Lindsay Crouse calls effort to keep biological men out of women's sports an "excuse for transphobia"

Lenny Leonard 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.

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.”

If that is so then "she" does not appear to believe she has more than one sexual identity. So why do some trans use "they" as their gender pronoun unless they are suggesting (I played a little trick on you there) that they are more than simply "she" or "he"? If asked your gender pronoun, how would you respond - "he" or "they"?

I’ve already explained this. I don’t feel like doing it again.

You didn’t play a trick on me. You showcased exactly what I was talking about with “they” being an ambiguous singular pronoun. It’s fine and acceptable in English. You do it every day and never question it, unless you are trying to be bigoted.

rojo is right wrote:

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.

Orwell is not complicated. However, a lot of red hat folks seem to have wildly misread it.

I doubt they would transition back just for the purposes of sport but it's no less or more likely than a non trans individual pretending to be trans to win a medal or get a college scholarship - which seems to be a common paranoia.

They wouldn't necessarily have to reduce their T level though - I think it would very likely to be considered a TUE. As I say, the IAAF can't prevent prescription of sex hormones.

Arguably the case for a trans man being included in the women's division is more winnable than for a trans woman. I doubt it would come to fruition but I can imagine trans rights activists bring THAT case just to open the argument up.

Does ANYBODY want that? No. So just let trans women in the women's and trans men in the men's.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

For me, if someone loves their life as a woman, they should compete with women. Full stop. I don’t need to have a PhD in biology to know that women should run with women.

Lenny, my man, I'm dying to know the answer to my question but you keep ignoring me for some reason. Why should women run with women? "Because they've always done so" isn't a good answer. Why should they continue to run against each other in competition?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Orwell is not complicated. However, a lot of red hat folks seem to have wildly misread it.

It's obviously complicated for you, since you can't make the connection that phrases like "trans women are women" are doublethink. This is why I say that you're indistinguishable from a troll.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Orwell is not complicated. However, a lot of red hat folks seem to have wildly misread it.

Or maybe you read Orwell as a field manual, rather than as a cautionary tale? Again, indistinguishable from a troll.

Cancun Cruz wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

For me, if someone loves their life as a woman, they should compete with women. Full stop. I don’t need to have a PhD in biology to know that women should run with women.

Lenny, my man, I'm dying to know the answer to my question but you keep ignoring me for some reason. Why should women run with women? "Because they've always done so" isn't a good answer. Why should they continue to run against each other in competition?

If you want to eliminate the women’s category altogether, fine. I guess I wouldn’t be too personally upset by that. Is that what you’re proposing?

I like the women’s category. That my “why.” Its just a matter of opinion for me. If it’s staying around, I think all women should run against women.

rojo is right wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Orwell is not complicated. However, a lot of red hat folks seem to have wildly misread it.

It's obviously complicated for you, since you can't make the connection that phrases like "trans women are women" are doublethink. This is why I say that you're indistinguishable from a troll.

You’re the one saying “trans women are women, except when they are running around an oval track. Then they are men for a little bit. But then they are women again.”

That seems more doublethink to me.

And if you DON’T believe that transwomen are women, then you have proven the original article’s claim that your opposition to trans athletes competing in their gender category is based in not viewing their trans identity as valid (the definition of transphobia) and has nothing to do with “fAiRnesS iN sPoRtS!” You’re just a bigot.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

You’re the one saying “trans women are women, except when they are running around an oval track. Then they are men for a little bit. But then they are women again.”

That seems more doublethink to me.

And if you DON’T believe that transwomen are women, then you have proven the original article’s claim that your opposition to trans athletes competing in their gender category is based in not viewing their trans identity as valid (the definition of transphobia) and has nothing to do with “fAiRnesS iN sPoRtS!” You’re just a bigot.

You know you've lost an argument when you find yourself retreating to "You're just a bigot."

__________________

The use of "they" as a preferred pronoun for individuals sometimes happens when people want to identify as nonbinary. I've also seen trans people list gendered and gender neutral pronouns together--for example, saying my preferred pronouns are she/them.

I think it's mostly political. Some believe that gender neutral language decreases sexism. Others, having absorbed these theoretical/political perspectives as truth, sincerely view themselves as nonbinary. They view others' refusal to use they/them pronouns as an attack on their immutable selves.

What's interesting is that we could have a tolerant society that allows men and women to express themselves however they like, where women can be masculine, and men can be feminine. In this case, we recognize that the sexes exist but don't force behaviors on people on the basis of their sex. This approach is consistent with liberalism. We're all free to express ourselves and make our own decisions. Nobody is allowed to infringe on that freedom, but we're also not allowed to impose our ideas about self expression on others.

Instead, we see the current trans movement arguing that everybody has an immutable gender identity with infinite values along a spectrum from male to female, then asserting that this subjective identity ought to be recognized as such by all other people and the government. This cannot work in a free and liberal society. We cannot have a functioning pluralistic society in which everybody has to acknowledge and affirm the subjectivity of each and every other person. First, it's totalitarian to force others to accept our subjectivities as truthful. Second, it's narcissistic and antisocial. We have to agee to some shared structures of meaning in order to live among and communicate with others.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

You’re just a bigot.

