Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

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...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[the_interloper]

Holly Holm added an interesting editorial at the end of her Octagon interview after a great win on the weekend. It's sort of related to this thread I think, she was slightly vague. For context she is the daughter of a preacher and I'm assuming quite religious and conservative

Timestamped

 

[faible]

Holly Holm added an interesting editorial at the end of her Octagon interview after a great win on the weekend. It's sort of related to this thread I think, she was slightly vague. For context she is the daughter of a preacher and I'm assuming quite religious and conservative

Timestamped

There's a certain irony in the catch-cry of religious types being 'protect the children' when organised religion is the biggest threat to the safety of children...

 

[cartwright]

You like to lump all these groups together as TERFs, I know. But there's a large number of biological women who compete in sport that apparently have no right to any opinions of their own under Gralin's world view. Your view however, is paramount.

as a woman, and talking to women who are not at all hateful towards transwomen there are some concerns. Not about sport. For them, its about safe spaces in DV services, hospitals etc and what this all means.

I suspect online they'd be unfairly labelled Terfs.

 

[Gralin]

Sure, but in this case we know it's performance enhancing. We've seen Semenya's performances at different T levels to know. We've seen the Rio 800m podium (when the hormone rules were relaxed) to know. There is a performance advantage for these particular athletes.

Agreed but I'm talking more about the fact that the same T level in two different people doesn't equate to the same impact on performance.

I get if they are going to draw a line on levels they have to do it somewhere, but that doesn't mean they are picking the right spot

Agree, as I said, where sports are predominantly determined by physical capability it will apply differently to one where other factors are at play e.g. skills, or things like chess or equestrian.

all sports require some skill, different physical attributes are of different benefit in different sports as well

Ignoring fairness to who? You regularly speak about fairness but are only concerned about fairness for the minority of intersex or transgender athletes as opposed to the biological female athletes without a DSD condition who make up the majority of the field and who appear to be a level below the DSD athletes when competing unrestricted.

Michael Phelps had multiple physical advantages that allowed him to compete at a level his peers could not achieve.

History is full of athletes like this.

There will always be people that are better, for whatever reason, we've just decided in womens sport to be a lot more restrictive about how they are allowed to be better

and in some cases we've banned people without them being better because they "might be"

Slippery slope fallacy.

hell no its happened before and its happening now

laws being passed in the US to stop trans women competing will subject teenage girls to genital inspections, people can report athletes they think could be trans etc, this will impact cis women, this always impacts cis women

that's my point

these rules don't protect cis women, they might allow some to win a few more competitions but the burden on all of them to achieve this is going to be pretty high and open to exploitation

Because the 'male' category is basically the unrestricted category.

I mean its not, they have all sorts of rules and restrictions as well, they just don't care about certain things that they do in womens sports

What reality though? We know intersex athletes in the 800m event can perform at a level only matched by (highly likely) steroid driven performances of other women.

Trans women being completely excluded from competing as if they're the end of the world for sports when they haven't been

You like to lump all these groups together as TERFs, I know.

No I'm saying the political pressure to do this is coming from the TERFs and their money groups

But there's a large number of biological women who compete in sport that apparently have no right to any opinions of their own under Gralin's world view.

I don't think their view is any more important than the women who are happy to compete, I tend to fall on the side of inclusion vs exclusion

Your view however, is paramount.

I'm just sick of sport being the trojan horse for wider bigotry, not everyone who is worried about womens sport wants to eradicate trans people from existence but they're providing great support and cover to the people who are whether they realise it or not.

and generally when the wider issues are mentioned, they don't want to talk about them, just kicking them out of sport like it happens in a vacuum

and I can't tell the difference between someone just not interested in anything other than sport and a bad faith actor because the language used by the bad faith actors has become the standard language used for this discussion

 

[Gralin]

as a woman, and talking to women who are not at all hateful towards transwomen there are some concerns. Not about sport. For them, its about safe spaces in DV services, hospitals etc and what this all means.

I suspect online they'd be unfairly labelled Terfs.

What sort of concerns do they have about the spaces trans women are allowed in outside of sport and why are they concerned?

 

[faible]

Agreed but I'm talking more about the fact that the same T level in two different people doesn't equate to the same impact on performance.

