My daughter is competing against two boys this weekend in California 1600 State Championships

Wise Old Man wrote:

GD wrote:

I don't think it's reasonable or enlightened because queer theory, like all offshoots of critical theory and postmodernism, is anti-scientific and trends naturally towards totalitarianism. All of this is founded on a belief that objectivity is a smokescreen for political power, and this principle leads people to reject aspects of reality that do not conform to political belief systems. There are obvious pitfalls to dismissing reality but even worse pitfalls associated with the belief that all knowledge about the world is a reflection of political power rather than evidence.

One can acknowledge the existence of bias in knowledge production without abandoning the quest for neutral understanding. That is not what queer theory and related ideologies are doing. In place of the liberal, democratic principle that all people can make a truth claim and that the one with the best evidence should provisionally be taken as true, critical/postmodernist theories argue that some people have special access to the truth based on their oppressed identities. Accordingly, people are supposed to believe the oppressed person regardless of the truthfulness of their assertions. In place of the liberal system, which tends to mitigate power grabs, this idea structure enables power grabs in the name of equity and compassion.

It's not surprising that women in your life would lead you down this path. Women are tuned into human suffering and survival and are particularly susceptible to arguments made in the name of care; women are primed to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of vulnerable others. This does not mean that all claims to vulnerability are valid or that the valid ones are the responsibility of women and girls to manage.

All of us are susceptible to theories that center human transcendence, and these days especially, self actualization. Trans hits on all of these vulnerabilities, but it is deeply flawed and harmful. It will not stop at polite acceptance of a small number of kids or adults. At its core, it is an assault on truth and embodied human existence.

Honestly, I think some people need to have a personal tangle with a psychopath or narcissist who is armed with these ideas in order to grasp how anti-human and nasty they are. It doesn't matter that most people who believe in these ideas are motivated by good will. The theories are Kafka traps and will inevitably lead to persecution and chaos.

Ok, I’m not a scholar in this area as you seem to be, and I understand what you are saying, but I’m having trouble extrapolating to the existential threat you envision, or at least I’m not seeing this framework as a greater threat to civilization than from those who would deny any self actualization, like those denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation because it can’t be seen or proved to exist. There are well established concepts of “self” that don’t easily fit the empirical science framework. Listen, I completely reject that belief that a trans woman is female and I totally reject the notion that trans women don’t have biological advantages over females when it comes to sports. None of the women I know think this either, but Acknowledging this truth doesn’t negate reasonable requests for access and accommodation, and then it’s a matter of policy and law where to draw the lines. Everybody in my world, including the giant institution that employs me, the institutions that have educated my children, etc all totally reject the absolute stance of no access or accommodation. Allowing Athena to race in HS as she chooses is a reasonable accommodation many in my area agree with, but not everybody, that’s for sure.

GD wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

Why are you so sure their views are not well reasoned and enlightened? I held a more trans exclusionary view and it was the young women in my personal and professional life that convinced me otherwise. The women NOT the men. They categorically reject the idea that including Athena in their space erases them. People seem to think this is a trick being played on women by old guys like me. Well, in my corner of the world, it’s the other way around.

Just to add on, more than a few of these women have experienced dismissal, discrimination and abuse at the hands of men. They just don’t see the Athenas of the world as a threat. No, she’s an ally.

I don't think it's reasonable or enlightened because queer theory, like all offshoots of critical theory and postmodernism, is anti-scientific and trends naturally towards totalitarianism. All of this is founded on a belief that objectivity is a smokescreen for political power, and this principle leads people to reject aspects of reality that do not conform to political belief systems. There are obvious pitfalls to dismissing reality but even worse pitfalls associated with the belief that all knowledge about the world is a reflection of political power rather than evidence.

One can acknowledge the existence of bias in knowledge production without abandoning the quest for neutral understanding. That is not what queer theory and related ideologies are doing. In place of the liberal, democratic principle that all people can make a truth claim and that the one with the best evidence should provisionally be taken as true, critical/postmodernist theories argue that some people have special access to the truth based on their oppressed identities. Accordingly, people are supposed to believe the oppressed person regardless of the truthfulness of their assertions. In place of the liberal system, which tends to mitigate power grabs, this idea structure enables power grabs in the name of equity and compassion.

It's not surprising that women in your life would lead you down this path. Women are tuned into human suffering and survival and are particularly susceptible to arguments made in the name of care; women are primed to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of vulnerable others. This does not mean that all claims to vulnerability are valid or that the valid ones are the responsibility of women and girls to manage.

