Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[owen87]

Yes, depending on multiple different things.

Why Kenyans Keep Winning Marathons

www.menshealth.com

Why Kenyans Make Such Great Runners: A Story of Genes and Cultures

How an ethnic minority that makes up 0.06% of the world's population came to dominate most of its long-distance races.

www.theatlantic.com

Would it be fairer to segment olympic marathon running to exclude Kenyans? Could people develop the same arguments used against Trans athletes to try to exclude Kenyans, or is that a racist policy?

Where does the line get drawn for you?

Is the performance gap between Kenyan runners and all other runners bigger than the performance gap between biological men and biological women?

 

[Gethelred]

Every country is stronger in some sports compared to others. Certain countries even dominate some sports. But i don't think that can be boiled down to just a race issue. There are a host of different reasons.

That's a bit of a deflection.

What if the Olympic committee decided it wasn't 'fair' to allow Kenyans a monopoly on Marathon medals, and decided to segment the event into a Kenyans only and an Everyone else race. Is the policy fair, or is it a racist policy?

 

[CM86]

The reason the far right is pushing the sport issue so much, is because there are legitimate arguments to be made. And it's much easier to muddy the water and hide behind genuine people.


The most important aspect of the sport issue, is that it makes a statement that "trans women are not women".
That's the message they want, and it's why it's pushed so much.

Here is an official body, agreeing that trans women are not women. This is the base to start pushing against other rights.



Here's a hypothetical for anyone. Let's assume that trans women aren't allowed to compete at elite sporting levels. Are there any other issues you have with trans, or are you now happy with everything else?
Because it's just a matter of time until the trans community are unable to compete against their gender in sport. So will you be happy with everything else then? Or are there other issues you have with the trans-community?

What else would you like changed, or 'protected'?

 

[Gethelred]

Is the performance gap between Kenyan runners and all other runners bigger than the performance gap between biological men and biological women?

I don't have the answer to that question, but it could certainly be evaluated on the numbers.

The only way that changes the original question is, if the performance gap is indeed bigger than or the equivalent to the performance gap between transgender women - post puberty, but after 2 years of testosterone blockers; essentially, the old rules - does that mean you should ban them to be 'fair'?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

That's a bit of a deflection.

What if the Olympic committee decided it wasn't 'fair' to allow Kenyans a monopoly on Marathon medals, and decided to segment the event into a Kenyans only and an Everyone else race. Is the policy fair, or is it a racist policy?

I further added to my post after you quoted it. I'm sorry but i try not to engage with you so much on this issue because i don't believe you can have a reasonable discussion on the matter. To put it simply, your Kenyan argument is not great or relevant in my opinion but you won't be honest enough with yourself to understand why i feel that's the case.

 

[Gethelred]

I further added to my post after you quoted it.

All you added was this:

Opportunity, popularity, culture, funding and facilities are some of those.

... and I don't see how that affects the sources that I produced on the subject any, as they point to genetic factors.

I'm sorry but i try not to engage with you so much on this issue because i don't believe you can have a reasonable discussion on the matter.

Okay.

To put it simply, your Kenyan argument is not great or relevant in my opinion...

Why?

Use your words. Why is it not great (1) and/or relevant (2)?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

All you added was this:

... and I don't see how that affects the sources that I produced on the subject any, as they point to genetic factors.

Okay.

Why?

Use your words.

You're making the argument that it all comes down to genetics. I disagree.

 

[Chief]

i don't believe you can have a reasonable discussion on the matter

This is your "reasonable discussion" on the previous page, in response to a number of points raised by Gralin:

View attachment 1429469

I think Geth has a very valid point:

Where do you draw the line?

We can see kids from richer families can go further in sport, despite scholarships and the like.

We see that kids born earlier in the year are more likely to get drafted to the AFL.

So, from a group of kids playing footy, you can group them by birth date and family income and know who is more likely to make it to the AFL.

What is being done to address those aspects of fairness? None of the "fairness" commentators on YouTube seem to be interested in them.

Why is that? It's a question worth asking.

 

[Gethelred]

You're making the argument that it all comes down to genetics. I disagree.

Smokescreen. Answer the questions put to you.

 

[ShanDog]

That's a bit of a deflection.

What if the Olympic committee decided it wasn't 'fair' to allow Kenyans a monopoly on Marathon medals, and decided to segment the event into a Kenyans only and an Everyone else race. Is the policy fair, or is it a racist policy?

I think it's quite clear that on the whole, the collective 'we' have a fair idea on what constitutes appropriate lines of segregation to be drawn around different sporting endeavours. As previously discussed, there are categories (i.e. segregation) by ability, sex, weight etc in many sports from the amateur/local level right through the elite levels.

We can either accept that these lines of segregation are drawn in a way that best balances fairness, safety and inclusion ideals but may result in uneven results, or we can resolve to quantise every possible characteristic of performance and access and class and sex and historical advantage or disadvantage to create virtually limitless lines of segregation. The latter of these options presents two main problems: there is no possible end point to this which defeats its very purpose, and the result of it would render all results in these newly formed categories virtually meaningless.

