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

I've heard basically three arguments for the participation of trans women in women's sport:

1) "It's sexist to argue that biological women are at a disadvantage."

This is simply idiotic, and it's not really worth engaging with these people. They might fall back on lack of scientific "proof" of an advantage, but the evidence (both scientific and through common experience) is overwhelming. You can always complain that there isn't 100% conclusive proof in science, whether it's about women in sport, global warming, or vaccines, for instance.

2) "It's already so hard to be trans, and there's so much transphobia, that we should just let them do what makes them feel better."

This argument I get. I disagree with it, as I think it's akin to saying we should let wheelchair racers compete in the open division of marathons because it's already so hard to be disabled, but it's an argument about which thing you value more. My issue with this argument is that it's dishonest in that it requires people to essentially pretend that there is no advantage. It also makes female athletes pawns in a social engineering game, and sends the message to all female athletes (not just the few who lose a podium spot), that their sports aren't real.

3) "We shouldn't worry about it because there are so few trans athletes and because most of the people who are opposed to trans women competing against women are just bigots who don't care about women's sport anyway."

This isn't really an answer to the fundamental question. Maybe we spend too much time arguing about it compared to more important things. Maybe there are a lot of bigots opposed to trans women competing. But both those things can be true, and it could still be wrong to let them compete against biological women.

As for hormone therapy, what age to impose restrictions, and what restrictions should apply at what levels of competition: These are much harder questions that depend on science and on the degree of certainty that we're comfortable with. But it's hard to get to those questions until we agree on the more basic premise.

lol 14 pages in and nearly everyone misses the point on the original text. No change there.

Rojo/Wejo, you really need to get a proper policy in place for this forum, and get some proper training on sensitive issues. I also think you need to get some women, bame, lgbt folk to work with you and be visible here. It's pretty bad the way you are both letting some people get away with their posting, and in fact contributing yourself to it now. You are pretty much condoning abuse now, and need to be very careful.

I'm not saying all the posts are insensitive, there's actually some reasoned debate in there, but I really think you don't understand where the line should be anymore.

It's not about the topic, all topics can be discussed genuinely.

Well..... wrote:

lol 14 pages in and nearly everyone misses the point on the original text. No change there.

Rojo/Wejo, you really need to get a proper policy in place for this forum, and get some proper training on sensitive issues. I also think you need to get some women, bame, lgbt folk to work with you and be visible here. It's pretty bad the way you are both letting some people get away with their posting, and in fact contributing yourself to it now. You are pretty much condoning abuse now, and need to be very careful.

I'm not saying all the posts are insensitive, there's actually some reasoned debate in there, but I really think you don't understand where the line should be anymore.

It's not about the topic, all topics can be discussed genuinely.

And the point that nearly everyone missed was?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well..... wrote:

lol 14 pages in and nearly everyone misses the point on the original text. No change there.

Rojo/Wejo, you really need to get a proper policy in place for this forum, and get some proper training on sensitive issues. I also think you need to get some women, bame, lgbt folk to work with you and be visible here. It's pretty bad the way you are both letting some people get away with their posting, and in fact contributing yourself to it now. You are pretty much condoning abuse now, and need to be very careful.

I'm not saying all the posts are insensitive, there's actually some reasoned debate in there, but I really think you don't understand where the line should be anymore.

It's not about the topic, all topics can be discussed genuinely.

And the point that nearly everyone missed was?

Read the article.

Maybe I was a bit short (literally) with that reply, apologies. The main point is in the article better than I can mansplain ;), but it's about sexism, misogyny and racism in sport. It's not about whether a transgender person should be 'allowed' to participate in 'womens' sport.

__________________________

Thank you RunRagged, Biological woman, and the others who have posted thoughtful responses here. To the people calling for Rojo & Wejo to get more of the right identities to post here: you don't know who is posting here. I can't tell you how many times people have assumed that I'm a man, simply because I'm a person writing on an anonymous message board. Also, I don't care whether the person posting belongs to the right group. I care whether they have a good argument backed by evidence.

If you want to start making moral arguments about what women should do, I might care about your identity, but then again, I know lots of women who have wrong (meaning not backed by science) opinions on this issue.

1) This seems like a strawman to me, I think a stronger related argument is "scientific studies have shown two years of hormone therapy can negate certain gender differences between cis and trans". Similarly, "no trans athlete has consistently outperformed a cis athlete after two years of hormone therapy in T&F".

2) Again, I think this is a strawman, and the stronger principle is that everyone should be allowed a chance to compete in sports as their chosen gender. The question then is how and whether this can become possible at different levels of competition.

3) Another strawman, the better argument here is again that no trans athlete has consistently outperformed a cis athlete after two years of hormone therapy in T&F, and if we do treat trans athletes as equals then we shouldn't be surprised to one day find them represented even at the top levels of competition in a proportion consistent with their population frequency.

