transgender again ...

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

This won't go down well, but that is something for those changing gender to deal with, not the majority. Fair > inclusive.

Does inclusively include the right to compete at elite level sport, or just the right to compete per se?

That’s a matter of opinion.

I think the challenge is you just see trans people as different to cis.

I think the trans community would feel that’s discrimination and misses the point of moving from one gender to the other - they want to be considered *fully* the destination gender. Why else go through all the trauma of surgery and hormones etc?

Hence the arguments going around that even sex is a social construct.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that argument and I also agree that fairness is really important in sport.

But to save the thread descending into just anti trans stuff I feel I ought to give their side.

The creation of women’s sport is a type of inclusion - as they can’t compete with men in most sports, so that is where the inclusion argument comes from.

Trans people are biologically different from cis people, there is no escaping that and it isn't discrimination to acknowledge it.

And to correct you, 1. sex isn't a social construct, gender is. So I'm told. And 2. Not all people who have transitions have had surgical transitions.

You you see RC this is a minefield even for someone as well meaningly woke as you.

BTW, did you see anything on there that was anti trans? Or is that just a nasty little label you presume to apply to anyone who talks about it rationally?

Oh relax

A)people do literally argue that sex is a social construct - that’s why I mentioned it because it’s a bit far fetched to say the least

there’s basically a 100% consensus on the thread of being pro exclusionary. So it’s teetering on the edge, right?

C) the whole debate about trans stuff revolves around people who think that you can’t change your biology, (gender critical) and people who think that view is discriminatory.

JK Rowling is basically taking a gender critical stance and she got it full blown in the neck for it.

FWIW I am also gender critical but because there is universal consensus on the thread I don’t think we’re actually getting at the challenge in the debate.

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

It is quite possible that we have, and came to a different conclusion.
That is allowed, right?

morstar

Martina Navratilova (a gay athlete in less open times) also got it in the neck for questioning trans sport participation.
It’s not just us blokes that see it as problematic.
If anything, we’re the most objective as we are not directly effected. Women and trans people have more subjective positions.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

It is quite possible that we have, and came to a different conclusion.
That is allowed, right?

I don’t see how tbh.

Have you not seen all the criticism of the gender critical position?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

This won't go down well, but that is something for those changing gender to deal with, not the majority. Fair > inclusive.

Does inclusively include the right to compete at elite level sport, or just the right to compete per se?

That’s a matter of opinion.

I think the challenge is you just see trans people as different to cis.

I think the trans community would feel that’s discrimination and misses the point of moving from one gender to the other - they want to be considered *fully* the destination gender. Why else go through all the trauma of surgery and hormones etc?

Hence the arguments going around that even sex is a social construct.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that argument and I also agree that fairness is really important in sport.

But to save the thread descending into just anti trans stuff I feel I ought to give their side.

The creation of women’s sport is a type of inclusion - as they can’t compete with men in most sports, so that is where the inclusion argument comes from.

Trans people are biologically different from cis people, there is no escaping that and it isn't discrimination to acknowledge it.

And to correct you, 1. sex isn't a social construct, gender is. So I'm told. And 2. Not all people who have transitions have had surgical transitions.

You you see RC this is a minefield even for someone as well meaningly woke as you.

BTW, did you see anything on there that was anti trans? Or is that just a nasty little label you presume to apply to anyone who talks about it rationally?

Oh relax

A)people do literally argue that sex is a social construct - that’s why I mentioned it because it’s a bit far fetched to say the least

there’s basically a 100% consensus on the thread of being pro exclusionary. So it’s teetering on the edge, right?

C) the whole debate about trans stuff revolves around people who think that you can’t change your biology, (gender critical) and people who think that view is discriminatory.

JK Rowling is basically taking a gender critical stance and she got it full blown in the neck for it.

FWIW I am also gender critical but because there is universal consensus on the thread I don’t think we’re actually getting at the challenge in the debate.

