Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

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.

 

[Gralin]

And yes I agree, there’s a difference between being an interested party with an opinion (eg women in sport) and being anti-trans.

There are women in sport who are antitrans just as there are women in sport who aren't

Being a woman in sports doesn't automatically make you not a bigot or an expert.

It can make you someone directly impacted by the topic but that's largely about it.

The antitrans women in sport claim to be speaking for the silent majority (I've heard that phrasing before )

But that also leads into the question of whether a majority is right or just a majority

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The ad by the Victorian government is downright gaslighting.

 

[the_interloper]

The ad by the Victorian government is downright gaslighting.

Which one?

 

[moto748]

The antitrans women in sport claim to be speaking for the silent majority

The 'anti-trans women' as you put it, are speaking up for women. Do you think it's OK that natal males are playing contact sports in women's teams, and the women are just supposed to smile and acquiesce? Would that be OK for your daughter, sister?

And surely I don't need to point out the idiocy of comparing 'gender-affirming care' to risky cancer treatments?

 

[Gough]

The antitrans women in sport claim to be speaking for the silent majority

The 'anti-trans women' as you put it, are speaking up for women. Do you think it's OK that natal males are playing contact sports in women's teams, and the women are just supposed to smile and acquiesce? Would that be OK for your daughter, sister?

And surely I don't need to point out the idiocy of comparing 'gender-affirming care' to risky cancer treatments?

Woman's sport is the Trojan horse used to attack the whole trans community. You'll deny it and come over all Gloria Steinem with your passionate feminist defence of the rights of women but you're fooling nobody.

 

[the_interloper]

Woman's sport is the Trojan horse used to attack the whole trans community. You'll deny it and come over all Gloria Steinem with your passionate feminist defence of the rights of women but you're fooling nobody.

You’re doing what Chief was doing yesterday IMO, attacking the intentions of the person making the comments as opposed to discussing the points made.

 

[faible]

there are women in sport who aren't

Yes.

 

[Gralin]

Yes.

there are plenty of women in sport who have no issue with trans women competing, obviously different sports, different levels of competition, different countries you are going to get differences

my point was that someone involved in sport is not automatically a good faith voice, just as they are not automatically a bad faith voice

a woman athlete being against trans women competing isn't automatically either an expert or acting in good faith

the same as a woman not wanting trans women using the womens toilets isn't automatically either an expert or acting in good faith


there is a danger in treating the opinion of an athlete differently to others on this topic

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Woman's sport is the Trojan horse used to attack the whole trans community. You'll deny it and come over all Gloria Steinem with your passionate feminist defence of the rights of women but you're fooling nobody.

Nonsense. That’s just paranoia. There are genuine safety and fairness concerns for women’s sport, and the demand that women must sacrifice these for the sake of men’s feelings. How the general trans community live their lives bothers no one.

 

[Gralin]

Nonsense. That’s just paranoia. There are genuine safety and fairness concerns for women’s sport, and the demand that women must sacrifice these for the sake of men’s feelings. How the general trans community live their lives bothers no one.

I'd believe you more if you didn't also post stuff like this in here

In that case a man has no meaning either. Or boy or girl. Abolish all words denoting sex, only self-proclaimed gender should be acceptable. You don’t even have to put on a dress or cut off your breasts. How far should this lunacy be taken?

 

[faible]

there are plenty of women in sport who have no issue with trans women competing, obviously different sports, different levels of competition, different countries you are going to get differences

my point was that someone involved in sport is not automatically a good faith voice, just as they are not automatically a bad faith voice

a woman athlete being against trans women competing isn't automatically either an expert or acting in good faith

the same as a woman not wanting trans women using the womens toilets isn't automatically either an expert or acting in good faith


there is a danger in treating the opinion of an athlete differently to others on this topic

It seems to me that you often make the leap that any female athlete who has opposition to trans-women competing aren't good faith actors and should have their opinions dismissed, and you then often make the leap of calling them ant-trans or TERFs without any real evidence as to why.

The existence of a womens-only category for sport was done to enable and encourage women to participate in sports at a high level where (in most sports) they wouldn't be able to otherwise compete with men in an open category. For women who've spent decades of their life training and competing within that category, you can see why they might have a very legitimate concern about trans-women competing in that category without them being anti-trans or TERFs.