Wokes posting their L's.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

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.”

If that is so then "she" does not appear to believe she has more than one sexual identity. So why do some trans use "they" as their gender pronoun unless they are suggesting (I played a little trick on you there) that they are more than simply "she" or "he"? If asked your gender pronoun, how would you respond - "he" or "they"?

Everybody can be refered to as 'they'. You may say "they have left their coffee", and it's equally correct to - "he/she has left his/her coffee.

People who prefer 'they' are generally non-binary meaning they don't have a strong identity to either gender. Non-binary people are trans but is not the topic of conversation here.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

rojo is right wrote:

It's obviously complicated for you, since you can't make the connection that phrases like "trans women are women" are doublethink. This is why I say that you're indistinguishable from a troll.

You’re the one saying “trans women are women, except when they are running around an oval track. Then they are men for a little bit. But then they are women again.”

That seems more doublethink to me.

And if you DON’T believe that transwomen are women, then you have proven the original article’s claim that your opposition to trans athletes competing in their gender category is based in not viewing their trans identity as valid (the definition of transphobia) and has nothing to do with “fAiRnesS iN sPoRtS!” You’re just a bigot.

_______________________

I haven't read this thread in detail, but I have not seen people arguing that trans women are women unless they're running on a track. They're saying that trans women are males--that they always were and will continue to be despite gender affirmative care.

Here's the thing: Healthy trans people understand that their biological sex does not change when they have surgery or hormone therapy. One reason they understand this is that sex reassignment requires a person to go on medications for life in order to sustain some of the aesthetic features associated with the opposite sex.

GD wrote:

Honestly, I don't find the privacy arguments to be particularly compelling because all athletes selected for random drug screens have somebody watching them pee. I guess this visual inspection can be more intrusive? In any case, it seems perfectly appropriate to me to restrict the women's category to people who are female and do not have DSDs, since being male confers an advantage.

It's one thing to have someone see you pee. It's another to have someone measure the size of your genitalia (including inserting a finger to measure the depth). A doctor once grabbed my balls as a part of physical exam, and I felt violated. I cannot imagine how a young woman feels when a male doctor inserts his finger. There has to be less intrusive way to measure feminization of someone's body.

PAIS includes a very wide range of people. Some are very close to CAIS. Others are very close to male (even closer than people with 5-ard, who cluster around a very narrow range.) But I think there has been no evidence that an intersex athlete retains unfair advantage after hormone therapy. Semenya was a 2:00 runner when her T was limited to 10 nmol/L. The current limit is half that level. They are not the same as transwomen who retain their advantage even after the T suppression.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

GD wrote:

Honestly, I don't find the privacy arguments to be particularly compelling because all athletes selected for random drug screens have somebody watching them pee. I guess this visual inspection can be more intrusive? In any case, it seems perfectly appropriate to me to restrict the women's category to people who are female and do not have DSDs, since being male confers an advantage.

It's one thing to have someone see you pee. It's another to have someone measure the size of your genitalia (including inserting a finger to measure the depth). A doctor once grabbed my balls as a part of physical exam, and I felt violated. I cannot imagine how a young woman feels when a male doctor inserts his finger. There has to be less intrusive way to measure feminization of someone's body.

.

________________

With all due respect, finger insertion is a standard part of a pelvic exam. It's something that all women getting regular medical care experience from age 18 or onset of sexual activity onward. A Pap smear entails having a speculum inserted into the vagina. It is shaped like a long duck bill. The doctor opens this, locks it in place, then inserts a long stick with an abrasive brush on the tip into the vagina and up to the cervix (the opening of the uterus) to scrape off cells. This often causes slight bleeding. The doctor also inserts their fingers into the vagina without the speculum to examine pelvic structures.

I'm not saying there's no argument about intersex athletes being subject to intrusive procedures to verify sex. I don't know the details. What I am saying is that females regularly have fingers and objects inserted in their bodies for OB/GYN exams.

GD wrote:

I haven't read this thread in detail, but I have not seen people arguing that trans women are women unless they're running on a track. They're saying that trans women are males--that they always were and will continue to be despite gender affirmative care.

The founder of the site said it:

rojo wrote:

I think people should have their everyday life gender but their "sporting gender" should be based on biology.

I’ll stop calling people bigots. I don’t want that to be the reason people disagree with me.

At least rojo shows a bit of rationality here in acknowledging that if someone wants to live their life as a woman or a man, then that should be allowed.

Where he and I differ is that I think it’s over complicated and dare I say silly to make that person have a different gender while they are doing a sport.

Thanks for your informative post. If I were a woman, I would allow only a woman to be my OB/GYN.

And thanks for keeping this conversation to be civil. It's very rare to see it on this topic.

That's the whole point. Top men runners are faster than top females.

If you want to save women's sports, you cannot allow men who call themselves women to compete as women