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

Like a good little wokey soldier you see this as A or B, across the board. You are either pro-inclusion and therefore pro trans. Or pro-fairness (or pro-science, however you want to frame it) and anti-trans. And the cherry on top is to link to a completely irrelevant twitter storm about someone who writes comics.

Wow. Stop being such a simpleton.

It is perfectly possible to be tolerant and inclusive, and yet realise that regrettably, this is incommensurate with fair sporting competition.

rick_chasey

If you (in practice) exclude transgender people from professional sport that is discriminatory. You're saying these people are not allowed to compete in professional sports, in practice, right? In theory, sure, they can, but that's not how it works.

You can do it for reasons that are reasonable and in the best interest of the sport / its competitors etc, but how is it not discriminatory?

The reason it's a tricky problem worthy of discussion is the reality is a solution sits somewhere on the spectrum of fairness (for women) vs inclusion and being more one means less of the other.

That's quite unusual, as usually inclusion and fairness are on the same side of things. Hence it's a tricky topic.

I think sport specifically falls apart if it is not fair, but lets not pretend there isn't a bad outcome of taking that view.

Anyway, here is a professional writer discussing it.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/953619/what-are-gender-critical-beliefs

focuszing723

morstar said:

Martina Navratilova (a gay athlete in less open times) also got it in the neck for questioning trans sport participation.
It’s not just us blokes that see it as problematic.
If anything, we’re the most objective as we are not directly effected. Women and trans people have more subjective positions.

Sharron Davies too, she had to put up with the East German's turning women into men with PED's.

pep.fermi

rick_chasey said:

even sex is a social construct.

My Mum gave birth, my Dad didn't. Same for you I guess.
No much of a social construct.

First.Aspect

Ooooh, professional writer, ooooh.

It's not a good article, it is rambling, unfocused and lurches from quote to quote in an attempt to hoodwink the reader into thinking it's got a coherent narrative. Not sure if the professional writer ooooh actually interviewed these people or did a google search on the topic - I'm guessing the latter.

What it does do at least is flag that it annoys people to tell them they are prejudiced when they are just passing on an unfortunate scientific truth.

First.Aspect

Also uses the term "gender" rather a lot. But you won't be told will you RC.

rick_chasey

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here.

I’m agreeing with you.

I’m just saying what you think is not up for debate is in fact hotly contested.


https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/12/sex-gender-and-the-trans-debate/

Within this new theoretical landscape, the distinction between sex as biological and gender as socio-cultural came under renewed feminist scrutiny with the view emerging that sex, as much as gender, was socially and culturally imbued .[3] This well-known reconceptualization of biological sex as socially and culturally contingent is quite at odds with second wave feminist reliance on a sex/gender distinction corresponding with biology and culture respectively.

#

It goes on later

The point here is not to suggest that sex is purely the product of social and cultural construction or that real differences between men and women’s bodies do not exist. Rather it is to emphasize that how we know or apprehend bodies is inevitably socially and culturally mediated. Thus, asserting a sharp and definitive line between sex and gender – as between nature and nurture – is misleading as it tends to suppose that what falls into the former category (sex/nature) is biologically fixed and determined and what is assigned to the latter (gender/nurture) is socially and culturally negotiable. The result is to shield from scrutiny the social and cultural dimensions of understandings of nature and biology.

So these things are not as clear cut as you want to make out.

pep.fermi

Well, sex is clear, it seems everybody agree on this.
We used to think gender was clear too, and it coincides with sex, but now it seems this is not so.

How about we get rid of the concept of gender until society agrees on what this actually is...? Some will have sex M, some others sex F. End of all.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

This won't go down well, but that is something for those changing gender to deal with, not the majority. Fair > inclusive.

Does inclusively include the right to compete at elite level sport, or just the right to compete per se?

That’s a matter of opinion.

I think the challenge is you just see trans people as different to cis.

I think the trans community would feel that’s discrimination and misses the point of moving from one gender to the other - they want to be considered *fully* the destination gender. Why else go through all the trauma of surgery and hormones etc?