The other argument you (and others) often use is that 'oh anti-trans people use this to justify their hatred of trans people' or as Gough said 'it's a trojan horse for their hateful views and attacks on the trans community'. This allows you to dismiss a valid concern under the guise that it's being co-opted by other groups for nefarious purposes. Yes, groups that are opposed to trans-people are using sport as a way to legitimise their criticism and views of trans people, it's a real thing that's happening. But it's them latching on to something that's a legitimate discussion that needs to be had. Not everyone (arguably not even most) people who are talking about women's concerns, and the women themselves voicing those concerns, are anti-trans or TERFs.

We know there's a significant difference in performance between biological men and women across most (not all) sports with similar levels of training and talent. There's a lot of women that I've trained with and competed alongside in a couple of different sports; they're hard working, they're talented, they're deeply concerned with 'fairness' (e.g. no PEDs, no cutting the course, no cheating). They have every right to voice their concerns and ask questions about them being suddenly asked to accommodate trans-women within their competitions given it's a fairly significant change from what the women's category for sport has represented for decades. That means actually engaging in a discussion, doing research, educating, and listening to their concerns. Not dismissing them all as TERFs.

I assume given this is a sport forum, most of us have women in our lives who also participate in sport that brings this a little closer to home.

kirsti has done a wonderful job of posting up actual research on the topic to help with the education side of things. Because we really don't yet know fully what happens to athletes sporting performance post-transition.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'd believe you more if you didn't also post stuff like this in here

You of course saw what I was replying to/extrapolating.

 

[Gough]

Nonsense. That’s just paranoia. There are genuine safety and fairness concerns for women’s sport, and the demand that women must sacrifice these for the sake of men’s feelings. How the general trans community live their lives bothers no one.

I've been around long enough to see how this works and almost without fail it's mostly men saying won't someone think of the women and children as if only they can protect them. The anti trans movement has just rebooted the AIDS scare campaigns of the 1980s.

 

[Gralin]

You of course saw what I was replying to/extrapolating.

i did and the language you use and what you wrote is pretty telling

like how you then went on an anti education rant afterwards

 

[Gralin]

It seems to me that you often make the leap that any female athlete who has opposition to trans-women competing aren't good faith actors and should have their opinions dismissed, and you then often make the leap of calling them ant-trans or TERFs without any real evidence as to why.

no I'm saying that playing sport isn't a shield against your position being looked at

The existence of a womens-only category for sport was done to enable and encourage women to participate in sports at a high level where (in most sports) they wouldn't be able to otherwise compete with men in an open category. For women who've spent decades of their life training and competing within that category, you can see why they might have a very legitimate concern about trans-women competing in that category without them being anti-trans or TERFs.

there are womens only categories that exist because men wouldn't compete against women, or did and lost

this argument also starts from the position that trans women automatically have an advantage, all trans women, in all circumstances, which again we know isn't true

The other argument you (and others) often use is that 'oh anti-trans people use this to justify their hatred of trans people' or as Gough said 'it's a trojan horse for their hateful views and attacks on the trans community'.

it is, its a position they can get the mainstream behind, there is a reason its all about young women and girls and fairness in sports (and sexual assualt and pedophiles) because they are using a fear campaign against a group they don't like

its already spread to wider anti LGBTQI+ rhetoric too, the drag queens as groomers was a direct push to muddy the water between trans women and gay men

the fact you spend more time arguing against this "because sport" its like you want to ignore the impact all of that has

This allows you to dismiss a valid concern under the guise that it's being co-opted by other groups for nefarious purposes. Yes, groups that are opposed to trans-people are using sport as a way to legitimise their criticism and views of trans people, it's a real thing that's happening. But it's them latching on to something that's a legitimate discussion that needs to be had. Not everyone (arguably not even most) people who are talking about women's concerns, and the women themselves voicing those concerns, are anti-trans or TERFs.