All of us are susceptible to theories that center human transcendence, and these days especially, self actualization. Trans hits on all of these vulnerabilities, but it is deeply flawed and harmful. It will not stop at polite acceptance of a small number of kids or adults. At its core, it is an assault on truth and embodied human existence.

Honestly, I think some people need to have a personal tangle with a psychopath or narcissist who is armed with these ideas in order to grasp how anti-human and nasty they are. It doesn't matter that most people who believe in these ideas are motivated by good will. The theories are Kafka traps and will inevitably lead to persecution and chaos.

Wise Old Man wrote:

GD wrote:

I don't think it's reasonable or enlightened because queer theory, like all offshoots of critical theory and postmodernism, is anti-scientific and trends naturally towards totalitarianism. All of this is founded on a belief that objectivity is a smokescreen for political power, and this principle leads people to reject aspects of reality that do not conform to political belief systems. There are obvious pitfalls to dismissing reality but even worse pitfalls associated with the belief that all knowledge about the world is a reflection of political power rather than evidence.

One can acknowledge the existence of bias in knowledge production without abandoning the quest for neutral understanding. That is not what queer theory and related ideologies are doing. In place of the liberal, democratic principle that all people can make a truth claim and that the one with the best evidence should provisionally be taken as true, critical/postmodernist theories argue that some people have special access to the truth based on their oppressed identities. Accordingly, people are supposed to believe the oppressed person regardless of the truthfulness of their assertions. In place of the liberal system, which tends to mitigate power grabs, this idea structure enables power grabs in the name of equity and compassion.

It's not surprising that women in your life would lead you down this path. Women are tuned into human suffering and survival and are particularly susceptible to arguments made in the name of care; women are primed to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of vulnerable others. This does not mean that all claims to vulnerability are valid or that the valid ones are the responsibility of women and girls to manage.

All of us are susceptible to theories that center human transcendence, and these days especially, self actualization. Trans hits on all of these vulnerabilities, but it is deeply flawed and harmful. It will not stop at polite acceptance of a small number of kids or adults. At its core, it is an assault on truth and embodied human existence.

Honestly, I think some people need to have a personal tangle with a psychopath or narcissist who is armed with these ideas in order to grasp how anti-human and nasty they are. It doesn't matter that most people who believe in these ideas are motivated by good will. The theories are Kafka traps and will inevitably lead to persecution and chaos.

Ok, I’m not a scholar in this area as you seem to be, and I understand what you are saying, but I’m having trouble extrapolating to the existential threat you envision, or at least I’m not seeing this framework as a greater threat to civilization than from those who would deny any self actualization, like those denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation because it can’t be seen or proved to exist. There are well established concepts of “self” that don’t easily fit the empirical science framework. Listen, I completely reject that belief that a trans woman is female and I totally reject the notion that trans women don’t have biological advantages over females when it comes to sports. None of the women I know think this either, but Acknowledging this truth doesn’t negate reasonable requests for access and accommodation, and then it’s a matter of policy and law where to draw the lines. Everybody in my world, including the giant institution that employs me, the institutions that have educated my children, etc all totally reject the absolute stance of no access or accommodation. Allowing Athena to race in HS as she chooses is a reasonable accommodation many in my area agree with, but not everybody, that’s for sure.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

Ok, I’m not a scholar in this area as you seem to be, and I understand what you are saying, but I’m having trouble extrapolating to the existential threat you envision, or at least I’m not seeing this framework as a greater threat to civilization than from those who would deny any self actualization, like those denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation because it can’t be seen or proved to exist. There are well established concepts of “self” that don’t easily fit the empirical science framework. Listen, I completely reject that belief that a trans woman is female and I totally reject the notion that trans women don’t have biological advantages over females when it comes to sports. None of the women I know think this either, but Acknowledging this truth doesn’t negate reasonable requests for access and accommodation, and then it’s a matter of policy and law where to draw the lines. Everybody in my world, including the giant institution that employs me, the institutions that have educated my children, etc all totally reject the absolute stance of no access or accommodation. Allowing Athena to race in HS as she chooses is a reasonable accommodation many in my area agree with, but not everybody, that’s for sure.

I am baffled. You say "I completely reject that belief that a trans woman is female and I totally reject the notion that trans women don’t have biological advantages over females when it comes to sports". But then you say a trans athlete should be able to race in HS how "she" chooses. How does that square with what you just said - or are you are saying it simply doesn't matter, because any objection is trumped by the wishes of the trans athlete?

RunRagged wrote:

George Smith wrote:

Scientific Fact: that 2 out of 11000 people are born with both sex organs. They did not have a choice.

No, that's total malarkey. True hermaphroditism does not occur in humans. There's never been a case of a human being born with "both sex organs."

