I mean… this is just wrong
1 Like
Apology accepted. The inclusion and acceptance of trans people is something I want to learn more about. But I’m being honest that I truly don’t understand some of the positions and can only go by what I see. People get mad when they see Lia Thomas shattering swimming records and given my limited knowledge currently, it makes sense. I’ll read riskyflush’s posts more thoroughly
I guess what I’m really saying is that it’s easier (for me?) to understand arguments against trans women in sports than for it and I know that makes me part of the problem so I want to understand it. Asking questions is the easiest way for me
2 Likes
I can speak to the sports stuff more than gender science stuff so I will stick to that to try and answer one of your questions.
Lia Thomas had to submit to hormonal testing to show that she was transitioning(or had transitioned) to put it as bluntly as possible. The hormonal treatments she was getting as part of her transition make her strength and other physical attributes more in line with women. She was not even really a dominant college swimmer except in one event. The idea a male is suddenly going to start dominating sports is just a totally ficiticious starting point because no male is going to go through this kind of hormonal change just to dominate a college level sport. Lia Thomas’s times in her best event are dwarfed by top level female swimmers.
1 Like
she didn’t shatter swimming records.
4 Likes
This issue can be divided into 3 aspects in my view.
-
Participation of transgender youth in organized amateur sporting events.
The social elements of organized sports for youth are so much more important than results that even suggesting that troubled, often bullied kids should not be allowed to participate in their school sporting teams should make you reconsider your values. -
Participation of transgender athletes in professional level sports.
Surly there could, in theory, be an issue here if some bad actors (who -do not actually currently exist or will exist) take adventage of a completely ‘unprotected’ system. But this is not the reality because governing bodies have their own regulation ranging from testosterone levels, muscle mass, time passed since beginning transition etc etc. Are all the governing bodies doing a good job? I don’t know for sure, but the results seem fine to my uneducated eye.
- Bad actors are using this issue, which comes natural to people (“lia thomas shattering records” etc) to ingrain transphobic ideas through the mass media. There is no actual issue of transgenders athletes dominating women sports. Transgender athletes did not go through agonizing procedures so they can win the bronze medal in minnesota biathlon state championship.
It is a non issue where the only thing we as a society need to concentrate on is how to make all the members feel included.
19 Likes
You can use a similar exercise I used to teach in anthropology of race courses that demonstrate how both race and gender are social constructs.
If you lined every person on earth from “most” to “least” of some racial characteristic, like skin tone, you would be unable to decide which two people form the line between one race and another.
Same for gender. If you line up every person on earth from most male to most female using any trait you similarly will be unable to find the two people who fall on each side of the line.
People arguing about sports inclusion are pretending some line this this exists or can be identified.
In many cultures, the idea there are only two genders would sound as odd to them as the idea of more than two genders sounds to some westerners. Additionally, in many cultures non-male or female genders are based on things that have nothing to do with visual queues of any kind but rather spiritual, for example,
Are you using “social construct” to mean “not real”? Because many socially constructed things are real, in the sense of being objective, like money and time.
And didn’t Wichita just post how the NCAA solve your thought experiment?
I mean not binary or categorical. The line would shift all the time based on changing social inputs.
Social constructs are real. They have huge ramifications. Just ask any trans person or POC! 
Also, to be clear social constructs can and do have biological underpinnings as with both race and gender. It doesn’t however follow (like right wingers claim) that the biological underpinnings limit the social expression.
Money is a good example as something that changes all the time. In one place it’s one ton wheels of stone in another it’s ones and zeros on a computer.
1 Like
Sporting events have strict rules. Ranging from weight, to height, to age and even gender. At the professional level those rules also come with billions of dollars and magnitude of livelyhood that depends on it.
Transgender athletes could, in theory, obstruct this system. The theoritical possibility is obvious and very easy to communicate to the masses. This is why I highlighted your post.
The position that gender identity by itself is enough for professional sport eligibility is extremely radical and isn’t currently practiced by any professional sporting body as far as I know. The only people who say that are those who wish to share transphobia to the public and those who unknowingly help them. That’s why your post triggered me, I suppose.
2 Likes
Fair. Your point is right too that this is all just a made up cudgel to beat trans people.
I am just not convinced that even it it was a real issue anyone could come up with a criteria that would somehow objectively decide who was male or female enough to participate. I know they do now but I’m arguing those are simply arbitrary lines drawn on that continuum I mentioned and you could just as easily, and with equal justification, draw them somewhere else.
Be it weight, height, body fat, % of some hormone etc.the line is drawn today almost entirely based on current social reasons.
We have arbitrary lines for everything in life - voting, getting a dui, receiving welfare. Just because a line can be justifiably drawn in a different place doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a line somewhere.
No but it means everyone can stop pretending the line is some natural state that can’t move. Move it a little and we can include all trans people and stop wringing our hands. We move it all the time for lots of other reasons.
1 Like
I mean not really. This is essentially equivalent to your original comment that got pushback.
I think you just like to speak in absolutes.
I use a similar example when explaining evolution. If you could line up all our ancestors all the way back to one that lived in the sea, you’d never be able to discern when one species became a different one. I did not realize that gender between male and female was similar
1 Like
I’m literally arguing it is not absolutes.
I’m not getting that vibe at all. I"m not sure I’m 100% on board with what clovis is saying, but he seems to have the most nuanced, least rigid take here.
1 Like
Exactly there is a whole philosophy of science stream about this topic called lumpers vs splitters.
If you’re going to listen to anyone on this topic, it’s Risky.
Seriously, you could mute every other poster ITT and just read Risky’s posts. It would be +EV for your understanding relative to reading everything.
6 Likes
It’s similar but a little different.
With male and female traits you have two clusters of traits
A large group of people have mostly male identified traits, a large group of people have mostly female identified traits.
But there definitely isn’t a dividing line, and the exception are much more common than the right wingers would think. I.e. there isn’t a “biological male” group and a “biological female” group that makes sense
I quickly gathered that lol