My argument: women should run against women
Evidence that supports my argument: that’s the way we’ve always done it, and I think it works pretty well.
Your argument: bUt ThEy UsEd tO Be mEn!
I don’t care. If we both agree that they are women now, then they should run with women.
I used to be 8 years old. I’m not anymore. I shouldn’t run against 8 year olds.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
My argument: women should run against women
Evidence that supports my argument: that’s the way we’ve always done it, and I think it works pretty well.
Your argument: bUt ThEy UsEd tO Be mEn!
I don’t care. If we both agree that they are women now, then they should run with women.
I used to be 8 years old. I’m not anymore. I shouldn’t run against 8 year olds.
____________
One cannot change their biological sex--at least not yet. From conception onward, developmental processes (which proceed along separate tracks for each sex) alter the body in ways that cannot be undone. Sex reassignment and gender transition alter various physical markers of sex, but they don't undo sex.
I honestly cannot figure out whether you're a troll or not.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But I just read earlier in the thread that "brain scans" have shown male or female brains. If that is so, how can one be "gender fluid"? We apparently have either a male or female brain - whatever that means. So a person can have both a male and female brain? (Or even neither?) Which parts, I wonder? And demonstrated how?
However you pursue the semantic as distinct from the biological issues involved, "they" is generally a plural term and to choose it to describe oneself (how unfortunately singular that is) is to claim to be more than one person. Apart from the apparent confusion involved as to what kind of person and how many - a team, a crowd? - it reeks of a certain grandiosity.
I know nothing of "male brains" or "female brains." You got me there. I'm not the person who brought that up.
YOU brought up the use of "they" as a pronoun. You proposed a history for the term that was incorrect, so I felt the need to tell you that you were wrong.
People say stuff like this all the time:
"You ever go up to someone on the street and they're like, "Hey, watch it, Buddy!'"
"Someone" is a singular noun. "They" is a plural pronoun. However, it has become so commonplace in English, that we don't bat an eye at it anymore. The speaker wasn't trying to imply that the person they encountered had some kind of multiple personality disorder. They were just being lazy with the language. We've all gotten lazy with it, but that's fine. That's how language evolves.
You are wrong if you think that when someone says "refer to me as 'they'," that they want you to think of them as some kind of dual-embodied person.
I'll gladly argue semantics all day because it's over; I have the high ground.
You don't - nor factually. didn't propose a history of the plural term - and that is a point of fact not linguistics. I simply entered that discussion. But what is linguistically correct is that terms used in one context can mean something else when used in another. The latter is my point . "They" when used as a term of gender identification refers to more than one, which is not how it is used popularly in the other contexts you refer to.
Armstronglivs wrote:
“They" when used as a term of gender identification refers to more than one, which is not how it is used popularly in the other contexts you refer to.
This is where you are wrong.
“They” when used as a term of identification refers to just one person.
“I saw Meredith at the store, and they said that they were excited for the party.”
The pronoun “they” is taking the place of Meredith. Both are singular in this usage.
Now, you may say “but you used ‘were’ as the verb. That agrees with a plural pronoun.”
In this case, “were” is appropriate for phonetical correctness, not for agreement in number. There is already a defined subject-verb agreement between they/were. If you said “they was excited,” it would break a phoenetic rule of English.
“They” can be both singular or plural.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
My argument: women should run against women
Again, why? Saying that's how we've always done it is a poor argument. Why do you think it should continue to be so?
Tatar wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
To answer your question - when some of those women are biologically male. It removes any justification for having women's sport as a protected category. Biological advantage based on sex-defined differences is irrefutable in sports. Women's sports exclude biological males for that reason. Redefining some males as "female" (by virtue of self-definition) does not change that.
But as I've pointed out before, this would mean trans men (born XX) become eligible for the women's division. Testosterone can be a TUE and would likely be granted.
If you oppose their inclusion in the women's too you would have the farcical situation of both trans- and cis- men and trans- women being in the men's competitions. It is neither trans-inclusive or feminist and I'm surprised you've taken this position.
Trans men (XX) would have to comply with the IAAF testosterone ruling limiting their levels to less than 5 nmols in order to compete as women. They would not do that. To compete with higher levels of testosterone they would have to compete as men - which means they would not be competing with the unfair biological advantages that trans women would have. The issue in this debate is whether identity trumps considerations of fairness. I dont think it does. And neither does the IAAF.
Not my usual HN wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How much evidence do you require that biological males are on average bigger, faster and stronger than females - from puberty onwards? It is only a "hypothesis"?