Hence the arguments going around that even sex is a social construct.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that argument and I also agree that fairness is really important in sport.

But to save the thread descending into just anti trans stuff I feel I ought to give their side.

The creation of women’s sport is a type of inclusion - as they can’t compete with men in most sports, so that is where the inclusion argument comes from.

Trans people are biologically different from cis people, there is no escaping that and it isn't discrimination to acknowledge it.

And to correct you, 1. sex isn't a social construct, gender is. So I'm told. And 2. Not all people who have transitions have had surgical transitions.

You you see RC this is a minefield even for someone as well meaningly woke as you.

BTW, did you see anything on there that was anti trans? Or is that just a nasty little label you presume to apply to anyone who talks about it rationally?

Oh relax

A)people do literally argue that sex is a social construct - that’s why I mentioned it because it’s a bit far fetched to say the least

there’s basically a 100% consensus on the thread of being pro exclusionary. So it’s teetering on the edge, right?

C) the whole debate about trans stuff revolves around people who think that you can’t change your biology, (gender critical) and people who think that view is discriminatory.

JK Rowling is basically taking a gender critical stance and she got it full blown in the neck for it.

FWIW I am also gender critical but because there is universal consensus on the thread I don’t think we’re actually getting at the challenge in the debate.

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

Like a good little wokey soldier you see this as A or B, across the board. You are either pro-inclusion and therefore pro trans. Or pro-fairness (or pro-science, however you want to frame it) and anti-trans. And the cherry on top is to link to a completely irrelevant twitter storm about someone who writes comics.

Wow. Stop being such a simpleton.

It is perfectly possible to be tolerant and inclusive, and yet realise that regrettably, this is incommensurate with fair sporting competition.

FWIW, I think you have misunderstood what Rick is saying and phrases like "little wokey soldier" just make you look silly. If there wasn't a conflict between two competing sets of rights nobody would be discussing the issue. There is nothing that says professional sport *has* to be a test of innate genetic adaptation x quality of training; that's just been the collective assumption until faced with having to think about it. It's pretty arbitrary that being born at the far end of the physiological bell curve or having the financial backing to devote your life to a sport is considered fair but competing as a trans woman is not. If that's the collective decision, then fine but let's not dress it up as some fundamental truth.

First.Aspect

I see that as a debate arising more from a problem with legal distinctions, in that legislation and caselaw distinguishes on the concept of sex being binary.

So if you are non-binary and in particular if you identify as a gender other than that at birth, the law is squarely against you.

Take this issue away, and the basic concept that your DNA can be distinct from your gender identity isn't really controversial at all, because it is just a fact. Either that or it's going to turn into another one of these utterly pointless debates about terminology, and the world will be force to refer to chromosomal identity or something equally pandering.

I do see the wish of women to protect "safe spaces" against trans women as potentially being misguided and ultimately something that dies down as society become more familiar with trans women. There is controversial new legislation tabled in Scotland to address this, but it is probably a bit too soon for the population - particularly THIS population - and my understanding is that it has been poorly drafted such that it does give rise to genuine safeguarding concerns.

I also see it as entirely unrelated to fairness in elite sport.

TheBigBean

WADA could simplify things my adding some synthetic drugs to the list of banned substances.

pinno

The problem here is legislating for that grey area whilst still being inclusive and not been seen as discriminative.
However, what are the actual percentages of Trans athletes and why can't they just do the highland games?

Or maybe a category where both Men, women and trans can compete - in the same class, together?
The 'straight' females won't bother entering so they can fit elsewhere.
These trans women are as butch sa butch can be - more masculine than some of the men. They cannot possibly expect to compete with women as a level playing field.

surrey_commuter

I think the vast majority of people do not care if people want to live life as a man or woman.

I do think that history will look very unfavourably on the trans movement. I think they deliberately make the debate toxic. You do have to admire the way they have dictated the terms of the debate.

As an example why on earth have they atteched themselves to and taken ove rthe gay rights movement.