I'm really sick of the valid concerns argument when rampant bigotry is happening, sort that shit out then get back to me with your valid concerns because trans women have been competing in sport for decades and living in the community for centuries and we didn't have these issues that are being claimed all the time

We know there's a significant difference in performance between biological men and women across most (not all) sports with similar levels of training and talent.

yes and when you keep pointing to this you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about cis men

not sure how many times we have to go over this

There's a lot of women that I've trained with and competed alongside in a couple of different sports; they're hard working, they're talented, they're deeply concerned with 'fairness' (e.g. no PEDs, no cutting the course, no cheating). They have every right to voice their concerns and ask questions about them being suddenly asked to accommodate trans-women within their competitions given it's a fairly significant change from what the women's category for sport has represented for decades. That means actually engaging in a discussion, doing research, educating, and listening to their concerns. Not dismissing them all as TERFs.

suddenly?
again the olympics have had rules for decades, trans women have competed for literally decades

this idea that women are suddenly being forced to share spaces and sports with trans women and its unfair is bullshit

I do love though how its always hard working women being beaten by men who just "decided to be trans to win"

like that also is bullshit

I assume given this is a sport forum, most of us have women in our lives who also participate in sport that brings this a little closer to home.

yes we are on a sports forum
in the society religion and politics board, and the conversation in this thread is not just about sport as much as some of you want to make it just about sport

kirsti has done a wonderful job of posting up actual research on the topic to help with the education side of things. Because we really don't yet know fully what happens to athletes sporting performance post-transition.

yes she has and no we don't but a lot of people are coming from the position that we do already know and therefor we don't have to allow trans women access to sport

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I've been around long enough to see how this works and almost without fail it's mostly men saying won't someone think of the women and children as if only they can protect them. The anti trans movement has just rebooted the AIDS scare campaigns of the 1980s.

No it’s mostly women saying won’t someone think of the women and children. Women should be allowed to protect themselves.

 

[faible]

no I'm saying that playing sport isn't a shield against your position being looked at


there are womens only categories that exist because men wouldn't compete against women, or did and lost

this argument also starts from the position that trans women automatically have an advantage, all trans women, in all circumstances, which again we know isn't true



it is, its a position they can get the mainstream behind, there is a reason its all about young women and girls and fairness in sports (and sexual assualt and pedophiles) because they are using a fear campaign against a group they don't like

its already spread to wider anti LGBTQI+ rhetoric too, the drag queens as groomers was a direct push to muddy the water between trans women and gay men

the fact you spend more time arguing against this "because sport" its like you want to ignore the impact all of that has

I'm really sick of the valid concerns argument when rampant bigotry is happening, sort that shit out then get back to me with your valid concerns because trans women have been competing in sport for decades and living in the community for centuries and we didn't have these issues that are being claimed all the time



yes and when you keep pointing to this you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about cis men

not sure how many times we have to go over this

suddenly?
again the olympics have had rules for decades, trans women have competed for literally decades

this idea that women are suddenly being forced to share spaces and sports with trans women and its unfair is bullshit

I do love though how its always hard working women being beaten by men who just "decided to be trans to win"

like that also is bullshit


yes we are on a sports forum
in the society religion and politics board, and the conversation in this thread is not just about sport as much as some of you want to make it just about sport


yes she has and no we don't but a lot of people are coming from the position that we do already know and therefor we don't have to allow trans women access to sport

A lot of this is you doing the exact thing I said you do You spent most of that post discrediting the idea of anyone disagreeing with you having anything valid to say, and just doing the 'anti-trans people are tricking women in to being scared' thing.

Read what I actually wrote. I very specifically referred to biological men as compared to biological women with similar levels of training and talent. That's the baseline for assessing performance advantage. We know there's a big variance within that, but that's the baseline. Equivalent talent and training, which is something that we really only have a sense of at the elite level because below that you're going to have bigger and bigger gaps in the levels of talent and/or training.

You're coming at this from the perspective of 'include them first because it's a social issue, worry about a performance issue later' which is fine. You're allowed to think that way. Meanwhile, other arguments start at 'check for a performance issue first, inclusion second' which IMO is also a perfectly valid position.

A lot of this will depend at what level of sport we're talking about. Community sport? Non-contact? Include away. Elite contact sport? Probably check out performance issues first. Somewhere in-between lies the grey areas.

You keep trying to steer it away from sport whenever people talk about sport, instead of actually discussing the sport angle in and of itself. You do this thing where you say to someone 'oh you're not really talking about sport, you're just anti-trans' and just dismiss the entire thing because trans people are a marginalised group in society.

sort that shit out then get back to me with your valid concerns

I'd say this sums up your position? You don't actually care whether or not there's a performance advantage, include trans athletes now and work it out later. Which is a noble sentiment, but kind of ignores the women participating in the sport having their own agency.