None of the 40 or so different medical condtions known as DSDs (differences or disorders of sex development) involve being born with or later developing "both sex organs."

Also, DSDs that cause person to be born with external sex organs that either look ambiguous or are inconsistent with their chromosomal/genetic sex and internal anatomy are extremely rare, affecting 0.018% of the human population.

If it really were true that it's a "scientific fact that 2 out of 11,000 people are born with both sex organs," how come there's never been a single case report published in scientific and medical literature documenting any these people and describing their unusual anatomy in detail?

If it were really true that legions of human being over the course of history have been born with both female and male sex organs, then it's odd that no doctor, scientist or someone associated with the "Guinness Book of World Records" or "Ripley's Believe It Or Not!" has ever taken the time to describe, draw or provide modern medical imagining showing where the prostate, seminal vesicles and vas deferens of these people are located in relation to their uterus, cervix and vagina.

If it were really a "scientific fact" that legions of human beings over the course of history have been born with both female and male sex organs, it would mean they'd have two entirely separate urethras and two urethral openings - one at the end of their penis, and one in the vulva in front of their vaginal opening. How exactly woudl they urinate? Would they urinate from urethras and openings simultaneously? Or would they alternate between the two?

It there have always been babies born with two urethras and urethral openings, how come they've never gotten a single mention in the vast written literature and oral information about the mechanics of human urination that parents - mostly mums - and nannnies, governesses, and nursery workers have relied on since time immemorial for advice about both proper diapering hygiene and how and when to toilet train children?

feelbadforher wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

Ok, I’m not a scholar in this area as you seem to be, and I understand what you are saying, but I’m having trouble extrapolating to the existential threat you envision, or at least I’m not seeing this framework as a greater threat to civilization than from those who would deny any self actualization, like those denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation because it can’t be seen or proved to exist. There are well established concepts of “self” that don’t easily fit the empirical science framework. Listen, I completely reject that belief that a trans woman is female and I totally reject the notion that trans women don’t have biological advantages over females when it comes to sports. None of the women I know think this either, but Acknowledging this truth doesn’t negate reasonable requests for access and accommodation, and then it’s a matter of policy and law where to draw the lines. Everybody in my world, including the giant institution that employs me, the institutions that have educated my children, etc all totally reject the absolute stance of no access or accommodation. Allowing Athena to race in HS as she chooses is a reasonable accommodation many in my area agree with, but not everybody, that’s for sure.

You're all over the place on this.

You're acknowledging that a trans woman isn't female.

You're acknowledging that trans women do have a biological advantage over females.

So why in the world are requests for access and accommodation in competitive athletics considered "reasonable" by anyone, or any governing body?

RunRagged wrote:

I don't understand how anyone who has thought things through even a little bit can maintain that providing "reasonable accommodations and access" for trans-identified people requires acceding to all their requests - or demands, rather - for "inclusion" in and access to all the sports, spaces, services, programs and activities meant for the opposite sex.

The measures you call "reasonable accommodations and access" mean removing the hard-won rights of girls' and women to fairness and safety in sports.

The measures you call "reasonable accommodations and access" also mean removing the again hard-won rights of the female half of the human population to safety, privacy, dignity, comfort, hygiene, peace of mind and convenience in the places we use outside our homes that were established and designed to suit and accommodate our bodies and our needs. Such as women's and girls' locker rooms, toilets, fitting rooms, workplace changing rooms and showers, spas, saunas, dorm rooms, bunk houses, sororities, barracks, rape refuges, shelters, hospital wards and rooms, nursing homes, rehab facilities, support groups, prisons, etc.

You liken not letting those who claim to be "transgender" from getting everything they want and demand to "denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation." I don't think this is a good analogy.

LGB people never asked to intrude into the sex-specific sports, spaces, services, social activities and programs we don't belong in.

LGB people asked to be treated decently and fairly, to be accepted and respected as full-fledged members of the human race deserving of equal rights such as the right to marry someone of the same sex. We also asked for full inclusion in all the sports, spaces, programs, instituions, services and social activities set up for our own sex class.

LGB people have never denied our sex or the reality of sex, or pretended that sex doesn't matter. Nor have we asked other people and the rest of society to deny, ignore or downplay our sex, their sex, the reality of sex, or the relevance and importance of sex in those areas of life where sex matters.

Once the powers that be and the rank and file populace replace sex with gender - or insist that gender identity and gender presentation should be given primacy over biological sex - the hard-won rights of LGB people are thrown under the bus too.

Wise Old Man wrote:

feelbadforher wrote:

You're all over the place on this.

You're acknowledging that a trans woman isn't female.