I get if they are going to draw a line on levels they have to do it somewhere, but that doesn't mean they are picking the right spot

Sure, in Athletics case they've drawn the line in a few different places now. kirsti has the data somewhere about distribution of T levels in biological women and I don't believe the level they've used at any point would exclude athletes without some form of condition causing elevated T levels.

all sports require some skill, different physical attributes are of different benefit in different sports as well

Definitely, Athletics and Swimming have made decisions related to that sport, something like Equestrian which has a very clear difference might not need to have a separate category for women at all so would make entirely different decisions.

Michael Phelps had multiple physical advantages that allowed him to compete at a level his peers could not achieve.

History is full of athletes like this.

It's the level and type of advantage I suppose, Phelps was undoubtedly physically gifted due to his size and proportions (very tall with short legs and relatively long arms is perfect for swimming). In some sports we have different weight classes because weight has an enormous impact on the outcome, whereas in others weight isn't an overly relevant metric.

hell no its happened before and its happening now

laws being passed in the US to stop trans women competing will subject teenage girls to genital inspections, people can report athletes they think could be trans etc, this will impact cis women, this always impacts cis women

that's my point

these rules don't protect cis women, they might allow some to win a few more competitions but the burden on all of them to achieve this is going to be pretty high and open to exploitation

The bolded contradicts itself though, if the rules 'protect' the cis women from competing on an unfair level, it's achieving exactly what the sport is wanting it to achieve.

Whilst the genital examination thing is pretty gross - especially in athletes U18, we should probably remember elite athletes already have to pee in front of a WADA accredited tester, so there's already some pretty unpleasant experiences that come with being an elite athlete.

I mean its not, they have all sorts of rules and restrictions as well, they just don't care about certain things that they do in womens sports

Of course not, because in many sports the men's category is actually the open category. There's nothing specifically stopping women entering many men's events, whereas there is no avenue whatsoever for me to enter a women's event.

No I'm saying the political pressure to do this is coming from the TERFs and their money groups

You assume this, I'm confident many of the athletes in these sports have come to their own opinions based upon their experiences. Not everyone who disagrees with you is being manipulated by TERFs.

I don't think their view is any more important than the women who are happy to compete, I tend to fall on the side of inclusion vs exclusion

You kind of do though, you take the view of the trans-inclusive group and decide that's the view, and regularly call anyone who disgarees with that position a TERF. And the only small concession to that you make is 'well if they're not a TERF they're being driven to that view by TERFs'.

I'm just sick of sport being the trojan horse for wider bigotry, not everyone who is worried about womens sport wants to eradicate trans people from existence but they're providing great support and cover to the people who are whether they realise it or not.

and generally when the wider issues are mentioned, they don't want to talk about them, just kicking them out of sport like it happens in a vacuum

and I can't tell the difference between someone just not interested in anything other than sport and a bad faith actor because the language used by the bad faith actors has become the standard language used for this discussion

Perhaps rather than assuming you know that everyone who comments in a fashion you don't like is driving an anti-trans agenda, you could ask for some more detail?

This is a sport forum, a lot of the women who post on this forum will have participated in sport throughout their lives, so will likely have opinions of their own based on their experiences in sport. Hell we've even got the good fortune of having a few trans posters on the forum who have kindly and openly shared their perspectives and experiences in sport.

I'm all for trans people being able to be included and accepted in society, and I think at the community sport level there's certainly room for inclusion to be the driving factor in participation. At the elite level this changes though, participation in elite / professional sport isn't a right for anyone, and we already limit who can participate in the women's events in order to level the playing as much as practicable.

I think kirsti has done a wonderful job of providing information about what's going on in the space in terms of research, has been very open with her experiences and has shown a remarkable level of tolerance of posters who haven't shown her a similar level of tolerance in return, but I don't have to agree with all of her conclusions and there's room to have a respectful discussion about where different people fall on the topic without reverting to labelling them TERFs. It rarely takes more than a post or two for someone to be accused of bigotry if they don't favour all-out inclusion.

 

[Gralin]

Sure, in Athletics case they've drawn the line in a few different places now. kirsti has the data somewhere about distribution of T levels in biological women and I don't believe the level they've used at any point would exclude athletes without some form of condition causing elevated T levels.



