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

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...

Sorry - it isn't, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary for Crouse to even mention the transgender issue. She sees them as linked.

I'll ask you - can you discuss issues of equal resources and pay and equal media coverage for women's sports without having to introduce the subject of transgender participation? Even further - is it not possible that parity for women's sports could be achieved quite independently of how the transgender issue is resolved?

I am not saying the issues Crouse has identified are not important; but they can be debated without including transgenderism as a necessary factor in that discussion.

I thought the internet was supposed to liberate us and be the pinnacle of the free exchange of ideas.[/quote]

I choked on my coffee when I read that. You're being facetious - right?

There is a quite basic flaw in Crouse's arguments, that some here have adopted, which is to assume that the validity of an argument depends on the motivation of the person making it - it doesn't; it depends on facts and logic - and that in the case of transgender participation in sports the argument opposed is a reflection of prejudice. It can be - but it isn't necessarily so. To oppose transgender participation in women's sports on the grounds of fairness is not analogous to adopting a racially discriminatory position (on anything), for example.

While Crouse can fairly say, however, that some who argue against transgender participation because they "support women's sport" do nothing in any other way to show that support, it does not mean that all who express opposition to transgender participation are therefore guilty of some form of hypocrisy that tries to disguise their underlying prejudice. The issue of transgender participation can and should be dealt with on its own merits and not require linkage to any other issues pertaining to women's sport.

Lindsey Crouse and letsrun.com a match made in hell. She's a sports and fitness writer but doesn't know squat about running, a sport she writes about a fair amount. And letsrun.com right-wing justice warriors? What a laugh. Ignorant, stupid fools.

Of course it doesn't mean all. But surely it makes you question the validity of the feminist argument for non-partipation of trans people.

If the main opposition to trans participation is from right wingers who usually oppose feminism, do you not think maybe the feminist credentials of the position is very weak? In other words if what's being proposed is acceptable to your opposition, it's probably a watered down version of what you want (or not what you want at all).

bong hits for rojo wrote:

Lindsey Crouse and letsrun.com a match made in hell. She's a sports and fitness writer but doesn't know squat about running, a sport she writes about a fair amount. And letsrun.com right-wing justice warriors? What a laugh. Ignorant, stupid fools.

Crouse ran at Harvard and ran a 2:53 marathon. I think she knows a thing or two about running.

I dont judge the quality of an argument on the basis of who supports it.

I also think that the sports issue is a difficult one for feminism, as the arguments against inclusivity are not political, ideological or moral in nature but science-based. That means the LGBQT position on inclusivity in all areas of life - which I understand feminism to support - runs up against the fact-based objection that inclusivity in sports may be counter to the interests of cis women.

NERunner00053 wrote:

bong hits for rojo wrote:

Lindsey Crouse and letsrun.com a match made in hell. She's a sports and fitness writer but doesn't know squat about running, a sport she writes about a fair amount. And letsrun.com right-wing justice warriors? What a laugh. Ignorant, stupid fools.

Crouse ran at Harvard and ran a 2:53 marathon. I think she knows a thing or two about running.

She appeals to the runners world/hobby jogger element. Her writing does not show a deep understanding of the sport.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'll ask you - can you discuss issues of equal resources and pay and equal media coverage for women's sports without having to introduce the subject of transgender participation? Even further - is it not possible that parity for women's sports could be achieved quite independently of how the transgender issue is resolved?

I am not saying the issues Crouse has identified are not important; but they can be debated without including transgenderism as a necessary factor in that discussion.

The whole argument being put forward is that people are spending way more time on transgender issues in women sports, than in womens sports itself. In effect also, people are putting the onus on transphobia onto women, when it's typically men that are bringing this to the fore.

No one (well not quite true, lets say very few, or disproportionate), is spending time promoting equal rights, pay, investment, marketing etc etc in womens sports, but as soon as anyone mentions transgender, every man and his dog has options, and are willing to put down laws to address it.

This forum/thread is a classic example of this.

Person writes article on how transgender gets more time spent on it in the context of womens equality than the actual issue of womens equality in itself. Letsrun heroes go off and start debating the merits (or not) of being transgender in womens sports.

