out how to be inclusive and empathetic while leveling the playing field.
But we can't lose sight of this: prizes and awards are exclusive by definition. Give everyone a finisher medal and t-shirt, sure, allow people the chance to participate and celebrate crossing the finish line. But not everyone deserves first place and we don't need to make new categories for everyone to feel like they are a winner.
Some of this reminds me of the Tracksmith thread, where people are complaining that they should be able to get a BQ singlet even if they didn't qualify because they are also a hardworking runner. But isn't this why we have competitions, to choose who is the fastest and exclusively reward those people? Is it unfair to say, "if you're taking a PED, you're not eligible for prizes"?
All of this is reasonable to me, but I am curious if there are other opinions and perspectives that do a better job of being inclusive, empathetic, fair, and reasonable to the spirit of competition.
This is exactly correct. "Trapped in the wrong body" is a completely new idea. People can feel uncomfortable or "dysphoric" about their gender. This doesn’t mean their innthe wrong body. As if there is some supernatural "true gender" separate from the body.
It certainly doesn't mean the treatment for feeding uncomfortable with your body is to take drastic, permanent measures to take away the dysphoria.
It's not a new idea to be fair. Trans people have always existed, and have even been written into ancient literature.
But I do wonder how much of gender dysphoria today is A) tied to other mental health issues and mental illnesses and B) over diagnosed.
With that being said, I am a huge proponent of taking people at face value. There are issues with sports and fairness, and cis women's need for their own spaces. But other than that, trans people deserve to live lives with dignity, privacy, and opportunity like everyone else. And I think this means believing them when they say they are trans. I don't have all the answers of the universe, ya know?
So I'm not a big fan of interfering in someone's medical choices, just as I am not one to interfere in someone's right to plastic surgery, birth control pills, an abortion etc.
I don't criticize what clothes they wear, or what pronouns they use, and I also don't have a heart attack every time I see pronouns in a bio.
Debating the reality of trans people devolves quickly into bigotry. But fairness in sports is a legitimate argument to make.
This is actually not true. There's a world of difference between acknowledging sex nonconformity and even people trying to pass as the other sex across history, but the reasons people do this change over time, as do the cultural explanations for this behavior. In some cultures, males present as women because they're gay, not because they feel like they have a woman trapped inside. Cultures with rigid sex stereotypes sometimes create third sexes, usually for males, because they don't tolerate feminine behavior among men. It's a mistake to lump all of these examples together as pretend that they conform to American ideas about trans in 2023.
In fact, the idea that we all have some sort of gendered soul, and that this soul is a transcendent thing that overrides our mundane bodies, is likely an offshoot of the Christian and philosophically liberal roots of Western culture.
I might be getting a little off track here because this thread was started to discuss PEDs for a trans athlete, but it has made me consider the idea that everyone has a chance to participate, but not everyone has the chance to win.
To give more people the opportunity to win, we separated males and females and recognize age group categories. On a systems level, high school athletics have divisions to prevent small schools from competing against big schools which attempts to make the competition more fair (and more fun). We have the best athletes in the world competing at the Olympics and the Paralympics give top disabled athletes the chance to win in a more level playing field.
So to what extent is it necessary to separate and categorize sports to create a more fair playing field? Who can have the opportunity to compete against a field with an equal-ish chance of winning? I'd assume these questions have different answers at the professional and amateur levels. For example, the Paralympics offer a chance for visually impaired (T11-13) athletes to compete against other athletes with the same impairment, but most marathons don't recognize this category when giving out awards (although Boston does).
To me, claiming unfairness for the lack of an equal prize purse in the nonbinary category is disingenuous. As seen by the Paralympics example, not everyone with a disability gets to compete in their own category all the time. At the Chicago marathon, parathletes are competing against able-bodied people. If an athlete shows up to an event with a different sex or gender identity, does that really mean they should have an equal prize to those who compete in the categories of the two primary biological sexes?
Great take this. Objective categories are set with some level of subjectivity. I think clearly defined lines are the best way to promote fairness, and if someone doesn't want to play, they don't have to. No non-blind person complains about not being able to compete with the blind. They are objectively outside of that categorization. I'm in favor of having open/non binary groups for the sake of inclusivity. Taking banned substances is outside of that categorization and should bit be allowed. The real solution if we desire inclusivity is yet another category called 'everyone else' which includes people who have broken the standard 'rules' of other categories (eg. Taking banned substances).
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.