Definitely, Athletics and Swimming have made decisions related to that sport, something like Equestrian which has a very clear difference might not need to have a separate category for women at all so would make entirely different decisions.

agree in principle, don't agree with swimming or athletics particular stances in action

It's the level and type of advantage I suppose, Phelps was undoubtedly physically gifted due to his size and proportions (very tall with short legs and relatively long arms is perfect for swimming). In some sports we have different weight classes because weight has an enormous impact on the outcome, whereas in others weight isn't an overly relevant metric.

he had a bit more going for him than his wing span but yes I agree that different sports have different requirements and differences in size, weight, strength etc have different impacts

my issue, which isn't with you is that so often the argument against trans participation is but they're bigger and stronger and will dominate / comparing to men who haven't transitioned

The bolded contradicts itself though, if the rules 'protect' the cis women from competing on an unfair level, it's achieving exactly what the sport is wanting it to achieve.

in the sense of "protecting the integrity" of the sport perhaps, in the sense of keeping women and girls safe big fail though

Whilst the genital examination thing is pretty gross - especially in athletes U18, we should probably remember elite athletes already have to pee in front of a WADA accredited tester, so there's already some pretty unpleasant experiences that come with being an elite athlete.

some of the laws passed include invasive inspections, internal physical exams

also not the first time they've done this sort of thing "in the name of integrity"

Of course not, because in many sports the men's category is actually the open category. There's nothing specifically stopping women entering many men's events, whereas there is no avenue whatsoever for me to enter a women's event.

yeah in theory and certainly below the elite level this happens

that doesn't mean in all scenarios women are welcome or the facilities exist to support them in the open categories though

You assume this, I'm confident many of the athletes in these sports have come to their own opinions based upon their experiences. Not everyone who disagrees with you is being manipulated by TERFs.

We've had a good 5 years of rather specific messaging in mainstream media, funded by groups like CPAC.

To think the media doesn't have a large role in peoples current positions would be naive, and the media has generally been pushing the stories the anti trans groups are writing and paying for, not just the traditional conservative media

One of the largest anti trans activists in London is married to the editor of the guardian over there and they've been pretty brutal in their coverage.

we saw in the 80s what the media can help do with how they covered AIDS

hell we see it every day with climate change, politics, poverty, you name it

people that aren't engaged just get the headlines that are repeated over and over and that becomes their default position without much thought

You kind of do though, you take the view of the trans-inclusive group and decide that's the view, and regularly call anyone who disgarees with that position a TERF. And the only small concession to that you make is 'well if they're not a TERF they're being driven to that view by TERFs'.

I said I don't think their view is any more important, I don't have to agree with them though.

The argument that gets brought up is what about the women who don't want to compete with these people or share facilities

Same argument about whether black people should be integrated, whether gay people should be able to use the same toilets as straights etc

Nobody is making them play sport or use a change room, they can choose to exercise their right to segregate by removing themselves from the situation

This is not a new struggle for rights, its just the most recent example that the media has latched onto

Perhaps rather than assuming you know that everyone who comments in a fashion you don't like is driving an anti-trans agenda, you could ask for some more detail?

Like I said, you can't tell the difference between a bad faith actor and someone with a genuine concern online, especially when they use the exact same language and talking points

The outcome is going to be the same as well as far as repercussions because the bad faith actors are the ones writing legislation and funding this issue

When you have literal Nazi's coming out in support of your movement, and people are saying well the nazis were bad but they had the right idea with trans people it's an issue

Like if you're looking around and seeing all of that going on and you still think the battle that needs to be won is removing trans people from sports and change rooms I don't have much time for you.

This is a sport forum, a lot of the women who post on this forum will have participated in sport throughout their lives, so will likely have opinions of their own based on their experiences in sport. Hell we've even got the good fortune of having a few trans posters on the forum who have kindly and openly shared their perspectives and experiences in sport.

I'm all for trans people being able to be included and accepted in society, and I think at the community sport level there's certainly room for inclusion to be the driving factor in participation. At the elite level this changes though, participation in elite / professional sport isn't a right for anyone, and we already limit who can participate in the women's events in order to level the playing as much as practicable.

This is fair, again I don't have issues with rules, I have issues with blanket bans and the way they set criteria for inclusion that cannot be met to pretend like its not a blanket ban

I think kirsti has done a wonderful job of providing information about what's going on in the space in terms of research, has been very open with her experiences and has shown a remarkable level of tolerance of posters who haven't shown her a similar level of tolerance in return, but I don't have to agree with all of her conclusions and there's room to have a respectful discussion about where different people fall on the topic without reverting to labelling them TERFs. It rarely takes more than a post or two for someone to be accused of bigotry if they don't favour all-out inclusion.