You're acknowledging that trans women do have a biological advantage over females.

So why in the world are requests for access and accommodation in competitive athletics considered "reasonable" by anyone, or any governing body?

Because bottom line, competitive fairness is not the only thing that matters when deciding about who can participate and when setting the rules that govern participation. You may not agree with me (it’s not up to me anyway) and I’m sure you don’t, but I think HS athletics is primarily an educational undertaking rather than a competitive one, and erring on the side of inclusion often trumps fairness, especially when there’s no safety issue involved and the adverse impact of having a trans athlete in the competition is modest if not zero on the other athletes. Yes, I know ALL about HS sports and what’s involved, but still I think the adverse impact of having Athena race this weekend is modest to zero. I get this is a sticking point. My G-D, when Adeline Johnson was out of the state meet (now she’s in) the twitter commentator Linda Blade called it “a defining moment” for Adeline. Seriously? I’d certainly like to know if that’s how Adeline feels, but I’d be surprised if she did. If you believe that the NCS MOC meet provides people with defining moments one way or another, then ok. Generally speaking, I don’t. However, banning Athena from the race, heckling her from the stands, calling to trip her, calling her a cheater when she’s running within the rules, now that’s a defining moment. If you don’t see it this way, I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. Anyway, when does the balance of fairness v inclusion tip one way or another, well that’s a judgement call, but right now trans inclusion in HS sports is also the judgement of the CIF. I certainly don’t support having a trans woman athlete compete in the 1500 at the Olympics outside of their sex category, but that’s professional running, and not in any way an educational activity involving children. Big money is on the line, etc. The NCAA is a closer call because the competition is part of school so to speak, but in the end I support the same restrictions as would be imposed at the pro level. Now you may go nuts and say I’m a misogynist and that this opinion is way off, but again, I’m channeling the opinion of many of the young women athletes I know. I started out as much more of a person who would take a trans exclusionary position, but again it was the women in my orbit who disabused me of these positions.

Ok, lot’s of great T&F to watch this weekend. Let’s see what happens at the CA state meet too in terms of the competition and the protests, if any.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Wrapping up this thread for me….

What can I say to answer your primary question? Well, making reasonable accommodations doesn’t mean acceding to all demands, but yes it seems the governor of CA, the CA state legislature, the CA attorney general, our senators, many of our congressional delegation, our former senator and now VP, the CIF, the University of California, the major LGBT organizations in CA, the mayors of LA and SF, the SF board of supervisors, the editorial board of the SF chronicle and LA Times, etc etc have reached the conclusions that access and accommodation should be made in some/many of the specific areas you reference after deliberating on these issues. On a personal level, most (I won’t say all) of the women I know reject the idea that allowing the Athena Ryans of the world into their races or spaces compromises their “safety, privacy, dignity, comfort, hygiene, peace of mind and convenience in the places we use outside our homes that were established and designed to suit and accommodate our bodies and our needs.” Maybe they should, but they just don’t. The men of LRC are near 100% in agreement with you. Many of the young women of CA and probably most of the LGB people of the state, and our leaders, not nearly as much.

Wise Old Man wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

I don't understand how anyone who has thought things through even a little bit can maintain that providing "reasonable accommodations and access" for trans-identified people requires acceding to all their requests - or demands, rather - for "inclusion" in and access to all the sports, spaces, services, programs and activities meant for the opposite sex.

The measures you call "reasonable accommodations and access" mean removing the hard-won rights of girls' and women to fairness and safety in sports.

The measures you call "reasonable accommodations and access" also mean removing the again hard-won rights of the female half of the human population to safety, privacy, dignity, comfort, hygiene, peace of mind and convenience in the places we use outside our homes that were established and designed to suit and accommodate our bodies and our needs. Such as women's and girls' locker rooms, toilets, fitting rooms, workplace changing rooms and showers, spas, saunas, dorm rooms, bunk houses, sororities, barracks, rape refuges, shelters, hospital wards and rooms, nursing homes, rehab facilities, support groups, prisons, etc.

You liken not letting those who claim to be "transgender" from getting everything they want and demand to "denying accommodations and access to somebody based on their sexual orientation." I don't think this is a good analogy.

LGB people never asked to intrude into the sex-specific sports, spaces, services, social activities and programs we don't belong in.

LGB people asked to be treated decently and fairly, to be accepted and respected as full-fledged members of the human race deserving of equal rights such as the right to marry someone of the same sex. We also asked for full inclusion in all the sports, spaces, programs, instituions, services and social activities set up for our own sex class.

LGB people have never denied our sex or the reality of sex, or pretended that sex doesn't matter. Nor have we asked other people and the rest of society to deny, ignore or downplay our sex, their sex, the reality of sex, or the relevance and importance of sex in those areas of life where sex matters.