A hypothesis about two groups of people is usually supported when the difference in mean is statistically significant (usually at 0.05 level or lower). But that means there is still 5% chance that the difference is coincidental. (And this does not change when you lower the significance level to 0.01 or 0.001. It only reduces the chance that the difference is coincidental.)
As for the difference between men and women, there is ample evidence to show that the difference is not coincidental. The point Burfoot is making is that we don't have a large enough sample size of trans female athletes who have gone through extended hormone treatment. (Other things being equal, the smaller the sample size is, the harder it is to reach statistical significance.) I don't even know if his claim is true.
My point is that it is impossible to prove that the difference is coincidental, because by definition, it is impossible to prove the negative. This is Logic 101.
Semantic drivel. Do you follow sports?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
“They" when used as a term of gender identification refers to more than one, which is not how it is used popularly in the other contexts you refer to.
This is where you are wrong.
“They” when used as a term of identification refers to just one person.
“I saw Meredith at the store, and they said that they were excited for the party.”
The pronoun “they” is taking the place of Meredith. Both are singular in this usage.
Now, you may say “but you used ‘were’ as the verb. That agrees with a plural pronoun.”
In this case, “were” is appropriate for phonetical correctness, not for agreement in number. There is already a defined subject-verb agreement between they/were. If you said “they was excited,” it would break a phoenetic rule of English.
“They” can be both singular or plural.
So why do trans use the term "they" for themselves when no one else does as a term of self-description? Hard question for you, I know.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Semantic drivel. Do you follow sports?
I do follow sports.
Here is my advice to you. Maybe you should refrain from commenting on topics you do not understand. Absolutely no one is obligated to comment on every topic on this board.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
My argument: women should run against women
Evidence that supports my argument: that’s the way we’ve always done it, and I think it works pretty well.
Your argument: bUt ThEy UsEd tO Be mEn!
I don’t care. If we both agree that they are women now, then they should run with women.
I used to be 8 years old. I’m not anymore. I shouldn’t run against 8 year olds.
False analogy. You are not a different sex from what you were at 8 years of age. The issue is not what you used to be but what you still are - male (as trans women also still are biologically). That you are older now is irrelevant to this discussion. Like most of your arguments.
Not my usual HN wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Semantic drivel. Do you follow sports?
I do follow sports.
Here is my advice to you. Maybe you should refrain from commenting on topics you do not understand. Absolutely no one is obligated to comment on every topic on this board.
One topic - especially this one - may be too much for you. So (since you say you follow sports) where is the evidence that refutes Burfoot's assumption that biological males have an athletic advantage over females? Or are you only interested in casuistical arguments about "logic"?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not my usual HN wrote:
I do follow sports.
Here is my advice to you. Maybe you should refrain from commenting on topics you do not understand. Absolutely no one is obligated to comment on every topic on this board.
One topic - especially this one - may be too much for you. So (since you say you follow sports) where is the evidence that refutes Burfoot's assumption that biological males have an athletic advantage over females? Or are you only interested in casuistical arguments about "logic"?
I guess you are too dumb to understand my advice.
I am sorry I wasted my time... and probably yours.
Enjoy talking to yourself. Hope someone is kind enough to take you seriously.
Not my usual HN wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
One topic - especially this one - may be too much for you. So (since you say you follow sports) where is the evidence that refutes Burfoot's assumption that biological males have an athletic advantage over females? Or are you only interested in casuistical arguments about "logic"?
I guess you are too dumb to understand my advice.
I am sorry I wasted my time... and probably yours.
Enjoy talking to yourself. Hope someone is kind enough to take you seriously.
And you do so like to be taken seriously. But not seriously enough to address the question.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So why do trans use the term "they" for themselves when no one else does as a term of self-description? Hard question for you, I know.
This isn't true. Also, stop posting so much.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Tatar wrote:
But as I've pointed out before, this would mean trans men (born XX) become eligible for the women's division. Testosterone can be a TUE and would likely be granted.
If you oppose their inclusion in the women's too you would have the farcical situation of both trans- and cis- men and trans- women being in the men's competitions. It is neither trans-inclusive or feminist and I'm surprised you've taken this position.
Trans men (XX) would have to comply with the IAAF testosterone ruling limiting their levels to less than 5 nmols in order to compete as women. They would not do that. To compete with higher levels of testosterone they would have to compete as men - which means they would not be competing with the unfair biological advantages that trans women would have. The issue in this debate is whether identity trumps considerations of fairness. I dont think it does. And neither does the IAAF.