These toxic a-holes need to be shut down so that the feminist/gay movements can join the debate.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

I think the vast majority of people do not care if people want to live life as a man or woman.

I do think that history will look very unfavourably on the trans movement. I think they deliberately make the debate toxic. You do have to admire the way they have dictated the terms of the debate.

As an example why on earth have they atteched themselves to and taken ove rthe gay rights movement.

These toxic a-holes need to be shut down so that the feminist/gay movements can join the debate.

Both sides have made the debate pretty toxic. E.g. there are some very strong views over which toilets people can use.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

I think the vast majority of people do not care if people want to live life as a man or woman.

I do think that history will look very unfavourably on the trans movement. I think they deliberately make the debate toxic. You do have to admire the way they have dictated the terms of the debate.

As an example why on earth have they atteched themselves to and taken ove rthe gay rights movement.

These toxic a-holes need to be shut down so that the feminist/gay movements can join the debate.

Both sides have made the debate pretty toxic. E.g. there are some very strong views over which toilets people can use.

Fair play, but in that case the media are ignoring the "hate" campaigns organised to shut down pro-trans debate.

morstar

Let’s assume I was born in a body of the wrong gender and I want to be a professional sports person.

Unfortunately, I either wait to transition or transition and recognise that elite sports participation may face roadblocks.

@ all athletic ability and I want to be a professional sports person.

Are the two positions actually that different? Both have been limited by the outcome of their birth. The latter person has no choice to accept their limitations, the former wants the best of both worlds at the cost of fairness to others.

If anything, at least the trans person has a choice.

pep.fermi

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

It is quite possible that we have, and came to a different conclusion.
That is allowed, right?

I don’t see how tbh.

Have you not seen all the criticism of the gender critical position?

Since you specifically asked...
Saw it, ignored it, moved on.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

This won't go down well, but that is something for those changing gender to deal with, not the majority. Fair > inclusive.

Does inclusively include the right to compete at elite level sport, or just the right to compete per se?

That’s a matter of opinion.

I think the challenge is you just see trans people as different to cis.

I think the trans community would feel that’s discrimination and misses the point of moving from one gender to the other - they want to be considered *fully* the destination gender. Why else go through all the trauma of surgery and hormones etc?

Hence the arguments going around that even sex is a social construct.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that argument and I also agree that fairness is really important in sport.

But to save the thread descending into just anti trans stuff I feel I ought to give their side.

The creation of women’s sport is a type of inclusion - as they can’t compete with men in most sports, so that is where the inclusion argument comes from.

Trans people are biologically different from cis people, there is no escaping that and it isn't discrimination to acknowledge it.

And to correct you, 1. sex isn't a social construct, gender is. So I'm told. And 2. Not all people who have transitions have had surgical transitions.

You you see RC this is a minefield even for someone as well meaningly woke as you.

BTW, did you see anything on there that was anti trans? Or is that just a nasty little label you presume to apply to anyone who talks about it rationally?

Oh relax

A)people do literally argue that sex is a social construct - that’s why I mentioned it because it’s a bit far fetched to say the least

there’s basically a 100% consensus on the thread of being pro exclusionary. So it’s teetering on the edge, right?

C) the whole debate about trans stuff revolves around people who think that you can’t change your biology, (gender critical) and people who think that view is discriminatory.

JK Rowling is basically taking a gender critical stance and she got it full blown in the neck for it.

FWIW I am also gender critical but because there is universal consensus on the thread I don’t think we’re actually getting at the challenge in the debate.

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

Isn't the challenge in debate argument quite similar to what a certain poster claims they're doing in the Brexit thread.


I do find the column inches this matter generates a trivial thing that intrigues me though.

morstar

I actually feel a lot of sympathy for individual athletes thrust into the centre of all this but personally I don’t find their position tenable. I don’t blame them for that, we all look out for our own interests but I think they are in the wrong expecting equality in this regard.

I think a lot of it comes down to personality types. By their very nature, elite sports people are extremely driven and used to overcoming setbacks. Trans athletes are just exhibiting those common behaviours in regard to this issue and trying to win their fight which is becoming highly publicised.