Well..... wrote:

Rojo/Wejo, you really need to get a proper policy in place for this forum, and get some proper training on sensitive issues. I also think you need to get some women, bame, lgbt folk to work with you and be visible here. It's pretty bad the way you are both letting some people get away with their posting, and in fact contributing yourself to it now. You are pretty much condoning abuse now, and need to be very careful.

I'm not saying all the posts are insensitive, there's actually some reasoned debate in there, but I really think you don't understand where the line should be anymore.

It's not about the topic, all topics can be discussed genuinely.

Another tactic by the authoritarian woke: shut down dissent to their ridiculous arguments by claiming abuse and harm. It's a scam meant to manipulate nice people into submission.

The problem is, those trans girls in CT were not on hormones at all.

ok, but... wrote:

The problem is, those trans girls in CT were not on hormones at all.

Right so there are different issues at different levels of the sport.

ok, but... wrote:

The problem is, those trans girls in CT were not on hormones at all.

An article on Yearwood posted on this thread said otherwise.

They also got slower in their senior season, and maybe that's because their bodies became more feminized?

well......... wrote:

Maybe I was a bit short (literally) with that reply, apologies. The main point is in the article better than I can mansplain ;), but it's about sexism, misogyny and racism in sport. It's not about whether a transgender person should be 'allowed' to participate in 'womens' sport.

It was about both, because the writer directly linked them as related issues. You didn't get that. As some including myself have pointed out here, they are separate issues and can and should be discussed separately.

Crouse -

"What if these new activists embraced women’s sports and invested in female athletes, instead of using us as their excuse for transphobia?"

It is possible to support the former while being opposed to the latter - the participation of trans in women's sport. Indeed, as has been argued here - to support women's sport may require it. Yet Crouse dismisses this position as "transphobia", indicating thereby her own highly contentious position. Nor is it necessary to become a public advocate for women's sport in order to believe it should also be fair - and to be fair may require excluding biological males.

It's not about both, the Author even makes it clear in the final sentence, they are missing the point. Everyone here is (bar a couple of posts mid way).

>>>

But all this new passion has made me wonder, what if all these people claiming to be fighting for the future of women’s sports would really fight for the future of women’s sports? What if they suddenly said, “We demand women’s sports get equal resources, equal media coverage, and equal pay”? What if these new activists embraced women’s sports and invested in female athletes, instead of using us as their excuse for transphobia?

>>>

This is the point being made...

No, it's not to get more of the right "identities" to post here...why would they post here and get abuse ? It's to get visible people who are part of LetsRun the company, to add some balance, moderation and decisions, and more importantly responsibility. This thread is the perfect example of what the original article is criticizing.

Maybe...... wrote:

It's not about both, the Author even makes it clear in the final sentence, they are missing the point. Everyone here is (bar a couple of posts mid way).

>>>

But all this new passion has made me wonder, what if all these people claiming to be fighting for the future of women’s sports would really fight for the future of women’s sports? What if they suddenly said, “We demand women’s sports get equal resources, equal media coverage, and equal pay”? What if these new activists embraced women’s sports and invested in female athletes, instead of using us as their excuse for transphobia?

>>>

This is the point being made...

That is the point many people have made. The problem is it's so obvious - there are many people who are claiming to be feminists when it comes to trans rights but would never describe themselves as such in normal discourse.

A good example is Ben Shapiro. Says he opposes trans inclusion because of "women's rights". And then criticizes Megan Rapinoe for mentioning the pay gap between men's sports and women's sports.

He frequently criticizes women's rights groups. He's only trying to use this argument because he's heard there's a vocal minority of feminists who are skeptical. For him, he gets to oppose trans rights AND exploit divisions in feminism.

Well..... wrote:

lol 14 pages in and nearly everyone misses the point on the original text. No change there.

Rojo/Wejo, you really need to get a proper policy in place for this forum, and get some proper training on sensitive issues. I also think you need to get some women, bame, lgbt folk to work with you and be visible here. It's pretty bad the way you are both letting some people get away with their posting, and in fact contributing yourself to it now. You are pretty much condoning abuse now, and need to be very careful.

I'm not saying all the posts are insensitive, there's actually some reasoned debate in there, but I really think you don't understand where the line should be anymore.

It's not about the topic, all topics can be discussed genuinely.

Been saying this for a while now. Get some proper training so that threads like this can be better moderated.

Anyways, a lot of ya'll are falling for the trap conservatives are setting for you. How much does this issue really matter in the grand scheme of things? Usain Bolt isn't gonna line up in the women's 100 any time soon. They want to make it feel like this is happening in every state at every level of the sport in every event. Scholarships aren't being lost. This is an issue meant to rile people up and keep them distracted from corporations getting tax breaks, income inequality, health care, the environment, etc. If some of ya'll wanting to save women's sports this badly poured an ounce of that energy into bigger issues, maybe America could have a brighter future. You're wasting your time and energy on something that isn't affecting people in the way you're being told it is. That's all part of the conservative political machine. & it's working beautifully.