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

biological woman wrote:

Unfortunately I think the solution to the problem is that women have to stand up for themselves. Which we really aren't doing. No way in hell am I posting in this thread with my registered username. Women are rolling their eyes and staying quiet because they don't want to be called transphobic or bigoted. If I were #2 in an important race to a transgender woman I'd be pissed. But would I say anything? Probably not, because I wouldn't want to be accused of transphobia, or lose friends or my job because it's an unpopular stance.

There is some irony in this because women generally do NOT like to cause controversy or rock the boat. So by our very nature we are less likely to stand up for ourselves. We want to get along with others and we don't like it when other people hate us. Men care less about what others thing of them, generally speaking. So ironically this is how women's rights are being trampled on by people who were formerly men.

And the person who says they teach Orwell but this is not Orwellian probably should re-read 1984. The whole *idea* behind doublethink in 1984 is that fear and pressure to conform drives people to say words that contradict reality.

Biological sex is real. Trust the science.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe...... wrote:

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).

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

Tatar wrote:

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?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tatar wrote:

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?

The only argument that matters to me is what you call "the main one", which is that trans women as physiological males have an unfair advantage in sports over women, in the same way other male athletes would. If it were not for that issue I don't have a problem with trans women participating in women's sports (or trans men in men's sports, where XX will not have an unfair advantage). I would support inclusivity but for that reason. I don't know how that problem will be overcome.

I dont think there is any doubt about the argument of male physical advantage; it is only those who lack knowledge of sports or are blinded by their ideological convictions who think otherwise. And some of them are feminists.

Well..... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The only argument that matters to me is what you call "the main one", which is that trans women as physiological males have an unfair advantage in sports over women, in the same way other male athletes would. If it were not for that issue I don't have a problem with trans women participating in women's sports (or trans men in men's sports, where XX will not have an unfair advantage). I would support inclusivity but for that reason. I don't know how that problem will be overcome.

I dont think there is any doubt about the argument of male physical advantage; it is only those who lack knowledge of sports or are blinded by their ideological convictions who think otherwise. And some of them are feminists.

Ah good to see you think the categorisation of transgender folk in sports is more important than womens equality, racism and misogyny. I'm sure the "women" will thank a man for that valuable perspective :D.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

biological woman wrote:

Unfortunately I think the solution to the problem is that women have to stand up for themselves. Which we really aren't doing. No way in hell am I posting in this thread with my registered username. Women are rolling their eyes and staying quiet because they don't want to be called transphobic or bigoted. If I were #2 in an important race to a transgender woman I'd be pissed. But would I say anything? Probably not, because I wouldn't want to be accused of transphobia, or lose friends or my job because it's an unpopular stance.

There is some irony in this because women generally do NOT like to cause controversy or rock the boat. So by our very nature we are less likely to stand up for ourselves. We want to get along with others and we don't like it when other people hate us. Men care less about what others thing of them, generally speaking. So ironically this is how women's rights are being trampled on by people who were formerly men.

And the person who says they teach Orwell but this is not Orwellian probably should re-read 1984. The whole *idea* behind doublethink in 1984 is that fear and pressure to conform drives people to say words that contradict reality.

Biological sex is real. Trust the science.

Here’s a little trick:

If you are afraid to say something because you are worried that it may be called transphobic, then it’s probably transphobic.

Same thing with worrying that what you say may be considered racist or idiotic.

I’m posting under the same registered handle I’ve had for over 15 years. I don’t worry about saying these things publicly, because to me it’s just common sense.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Further, it isn't the "categorization" of transgender in women's sports that concerns me; it is the fact of their physiological advantage. But that doesn't concern you. You will sacrifice competitive fairness in women's sport to your ideology of inclusivity, whatever the cost to cis women.

This is one of those “you used the wrong formula but got the right answer” scenarios.

I am in favor of transpeople competing in the same category as the bathrooms they use.

You would have an athlete use the women’s bathroom, change into their sports bra and bunhuggers in the women’s locker room, and then line up against the men

Similarly, you would let a bearded man change in the men’s locker room and then run against women.

And you call me crazy 😜

The issue of inclusivity IS what is important here. That is quantitative and factual. Facts don’t care about your feelings.