There's a lot of pretty open bigotry though, just straight up.

like why do people take the time to write biological when they can just write cis

generally in the GC and Terf circles its because they don't see trans women as women and they see cis as a slur because they think there is only one category of woman and that is a biological female

there's also plenty of people that pop in to just drop in a post or two that is just straight up terf talking points and not respectful discussions

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is purely a thought exercise and I'm just spitballing here, but I'm wondering if this sort of system would ever be workable;

Event: 800m (for example)

Participants: Open field

Through a series of elimination heats the best of a variety of gender identities win through to a final. They race against the record time previously set in their category (biological male, biological female, intersex, trans male-to-female, trans female-to-male, non-binary) but all take to the track in the heats and the final as one.

The pool of talent still narrows as the competition moves through the heat stage, the competitive ability to strive to be the very best is preserved, people are still racing against each other for the spectacle as well as the glory and everyone has their day.

Fairness-by-category is still preserved.

Could something like that work?

 

[cartwright]

What sort of concerns do they have about the spaces transwomen are allowed in outside of sport and why are they concerned?

It wasn't at trans women - more around men being able to self identify and gain access to dv spaces and or hospitals. What does that mean, how does that work in reality etc. It seemed to be a theory that well, if a man really wants to get to a woman can he do it easier if these services are accessible.. I didn't push it too much as it is a sensitive topic for one of them (prior experience with DV) + not the right environment to delve further.

 

[Gralin]

It wasn't at trans women - more around men being able to self identify and gain access to dv spaces and or hospitals.

So they're worried about cis men pretending to be trans to gain access to spaces?

What does that mean, how does that work in reality etc. It seemed to be a theory that well, if a man really wants to get to a woman can he do it easier if these services are accessible..

And this leads to wanting to exclude trans women because of the risk of cis men?

I didn't push it too much as it is a sensitive topic for one of them (prior experience with DV) + not the right environment to delve further.

Yeah totally fair.

I can understand the thought process that leads to the above if I've understood correctly.

I don't agree that blocking trans women from accessing those spaces is the correct way to minimize the risk of cis male predators entering a safe space, but it is a great way to remove access to a safe space from someone else who also might need it.

We're already seeing cis women and non binary people who don't look "feminine" enough targeted in bathrooms and other places by women who think they're men trying to sneak in.

There's no easy answer to that situation

 

[faible]

my issue, which isn't with you is that so often the argument against trans participation is but they're bigger and stronger and will dominate / comparing to men who haven't transitioned

in the sense of "protecting the integrity" of the sport perhaps, in the sense of keeping women and girls safe big fail though

Don't disagree, there's plenty of evidence that for trans athletes the vast majority of the advantage (in some sports anyway) is mitigated by reducing T levels for a period of time. The problem there is (as kirsti has raised) that reducing those T levels to the level needed for that is harmful to the long-term health of the athlete. But not reducing them means the performance gap isn't reduced.

that doesn't mean in all scenarios women are welcome or the facilities exist to support them in the open categories though

That's true, depends on the sport or event of course, lots of sports like athletics or swimming have facilities for both and so a female could opt to enter events as a male without any underlying infrastructure issue.

people that aren't engaged just get the headlines that are repeated over and over and that becomes their default position without much thought

Definitely the case with the general public, but within a sport there would be a lot of athletes with a lot of experiences that seemingly have limited freedom to speak their mind. I believe when Swimming implemented their rule change most of the female athletes were in favour.

I said I don't think their view is any more important, I don't have to agree with them though.

The argument that gets brought up is what about the women who don't want to compete with these people or share facilities

Same argument about whether black people should be integrated, whether gay people should be able to use the same toilets as straights etc

Nobody is making them play sport or use a change room, they can choose to exercise their right to segregate by removing themselves from the situation

This is not a new struggle for rights, its just the most recent example that the media has latched onto

Nobody is making a transgender or intersex person play sport or use a change room either though, so it's a bit of a circular argument isn't it?

Sharing facilities is an interesting one, as the point of segregated facilities is that individuals can feel comfortable in an exposed setting, and whilst I'm sure a cis person (look I used the term you like!) would feel somewhat uncomfortable if a person who wasn't of their sex was in said changeroom, it would also be quite an uncomfortable experience for a non-cis gender person as well.

That probably requires better solutions, as whilst we can simply have individual unisex changing rooms, the changing room environment itself appears to be an important part of the experience of team sports.

Like I said, you can't tell the difference between a bad faith actor and someone with a genuine concern online, especially when they use the exact same language and talking points

The outcome is going to be the same as well as far as repercussions because the bad faith actors are the ones writing legislation and funding this issue

When you have literal Nazi's coming out in support of your movement, and people are saying well the nazis were bad but they had the right idea with trans people it's an issue

Like if you're looking around and seeing all of that going on and you still think the battle that needs to be won is removing trans people from sports and change rooms I don't have much time for you.