If we therefore need to stick to the former (accept that we can't do everything), then ultimately, it makes these sort of hypothetical analogues to the trans women debate pointless IMO.

Let me turn the question around to you - how many lines of segregation do you think there should be in sports?

 

[Gethelred]

I think it's quite clear that on the whole, the collective 'we' have a fair idea on what constitutes appropriate lines of segregation to be drawn around different sporting endeavours. As previously discussed, there are categories (i.e. segregation) by ability, sex, weight etc in many sports from the amateur/local level right through the elite levels.

We can either accept that these lines of segregation are drawn in a way that best balances fairness, safety and inclusion ideals but may result in uneven results, or we can resolve to quantise every possible characteristic of performance and access and class and sex and historical advantage or disadvantage to create virtually limitless lines of segregation. The latter of these options presents two main problems: there is no possible end point to this which defeats its very purpose, and the result of it would render all results in these newly formed categories virtually meaningless.

If we therefore need to stick to the former (accept that we can't do everything), then ultimately, it makes these sort of hypothetical analogues to the trans women debate pointless IMO.

Let me turn the question around to you - how many lines of segregation do you think there should be in sports?

We've already talked about this; I think sport's rules are made up, and should be subject to change because we made them up. I think sport's priority for fairness should be subsumed by society's need to be inclusive whenever they come into conflict.

That does not mean that all sport should be merged together, or that all competition should be merged into one. Individual sports still get to choose their rules and where they draw the line.

The problem I have with the FINA ruling is that they've not released the specific studies/data to allow us to evaluate their reasoning for exclusion. It might be enough for them, but without seeing it for myself I cannot assess it myself.

Bringing things back, if the rule segregating marathon running is a racist policy but a rule segregating post-puberty trans from competing within their gender isn't transphobic, why is that so?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

This is your "reasonable discussion" on the previous page, in response to a number of points raised by Gralin:



I think Geth has a very valid point:

Where do you draw the line?

We can see kids from richer families can go further in sport, despite scholarships and the like.

We see that kids born earlier in the year are more likely to get drafted to the AFL.

So, from a group of kids playing footy, you can group them by birth date and family income and know who is more likely to make it to the AFL.

What is being done to address those aspects of fairness? None of the "fairness" commentators on YouTube seem to be interested in them.

Why is that? It's a question worth asking.

What is being done?

Well, don't TAC Cup teams have positions on their lists these days for above aged kids?

Some of these kids end up making their way to the state leagues which clubs have talent scouts to contantly monitor to identify these late bloomers. I'd say there are a lot more pathways into the AFL these days then there ever has been. But i'm sure you already know all of this.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

We've already talked about this; I think sport's rules are made up, and should be subject to change because we made them up. I think sport's priority for fairness should be subsumed by society's need to be inclusive whenever they come into conflict.

This is why we're going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Gethelred]

This is why we're going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

But that's the thing; you've not enunciated an argument. You've not demonstrated anything resembling an opposing point of view. I cannot agree to disagree, because you've not actually disagreed. You've spent this entire conversation running away.

Just to help you, these are the questions I'd like an answer to, if we're to agree to disagree:

What if the Olympic committee decided it wasn't 'fair' to allow Kenyans a monopoly on Marathon medals, and decided to segment the event into a Kenyans only and an Everyone else race. Is the policy fair, or is it a racist policy?

Why is it not great (1) and/or relevant (2)?

 

[owen87]

I don't have the answer to that question, but it could certainly be evaluated on the numbers.

The only way that changes the original question is, if the performance gap is indeed bigger than or the equivalent to the performance gap between transgender women - post puberty, but after 2 years of testosterone blockers; essentially, the old rules - does that mean you should ban them to be 'fair'?

World Athletics | Marathon - men - senior - all

www.worldathletics.org

You could certainly make an argument for African (from memory the majority are from a small region near-ish to the border of Kenya - Uganda - Ethopia - South Sudan) runners being a separate category to almost anyone else. Any country can 'draft' an African runner as some countries have done in order to win medals. But yes, if you're not of African descent it's highly unlikely you'll run below 2:05 no matter how much you train.

The gap between the Men's world record and the Women's is ~ 12:65 which is significantly larger (2 - 3 times) than the gap between the African runners and the obvious non-African descent runners. FWIW there's ~ 2817 individual men that have run faster than the women's world record at least once.

We know there's a very significant performance gap between biological men and biological women, where male puberty is effectively the single biggest performance enhancing factor available to humanity. We therefore separate women's sport in to it's own category pretty universally across the sporting landscape. Some sports also employ weight divisions because weight can be a key determinant in success for those sports.

We also know that reducing testosterone post-puberty goes a long way to reducing that gap, where some sports have made an effort to study it.