I don't think you've fully considered the implications of this. If we are dividing competition by 'biological' or 'chromosomal' sex then trans men with XX chromosomes would seek to participate in the women's. Arguably this would be a simpler case to win than trans women's participation in the women's division.
We are not debating whether trans people exist and the IAAF doesn't have the power to stop doctors prescribing sex hormones to trans people. If they really wanted to, trans men could receive testosterone off-competition and reduce to 5 nmol. If they have taken cross-sex hormones since a young age it's likely they have experienced significant masculinization. All while still being 'biologically female'.
Ignoring trans identities doesn't really solve any problems - you will still be facing relative advantages and disadvantages as trans men could still very easily meet the criteria for the women's division.
Tatar wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Trans men (XX) would have to comply with the IAAF testosterone ruling limiting their levels to less than 5 nmols in order to compete as women. They would not do that. To compete with higher levels of testosterone they would have to compete as men - which means they would not be competing with the unfair biological advantages that trans women would have. The issue in this debate is whether identity trumps considerations of fairness. I dont think it does. And neither does the IAAF.
I don't think you've fully considered the implications of this. If we are dividing competition by 'biological' or 'chromosomal' sex then trans men with XX chromosomes would seek to participate in the women's. Arguably this would be a simpler case to win than trans women's participation in the women's division.
We are not debating whether trans people exist and the IAAF doesn't have the power to stop doctors prescribing sex hormones to trans people. If they really wanted to, trans men could receive testosterone off-competition and reduce to 5 nmol. If they have taken cross-sex hormones since a young age it's likely they have experienced significant masculinization. All while still being 'biologically female'.
Ignoring trans identities doesn't really solve any problems - you will still be facing relative advantages and disadvantages as trans men could still very easily meet the criteria for the women's division.
I would dispute the above comment. Trans men identify as men and so they would most likely compete as men. If they chose to compete as women they would have to reduce their levels of testosterone and so would lose their relative competitive advantage - as well as their masculinizing characteristics that are part of their identity. I would doubt they would do that. With female levels of testosterone - and other female biological characteristics - they would have no biological competitive advantage against males. But trans women do. And that is the point.
David S wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So why do trans use the term "they" for themselves when no one else does as a term of self-description? Hard question for you, I know.
This isn't true. Also, stop posting so much.
Which one of your plural identities is responding here? (I see you have only one name).
Armstronglivs wrote:
So why do trans use the term "they" for themselves when no one else does as a term of self-description? Hard question for you, I know.
It’s not a hard question. I explained it in about 300 words earlier in the thread. It could be explained in even less.
But your question itself is wrong. Trans people just use the pronouns of their gender. A transgender woman uses she/her pronouns. Caitlyn Jenner, for example, would be referred to as “she.”
Armstronglivs wrote:
Tatar wrote:
I don't think you've fully considered the implications of this. If we are dividing competition by 'biological' or 'chromosomal' sex then trans men with XX chromosomes would seek to participate in the women's. Arguably this would be a simpler case to win than trans women's participation in the women's division.
We are not debating whether trans people exist and the IAAF doesn't have the power to stop doctors prescribing sex hormones to trans people. If they really wanted to, trans men could receive testosterone off-competition and reduce to 5 nmol. If they have taken cross-sex hormones since a young age it's likely they have experienced significant masculinization. All while still being 'biologically female'.
Ignoring trans identities doesn't really solve any problems - you will still be facing relative advantages and disadvantages as trans men could still very easily meet the criteria for the women's division.
I would dispute the above comment. Trans men identify as men and so they would most likely compete as men. If they chose to compete as women they would have to reduce their levels of testosterone and so would lose their relative competitive advantage - as well as their masculinizing characteristics that are part of their identity. I would doubt they would do that. With female levels of testosterone - and other female biological characteristics - they would have no biological competitive advantage against males. But trans women do. And that is the point.
I do understand that. But this now means you are allowing trans men to compete in the category of their identity but not trans women.
In all likelihood, if trans women were banned, trans men (who I imagine mostly have sympathy with their cause of their fellow trans athletes) would probably use the argument that they should now be in the women's division to point out how pointless it is.
If the debate about trans people is viewed from the perspective of both trans men and women (the actual reality) it's rather easy to see the sexism in how trans feminine is given much more criticism and is subject to restriction while trans masculine are given a free pass.
Rojo was right on the first page. The pro-trans-in-womens-sports arguments are so logically comical that they are indistinguishable from trolls. Especially Lenny Leonard. It's terrifying that this person is teaching anybody anything, much less complicated texts like Orwell.