I think you usually can, most people around these parts have a fair bit of posting history and there's a reasonable sense of where people stand on certain things.

Regarding the last sentence, there's that whole saying about walking and chewing gum and all. We can discuss more than one thing at a time, there's been a few posters who have been pretty anti-trans as a blanket thing but plenty of others appear to be pretty OK with transgender people having the freedom and safety to live their life as makes them happy whilst having thoughts on how things look in the sporting arena.

Nazi's are bad, using anti-trans rhetoric as a wedge issue to try to win votes is bad, and people should rightly condemn all of those things.

This is fair, again I don't have issues with rules, I have issues with blanket bans and the way they set criteria for inclusion that cannot be met to pretend like its not a blanket ban

They 'can' be met but it largely removes DSD athletes from the field, I believe Semenya's times dropped her out of finals contention let alone winning when her T level have been reduced previously. Plus the previously mentioned potential health issues for the athletes. There's not really a 'kind' way of implementing such a rule though, unless Semenya enters the open / men's field.

There's a lot of pretty open bigotry though, just straight up.

like why do people take the time to write biological when they can just write cis

generally in the GC and Terf circles its because they don't see trans women as women and they see cis as a slur because they think there is only one category of woman and that is a biological female

there's also plenty of people that pop in to just drop in a post or two that is just straight up terf talking points and not respectful discussions

I think you wrongly assume everyone posting on the topic is well versed in the various language and terms that are appropriate to use, and that not using them as is 'correct' is therefore a deliberate attempt to send some kind of hidden message.

People might know what cis means, but it's not a word you would commonly use unless you were discussing this topic constantly, so it's just as easy to use the word biological to make it clear what's being talked about. I do it all the time since it clarifies the difference between whether I'm referring to sex or gender. Since apparently woman is one and female is another but I couldn't tell you which is which.

 

[faible]

This is purely a thought exercise and I'm just spitballing here, but I'm wondering if this sort of system would ever be workable;

Event: 800m (for example)

Participants: Open field

Through a series of elimination heats the best of a variety of gender identities win through to a final. They race against the record time previously set in their category (biological male, biological female, intersex, trans male-to-female, trans female-to-male, non-binary) but all take to the track in the heats and the final as one.

The pool of talent still narrows as the competition moves through the heat stage, the competitive ability to strive to be the very best is preserved, people are still racing against each other for the spectacle as well as the glory and everyone has their day.

Fairness-by-category is still preserved.

Could something like that work?

It could, but would make for a terrible spectacle. That's pretty much how para categories already work, and if you ever do masters competitions in some sports they do the same thing. Works fine from an organisational / individual perspective, but wouldn't draw in TV dollars.

 

[the_interloper]

This is purely a thought exercise and I'm just spitballing here, but I'm wondering if this sort of system would ever be workable;

Event: 800m (for example)

Participants: Open field

Through a series of elimination heats the best of a variety of gender identities win through to a final. They race against the record time previously set in their category (biological male, biological female, intersex, trans male-to-female, trans female-to-male, non-binary) but all take to the track in the heats and the final as one.

The pool of talent still narrows as the competition moves through the heat stage, the competitive ability to strive to be the very best is preserved, people are still racing against each other for the spectacle as well as the glory and everyone has their day.

Fairness-by-category is still preserved.

Could something like that work?

It's not a bad idea, some version of this might have merit. Unfortunately I think the race itself would become redundant as they wouldn't be racing against each other, rather their category. And most likely you'd have a very lopsided "race", I'm going to assume that in the main the biological males would smash the biological females, the optics wouldn't be good and the commentary around it would be a shitfight.

That said I don't really have a better idea.

 

[Roobs321]

I think you wrongly assume everyone posting on the topic is well versed in the various language and terms that are appropriate to use, and that not using them as is 'correct' is therefore a deliberate attempt to send some kind of hidden message.

People might know what cis means, but it's not a word you would commonly use unless you were discussing this topic constantly, so it's just as easy to use the word biological to make it clear what's being talked about. I do it all the time since it clarifies the difference between whether I'm referring to sex or gender. Since apparently woman is one and female is another but I couldn't tell you which is which.