Once the powers that be and the rank and file populace replace sex with gender - or insist that gender identity and gender presentation should be given primacy over biological sex - the hard-won rights of LGB people are thrown under the bus too.

Wrapping up this thread for me….

What can I say to answer your primary question? Well, making reasonable accommodations doesn’t mean acceding to all demands, but yes it seems the governor of CA, the CA state legislature, the CA attorney general, our senators, many of our congressional delegation, our former senator and now VP, the CIF, the University of California, the major LGBT organizations in CA, the mayors of LA and SF, the SF board of supervisors, the editorial board of the SF chronicle and LA Times, etc etc have reached the conclusions that access and accommodation should be made in some/many of the specific areas you reference after deliberating on these issues. On a personal level, most (I won’t say all) of the women I know reject the idea that allowing the Athena Ryans of the world into their races or spaces compromises their “safety, privacy, dignity, comfort, hygiene, peace of mind and convenience in the places we use outside our homes that were established and designed to suit and accommodate our bodies and our needs.” Maybe they should, but they just don’t. The men of LRC are near 100% in agreement with you. Many of the young women of CA and probably most of the LGB people of the state, and our leaders, not nearly as much.

RunRagged wrote:

So because you say your position is the one held by everyone you know, including your kids, and by everybody you think is anybody in the state where you live - including all of the most powerful and moneyed establishment institutions, politicians, officials, fat cats, wheelers and dealers, the mainstream media, myriad non-profit sector organizations with clout, sway, coffers full of dough thanks to the wealthy foundations and corporations that fund them - it means your position must be right, well-considered, reasonable and just?

Really? And you call yourself "a wise old man"?

An argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument in which a person claims something is true, good and/or right because that's the view of the majority of the people he knows, where he lives, and whom he pays attention to.

I find it pathetic that you can't stand on your own two feet, speak for yourself, and simply make an argument showing why your position is reasonable, moral and fair on its own merits.

Wise Old Man wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

So because you say your position is the one held by everyone you know, including your kids, and by everybody you think is anybody in the state where you live - including all of the most powerful and moneyed establishment institutions, politicians, officials, fat cats, wheelers and dealers, the mainstream media, myriad non-profit sector organizations with clout, sway, coffers full of dough thanks to the wealthy foundations and corporations that fund them - it means your position must be right, well-considered, reasonable and just?

Really? And you call yourself "a wise old man"?

An argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument in which a person claims something is true, good and/or right because that's the view of the majority of the people he knows, where he lives, and whom he pays attention to.

I find it pathetic that you can't stand on your own two feet, speak for yourself, and simply make an argument showing why your position is reasonable, moral and fair on its own merits.

In response to you and “try again”

1) Try again, we do not try to dox people on this site, but no, I’m not Sophia Nordenholz’s father. Rather than spending time guessing who I am, why don’t you register on LRC? Sophia by the way, the legend of the Dublin Distance Fiesta!!

2) I’m accused of mansplaining and dictating to women, then I’m accused of not standing on my own two feet and offering my own opinion, but hiding behind the women I know. Which is it? I’ll give you my opinion below, but it is most informed by what I’ve learned from women.

Opinion

3) Trans people are an oppressed and marginalized group. The evidence for this is overwhelming. It strikes me as perverse to cast them as oppressors or usurpers. Instead the feminists I know stand in solidarity with trans people. You know, the whole intersectionality thing.

4) Trans women are NOT female, but they are NOT men either. Assuming they behave like men is wrong. The evidence that their inclusion in spaces reserved for women poses a danger to women is slim to none. Providing anecdotes of every trans person who has done something terrible is a bigoted form of argument and is right out of the playbook used against every other marginalized group through history. Discussing the behavior of incarcerated criminals in this context is ridiculous. If you are a convicted rapist you should be segregated from potential victims regardless in prison and elsewhere. Having the behavior of criminals inform a decision about who gets to use the locker room at work is a dumb way of deciding.

5) Excluding trans people from these safe spaces is impractical and intrusive. Are you going to subject everybody to a genital check or ask for their birth certificate or just base it on stereotypical looks, which you rightly condemn?

6) Finally, men who want to do harm to women will find a way. Arguing that trans inclusion is a Trojan horse of some kind is not supported in reality.

7) As for track and field, I judge the harm caused to Athena et al by barring her/them from competing in HS sports as a girl to be greater than the harm experienced collectively by the other athletes in her/their races. So I agree with CIF, that at this level of competition and in this school/education context the WISE thing is to allow her/them to race.