FINA's argument appears to be that in swimming, there remains a gap due to the physical changes that occur during male puberty than can't be mitigated through reducing testosterone that represents a performance gap substantial enough to limit participation at the elite level to biological women, in the women's category. Though they haven't released any public data which makes me question how valid their argument is.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

But that's the thing; you've not enunciated an argument. You've not demonstrated anything resembling an opposing point of view. I cannot agree to disagree, because you've not actually disagreed. You've spent this entire conversation running away.

Just to help you, these are the questions I'd like an answer to, if we're to agree to disagree:

I'm not going to answer your little "gotcha" question because i don't think it is relevant and i've given you reasons why.

 

[Gethelred]

World Athletics | Marathon - men - senior - all

www.worldathletics.org

You could certainly make an argument for African (from memory the majority are from a small region near-ish to the border of Kenya - Uganda - Ethopia - South Sudan) runners being a separate category to almost anyone else. Any country can 'draft' an African runner as some countries have done in order to win medals. But yes, if you're not of African descent it's highly unlikely you'll run below 2:05 no matter how much you train.

The gap between the Men's world record and the Women's is ~ 12:65 which is significantly larger (2 - 3 times) than the gap between the African runners and the obvious non-African descent runners. FWIW there's ~ 2817 individual men that have run faster than the women's world record at least once.

We know there's a very significant performance gap between biological men and biological women, where male puberty is effectively the single biggest performance enhancing factor available to humanity. We therefore separate women's sport in to it's own category pretty universally across the sporting landscape. Some sports also employ weight divisions because weight can be a key determinant in success for those sports.

We also know that reducing testosterone post-puberty goes a long way to reducing that gap, where some sports have made an effort to study it.

FINA's argument appears to be that in swimming, there remains a gap due to the physical changes that occur during male puberty than can't be mitigated through reducing testosterone that represents a performance gap substantial enough to limit participation at the elite level to biological women, in the women's category. Though they haven't released any public data which makes me question how valid their argument is.

A good summary.

The only thing I take issue with is your comparison between the men's and women's WR and extrapolating that across post puberty testosterone blocking trans athletes, because of necessity their performance is more likely to be in line with female gender achievement, and well below cis men.

I've also added a study to the OP, which features further discussion.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm not going to answer your little "gotcha" question because i don't think it is relevant and i've given you reasons why.

... a question which extrapolates an argument to make you examine the reasoning a little harder isn't a gotcha. If you don't like where it leads, maybe blanket dismissal isn't the logical response.

Just a thought.

 

[Chief]

What is being done?

Well, don't TAC Cup teams have positions on their lists these days for above aged kids?

Some of these kids end up making their way to the state leagues which clubs have talent scouts to contantly monitor to identify these late bloomers. I'd say there are a lot more pathways into the AFL these days then there ever has been. But i'm sure you already know all of this.

"Late bloomers"?

The studies - which I'm sure you know all about - show that kids born earlier in the year have an advantage at a young age. They get into teams and are more likely to be picked out as promising because they are in the same team or league as kids who are up to 12 months younger than them. At early ages, even 3 months of extra growth can be the difference between standing out early and just being in the crowd.

What you seem to be calling late bloomers are actually kids developing at a normal rate.

I believe - it's true for drafts up until about 2018-ish, but I haven't looked at the last couple of drafts - that this advantage holds through to the draft.

Apart from a few studies and "now that's interesting" articles, this unfairness doesn't get any sort of coverage from the media.

Why does one "unfairness" get intense coverage from a sector of the media, with calls for legislation, while others don't?

Same for family income and postcode. All sorts of "unfairness" goes unremarked on, or actively dismissed by a sector of the media.

Why pick out trans women as the prime "unfairness" that needs to be legislated on or needs to be dealt with through historic decisions on the structure of sports and leagues?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

... a question which extrapolates an argument to make you examine the reasoning a little harder isn't a gotcha. If you don't like where it leads, maybe blanket dismissal isn't the logical response.

Just a thought.

It's not a great question nor do I find it relevant. Sorry.

 

[Gethelred]

It's not a great question nor do I find it relevant. Sorry.

... which you have not said why, in either case.

And, because you have not said why, you undermine your opposition. You're sitting there with your fingers in your ears, shouting, "Lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The only change will be at the elite level. Nothing will change for the majority anyway it is only the elite level that needed some provisions given to competing. The women that have been training their whole life since they were probably 8 years old deserve their best opportunity and having individuals come in recently transitioned wasn’t fair. However let’s be real right now you are talking maybe 100 or so individuals at most.

 

[Gethelred]

I mean, you don't have to humour me for my sake. Do it for yours; allow yourself to be taken seriously, now and into the future.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

... which you have not said why, in either case.

And, because you have not said why, you undermine your opposition. You're sitting there with your fingers in your ears, shouting, "Lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

I have said why. I'm done.

 

[Gethelred]

I have said why. I'm done.