That’s correct. ‘cis-‘ wasn’t used back when I transitioned. I was aware of it, but it was obscurely academic, hardly a term you’d introduce into discussion with non-trans people to favorably explain the concept, so when ‘cisgender’ years later started popping up in public forums it did feel cringe and tactless. Non-trans folk obviously wouldn’t appreciate a cis- qualifier. Best to speak in plain layman terms rather than introduce further uncomfortable loaded terms they might baulk at; the existing language is sufficient and understandable. Even today I’ve never actually uttered ‘cis-‘ before, you can easily manage without it. But ala Gralin in modern discourse those three letters do directly get to the point. ‘Kyriarchy’ is rather similar, gotta know the right time and place for certain words, and that somewhat regretfully started to enter the common lexicon around the same time.

 

[Gralin]

Don't disagree, there's plenty of evidence that for trans athletes the vast majority of the advantage (in some sports anyway) is mitigated by reducing T levels for a period of time. The problem there is (as kirsti has raised) that reducing those T levels to the level needed for that is harmful to the long-term health of the athlete. But not reducing them means the performance gap isn't reduced.

if history has shown us anything its that a lot of people will take risks with their own health to do something they like / think is important

That's true, depends on the sport or event of course, lots of sports like athletics or swimming have facilities for both and so a female could opt to enter events as a male without any underlying infrastructure issue.

yes but I think you've found one of the potential issues below re the change room being part of the team environment in a team sport

Definitely the case with the general public, but within a sport there would be a lot of athletes with a lot of experiences that seemingly have limited freedom to speak their mind. I believe when Swimming implemented their rule change most of the female athletes were in favour.

most of the people I have seen cop criticism for speaking their minds fall into one of two groups

those who support the trans athletes right to compete cop it hard from the hardcore terfs, the right wing reactionaries, the usual suspects

generally when I have seen someone speaking against trans inclusion they're using rather specific language, they're calling them biological males, not acknowledging that they're women, etc and of course they cop it from the people who think they shouldn't use those terms

Personally I think they use those terms because if they acknowledged they were women they'd just look like sore losers, so they push the unfair advantage angle.

The issue is the assumption that there is an unfair advantage is one that a lot of people just assume to be correct in all circumstances.

It's very hard to prove but they don't have to prove it, the trans people have to prove they don't have an advantage just to be able to compete

and then the issue is that even if there was no advantage, just winning is enough for some to think its unfair, because for some people they just will never see that person as a woman

Nobody is making a transgender or intersex person play sport or use a change room either though, so it's a bit of a circular argument isn't it?

its not because the people that don't want trans women in the their change rooms wouldn't want trans men in their either

and they'd also be up in arms about the trans women using the mens bathroom if they saw them walking in or out

which is why I was using the previous examples of segregation in the US and the gay panic of the 80s and 90s about bathrooms

its the exact same argument coming from the exact same part of society at the roots

Sharing facilities is an interesting one, as the point of segregated facilities is that individuals can feel comfortable in an exposed setting, and whilst I'm sure a cis person (look I used the term you like!) would feel somewhat uncomfortable if a person who wasn't of their sex was in said changeroom, it would also be quite an uncomfortable experience for a non-cis gender person as well.

i mean there are plenty of places that do have unisex facilities, cubicles fix a lot of issues that open change rooms cause as well

using public facilities are already uncomfortable experiences for a lot of people regardless of whether they are cis or not

That probably requires better solutions, as whilst we can simply have individual unisex changing rooms, the changing room environment itself appears to be an important part of the experience of team sports.

in sports you could still have the locker room with cubicles, you'd just need some rules around etiquette

I think you usually can, most people around these parts have a fair bit of posting history and there's a reasonable sense of where people stand on certain things.

peoples views also change over time and if covid has shown anything its that they can change pretty violently pretty quickly

but its not like people are chatting about trans rights everywhere on this site

Regarding the last sentence, there's that whole saying about walking and chewing gum and all. We can discuss more than one thing at a time, there's been a few posters who have been pretty anti-trans as a blanket thing but plenty of others appear to be pretty OK with transgender people having the freedom and safety to live their life as makes them happy whilst having thoughts on how things look in the sporting arena.

yeah but a lot of people don't want to, they just want to talk about the sport and pretend everything else is unrelated

Nazi's are bad, using anti-trans rhetoric as a wedge issue to try to win votes is bad, and people should rightly condemn all of those things.

yeah and a lot of people do, which is good

They 'can' be met but it largely removes DSD athletes from the field, I believe Semenya's times dropped her out of finals contention let alone winning when her T level have been reduced previously. Plus the previously mentioned potential health issues for the athletes. There's not really a 'kind' way of implementing such a rule though, unless Semenya enters the open / men's field.