For me, it’s simply irreconcilable with fair womens sport. Open or trans categories allow them participation in sport. There is no right to a professional female sports career.

rick_chasey

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

This “create a new category for trans athletes” rather misunderstands the point of changing gender to begin with.

This won't go down well, but that is something for those changing gender to deal with, not the majority. Fair > inclusive.

Does inclusively include the right to compete at elite level sport, or just the right to compete per se?

That’s a matter of opinion.

I think the challenge is you just see trans people as different to cis.

I think the trans community would feel that’s discrimination and misses the point of moving from one gender to the other - they want to be considered *fully* the destination gender. Why else go through all the trauma of surgery and hormones etc?

Hence the arguments going around that even sex is a social construct.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that argument and I also agree that fairness is really important in sport.

But to save the thread descending into just anti trans stuff I feel I ought to give their side.

The creation of women’s sport is a type of inclusion - as they can’t compete with men in most sports, so that is where the inclusion argument comes from.

Trans people are biologically different from cis people, there is no escaping that and it isn't discrimination to acknowledge it.

And to correct you, 1. sex isn't a social construct, gender is. So I'm told. And 2. Not all people who have transitions have had surgical transitions.

You you see RC this is a minefield even for someone as well meaningly woke as you.

BTW, did you see anything on there that was anti trans? Or is that just a nasty little label you presume to apply to anyone who talks about it rationally?

Oh relax

A)people do literally argue that sex is a social construct - that’s why I mentioned it because it’s a bit far fetched to say the least

there’s basically a 100% consensus on the thread of being pro exclusionary. So it’s teetering on the edge, right?

C) the whole debate about trans stuff revolves around people who think that you can’t change your biology, (gender critical) and people who think that view is discriminatory.

JK Rowling is basically taking a gender critical stance and she got it full blown in the neck for it.

FWIW I am also gender critical but because there is universal consensus on the thread I don’t think we’re actually getting at the challenge in the debate.

If you think that the debate can rest on the certainty of the immutability of biological sex, you’ve not followed the debate

Isn't the challenge in debate argument quite similar to what a certain poster claims they're doing in the Brexit thread.


I do find the column inches this matter generates a trivial thing that intrigues me though.

Part of it is straight up moral panic and part of it is a genuine problem around inclusivity. Inclusivity is not linear and it’s hard to do in a “fair” way.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

FWIW, I think you have misunderstood what Rick is saying and phrases like "little wokey soldier" just make you look silly. If there wasn't a conflict between two competing sets of rights nobody would be discussing the issue. There is nothing that says professional sport *has* to be a test of innate genetic adaptation x quality of training; that's just been the collective assumption until faced with having to think about it. It's pretty arbitrary that being born at the far end of the physiological bell curve or having the financial backing to devote your life to a sport is considered fair but competing as a trans woman is not. If that's the collective decision, then fine but let's not dress it up as some fundamental truth.

Eh? Did I miss something?

When did eligibility to participate in professional sport suddenly become a “right”?

Pro sport exists solely and entirely as a commercial enterprise to provide entertainment to consumers. That’s it. The activities are meaningless, the rules are arbitrary, the outcomes are essentially worthless beyond the revenues generated from selling tickets, merchandise and TV rights.

If you don’t like the rules and/or meet the eligibility conditions attached to pro sport, go get a real job.

First.Aspect

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

secretsqirrel

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

davidof

Wheelspinner said:

If you don’t like the rules and/or meet the eligibility conditions attached to pro sport, go get a real job.

or set up your own pro sports with your own rules

DeVlaeminck

secretsqirrel said:

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

Masculine being defined with reference to what - typical behaviours of men and women in that society ?

A stereotypical butch lesbian might/would probably display more masculine behaviours than feminine but that wouldn't mean she self defined or was defined by others as male.

So I'm not sure using masculine and feminine as an identifier of gender really works - I don't think trying to separate gender from sex really works.