Do you not see the irony in this? You really couldn't make it up (to quote the DM).

s/options/opinions

It's myopic to not consider the biases and motivations of those who are making the argument, specifically when they are positioning themselves as some sort of proxy for a class of people. As so many have pointed out, it is old men who are leading this charge against transgender athletes under some pretense of "feminism." They don't walk the walk in that regard, so their argument should be viewed with scrutiny as potentially disingenuous. It further falls apart when they start introducing terms like "biological males."

In short, I start by saying that the quality of the anti-trans participation in the sport of their gender is very weak. To base any part of it on some kind of "pro-feminism" or "pro-women" stance is downright laughable if it wasn't so blatantly offensive to women.

But which issue is the more controversial? That is what explains the amount of attention it gets.

Another woke distraction tactic: "You're not qualified to have an opinion on this because..."

They can't make good arguments, so they distract you with things that are irrelevant to the issue.

You are using identity politics to asses the validity of an argument - in other words, it is judged solely by who's making it. If you set aside the spectre of aging white men in the discussion, what do the facts of transgender (biological males) participation in female sport lead you to conclude? Why are men typically excluded from women's competitions? Might it be to do with the unfair advantage they would have? What sports involving factors of strength, speed and stamina can men and women compete in equally? However trans women choose to define themselves they remain physiologically male in the same way as other male athletes.

You are using identity politics to asses the validity of an argument - in other words, it is judged solely by who's making it. If you set aside the spectre of aging white men in the discussion, what do the facts of transgender (biological males) participation in female sport lead you to conclude? Why are men typically excluded from women's competitions? Might it be to do with the unfair advantage they would have? What sports involving factors of strength, speed and stamina can men and women compete in equally? However trans women choose to define themselves they remain physiologically male in the same way as other male athletes.

Women should run against women is not a good argument?

If you say, "well, they aren't really women," then you need to anticipate that a lot of people think you're not able to see the issue objectively.

It's similar to if, 200 years ago, you asked if slavery was justified. If you said something like, "yes, because the slaves are an inferior class of human," then whatever other economic or social defense you have for slavery shouldn't be taken as seriously.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

It's myopic to not consider the biases and motivations of those who are making the argument, specifically when they are positioning themselves as some sort of proxy for a class of people. As so many have pointed out, it is old men who are leading this charge against transgender athletes under some pretense of "feminism." They don't walk the walk in that regard, so their argument should be viewed with scrutiny as potentially disingenuous. It further falls apart when they start introducing terms like "biological males."

In short, I start by saying that the quality of the anti-trans participation in the sport of their gender is very weak. To base any part of it on some kind of "pro-feminism" or "pro-women" stance is downright laughable if it wasn't so blatantly offensive to women.

Another even better example of "You're not qualified to have an opinion on this because..."

This isn't a real argument. If Lenny were capable of making a convincing argument, he would. He's had 15 pages now to make his case. But he isn't capable of complex thought, so he resorts to distraction tactics.

These people shouldn't be taken seriously. Call them out for what they are: dim-witted, wound-collecting bullies who contribute nothing to the discussion.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Women should run against women is not a good argument?

Define "woman". I'll wait.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are using identity politics to asses the validity of an argument - in other words, it is judged solely by who's making it. If you set aside the spectre of aging white men in the discussion, what do the facts of transgender (biological males) participation in female sport lead you to conclude? Why are men typically excluded from women's competitions? Might it be to do with the unfair advantage they would have? What sports involving factors of strength, speed and stamina can men and women compete in equally? However trans women choose to define themselves they remain physiologically male in the same way as other male athletes.

No, you are correct to say it should be judged on it's own merits. But it's curious that everybody who is explicitly anti-feminist is also anti-trans (the reverse NOT being true). When judging the merits of the feminist argument for trans non-participation, why are anti-feminists lining up without exception to agree with your supposed feminist argument?

We NEVER have all the information we need so it's not wrong because of the people supporting it but definitely needs more scrutiny than it gets. The narrative that trans rights infringe of women's rights is the dominant argument and is almost accepted without question. As a previous poster pointed out, genuine transphobes are using it to unfairly center opposition to trans rights as being cis women. In reality they appear more accepting than cis men.

Presumably you have other arguments for trans non-participation that you could use instead of pushing the main one?