I think you wrongly assume everyone posting on the topic is well versed in the various language and terms that are appropriate to use, and that not using them as is 'correct' is therefore a deliberate attempt to send some kind of hidden message.

I think most people are using the language they've seen used in the media and like I said most of what is in the media is coming from the anti trans groups

People might know what cis means, but it's not a word you would commonly use unless you were discussing this topic constantly, so it's just as easy to use the word biological to make it clear what's being talked about. I do it all the time since it clarifies the difference between whether I'm referring to sex or gender. Since apparently woman is one and female is another but I couldn't tell you which is which.

like i said, its hard when I read the exact same phrasing that Parker Posie or Matt Walsh or someone would use to not link the words to their position by default

 

[faible]

generally when I have seen someone speaking against trans inclusion they're using rather specific language, they're calling them biological males, not acknowledging that they're women, etc and of course they cop it from the people who think they shouldn't use those terms

Personally I think they use those terms because if they acknowledged they were women they'd just look like sore losers, so they push the unfair advantage angle.

The problem is for the purposes of sports performance in many cases they are women who've gone through puberty as a biological male and all the inherent physical changes and adaptations that comes with.

So the question comes up; are sports categories meant to be sex or gender based?

Personally I think we can do better at understanding that sex and gender are different things, they tend to correlate very strongly so for many of us we use them interchangeably but they're fundamentally not talking about the same thing. I think that's a language a lot of people haven't come to terms with since many of us didn't grow up with a distinction between the two, and for many of us there's never a need to distinguish between the two.

peoples views also change over time and if covid has shown anything its that they can change pretty violently pretty quickly

but its not like people are chatting about trans rights everywhere on this site

Sure but I think you generally have a good sense of the regular posters and where they come from. ShanDog for example, I'd say it's pretty clear he's not a bigot from the rest of his posting on the forum, but it's ever so easy to just label him as one to dismiss his views.

yeah but a lot of people don't want to, they just want to talk about the sport and pretend everything else is unrelated

Because for a lot of people they're not overly interested in things beyond the sport. It's not pretending everything else is unrelated, it's a sports forum so most people are going to be sports oriented. I don't think people need to discuss the full breadth of transgender people in society to have an opinion on sport categories personally.

I think most people are using the language they've seen used in the media and like I said most of what is in the media is coming from the anti trans groups

like i said, its hard when I read the exact same phrasing that Parker Posie or Matt Walsh or someone would use to not link the words to their position by default

The media - and people like Parker Posie - use language that the average person understands. So sure, it is language that's used in the media and by anti-trans people, but that language is used because it is something that you can convey a message to a person who's not otherwise educated in the topic area.

If you start writing cisgender I can pretty much guarantee you that huge amounts of people will have no idea what you mean, if you instead say 'biological female' it's pretty clear to everyone what you mean.

There's a genuine art in using concise, easy to access language to convey an idea to more people. When you start using language that only people with a certain level of expertise in that area can understand, you're going to lose a huge portion of your audience. I don't think it's reasonable to judge the point someone is making based on them using the word cis versus biological, or woman versus female.

 

[Gralin]

The problem is for the purposes of sports performance in many cases they are women who've gone through puberty as a biological male and all the inherent physical changes and adaptations that comes with.

Yeah I get that part.
The part that I think currently matters more but isn't well understood is what the impacts of long term HRT are on performance for those that went through male puberty.

Swimming and athletics have taken the stance that the impacts aren't big enough but I've not seen the evidence that their stance is valid.

So the question comes up; are sports categories meant to be sex or gender based?

Even if you say sex based the waters are still muddy regarding what counts as there are multiple different parts the category as much as some people want to simplify it to gametes and nothing else, when gametes don't result in differences in performance

Personally I think we can do better at understanding that sex and gender are different things, they tend to correlate very strongly so for many of us we use them interchangeably but they're fundamentally not talking about the same thing. I think that's a language a lot of people haven't come to terms with since many of us didn't grow up with a distinction between the two, and for many of us there's never a need to distinguish between the two.

They overlap, they're both constructs created to give people easy categories to put people into. 100% agree about the lack of a need to distinguish between the two for most people for most of their lives

Sure but I think you generally have a good sense of the regular posters and where they come from. ShanDog for example, I'd say it's pretty clear he's not a bigot from the rest of his posting on the forum, but it's ever so easy to just label him as one to dismiss his views.

Generally I like Shan, on this issue we're at polar opposite places though and I see a lot of bigotry in his posting on this topic, right or wrong that's what I see.

Because for a lot of people they're not overly interested in things beyond the sport. It's not pretending everything else is unrelated, it's a sports forum so most people are going to be sports oriented. I don't think people need to discuss the full breadth of transgender people in society to have an opinion on sport categories personally.

No they don't but like I said, it's the tip of the spear for the people trying to eradicate trans people from existence and if you're that apathetic about it, you're exactly what they're looking for as support.

The amount of heinous laws that have been passed in the US that hurt cis women as well as trans women, in the name of fairness in sport that people just don't bat an eye at is worrying.

The media - and people like Parker Posie - use language that the average person understands. So sure, it is language that's used in the media and by anti-trans people, but that language is used because it is something that you can convey a message to a person who's not otherwise educated in the topic area.

Yes and no. They also want to control the narrative, they want their terms used because they have the arguments based on those terms already built, its not as simple as understanding

If you start writing cisgender I can pretty much guarantee you that huge amounts of people will have no idea what you mean, if you instead say 'biological female' it's pretty clear to everyone what you mean.

yeah but what they're trying to achieve with this language choice is getting people to say well they're not a woman they're a biological male, they're framing the discussion in terms of the trans woman's history not their current life

its done on purpose by them to get the conversation framed as male vs female, to other the trans women in a way that before the conversation is even had people in their heads are thinking man when they think of the trans woman

There's a genuine art in using concise, easy to access language to convey an idea to more people. When you start using language that only people with a certain level of expertise in that area can understand, you're going to lose a huge portion of your audience. I don't think it's reasonable to judge the point someone is making based on them using the word cis versus biological, or woman versus female.

yes and no, again like I said while I agree about the concise easy to use language if you're talking about something that isn't simple, using existing language that is insufficient is a problem

 

[cartwright]

So they're worried about cis men pretending to be trans to gain access to spaces?

Thats how I interpreted it

And this leads to wanting to exclude trans women because of the risk of cis men?

no, thats a leap - i interpreted it as a fear of the ability to self identify to gain access to safe spaces and or hospitals
Not that they didnt think that transwomen should be explicitly excluded.

Yeah totally fair.

I can understand the thought process that leads to the above if I've understood correctly.

I don't agree that blocking trans women from accessing those spaces is the correct way to minimize the risk of cis male predators entering a safe space, but it is a great way to remove access to a safe space from someone else who also might need it.

yep, it may be a fear of the unknown, or misinformation but i think it was genuine concern.

We're already seeing cis women and non binary people who don't look "feminine" enough targeted in bathrooms and other places by women who think they're men trying to sneak in.

There's no easy answer to that situation

yep - agree

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The problem is for the purposes of sports performance in many cases they are women who've gone through puberty as a biological male and all the inherent physical changes and adaptations that comes with...

Just on this. What of those kids who have taken puberty blockers and so have never gone through puberty? What if a male-to-female trans athlete had never gone through puberty and so was wholly within the same range as her biologically-born competitors?

Should acceptance into competitive sports be at least judged on a case-by-case basis, using key gender-specific parameters as a guide?

 

[faible]

Just on this. What of those kids who have taken puberty blockers and so have never gone through puberty? What if a male-to-female trans athlete had never gone through puberty and so was wholly within the same range as her biologically-born competitors?

Should acceptance into competitive sports be at least judged on a case-by-case basis, using key gender-specific parameters as a guide?

Probably, yes. But that's pretty complicated to manage, so I can understand why sporting bodies don't want to go down that path if they're putting restrictions in.

 

[Not Important]

so sad. fact is most churches don’t follow the teachings of jesus. which was caring for the sick and helping the poor. she was an egalitarian = socialist. doesn’t fit with the greed culture of the reactionaries.

 

[aj1992]

Is that a doorknob on a bed post?

 

[TheBigHorne]

Is that a doorknob on a bed post?

Pull the strawman out of your ass.

 

[Gough]

Is that a doorknob on a bed post?

Soft lad. You'd have lasted about 5 minutes on the gay scene in the 90s if you shit yourself hearing that.

 

[ElectricG]

Soft lad. You'd have lasted about 5 minutes on the gay scene in the 90s if you s**t yourself hearing that.

Man I don’t reckon I’ve seen anyone try on the whole “internet tough guy” thing since about 2012. Nice.