 

[Gralin]

A lot of this is you doing the exact thing I said you do You spent most of that post discrediting the idea of anyone disagreeing with you having anything valid to say, and just doing the 'anti-trans people are tricking women in to being scared' thing.

You want to act like the discussion about sport is separate from and not influenced by everything else going on.
I don't

That is the difference in where we are coming from I think (could be wrong)

Read what I actually wrote. I very specifically referred to biological men as compared to biological women with similar levels of training and talent. That's the baseline for assessing performance advantage. We know there's a big variance within that, but that's the baseline. Equivalent talent and training, which is something that we really only have a sense of at the elite level because below that you're going to have bigger and bigger gaps in the levels of talent and/or training.

Here's the thing with this baseline though, this baseline is not applicable for trans athletes, and using it as the starting point of the conversation leads to the situation where people treat trans women as men

the baseline should be trans women vs cis women

You're coming at this from the perspective of 'include them first because it's a social issue, worry about a performance issue later' which is fine. You're allowed to think that way. Meanwhile, other arguments start at 'check for a performance issue first, inclusion second' which IMO is also a perfectly valid position.

A lot of this will depend at what level of sport we're talking about. Community sport? Non-contact? Include away. Elite contact sport? Probably check out performance issues first. Somewhere in-between lies the grey areas.

I agree with this, when they're banning trans women from chess clearly we've moved past the argument of safety or fairness in sport though

You cannot act like this issue has not been politicised out of all proportion or that this isn't impacting the actions being taken by various sporting codes around the world

You keep trying to steer it away from sport whenever people talk about sport, instead of actually discussing the sport angle in and of itself. You do this thing where you say to someone 'oh you're not really talking about sport, you're just anti-trans' and just dismiss the entire thing because trans people are a marginalised group in society.

I'll go back to your trump question to carrie

when we have posters in here who pop in to do the same thing every month or two as if the last time they did that never happened

at what point do we not humor them as acting in good faith

they don't engage with kirsti or anything, they just pop in to post the latest outrage piece and often their posting gets further from fairness in sport into i really want to post slurs but not get banned

the accounts on socials they get this info from generally tend to be actual documented bigots

we've had a couple of pages of discussion on a few of those just recently

I'd say this sums up your position? You don't actually care whether or not there's a performance advantage, include trans athletes now and work it out later. Which is a noble sentiment, but kind of ignores the women participating in the sport having their own agency.

and you're making it about someone losing out automatically which I don't agree with

that trans women getting to compete takes agency away from cis women is basically saying that the cis women should get to choose whether to exclude the trans women or not

which you start with sport then that is the argument for change rooms, then whatever is next, and that is where you will say I'm shifting focus from sport again and I'll point you to where I say nothing happens in isolation

 

[Carringbush2010]

You should.

You took "She's anti-trans, assume the worst" out of a list of reasons I gave, and responded to that.

So you're arguing against my assumption on her character, not against my points on the poor speech she gave.

No, you want to talk about why I think she's untrustworthy on this topic.

Like I said earlier, I haven't watched her vid or read her info.

So, my point isn't about her content specifically, more about people's conclusions on points of conversation from others because of who they are, not what they've stated, as you've demonstrated here.

I'll take that as a concession from you then.

 

[Gralin]

Like I said earlier, I haven't watched her vid or read her info.

So, my point isn't about her content specifically, more about people's conclusions on points of conversation from others because of who they are, not what they've stated, as you've demonstrated here.

I'll take that as a concession from you then.

going to ask you this again

so you'd take Trump at face value until proven wrong

every time?

 

[Carringbush2010]

It’s not a court of law. If you repeatedly demonstrate you can’t or won’t act in good faith, then you rightly lose the benefit of the doubt as to whether you’re acting in good faith.

No different to all the anti-vaxx folk, they repeatedly lied or misrepresented information to the point where they lost the right to be assumed to be presenting factually accurate information in a fair and unbiased manner.

Yes the 'boy who cried wolf' I don't disagree, however, it would be advisable to listen to all points of view, regardless of your disdain of person providing content.

If you don't then you may miss anything valid.

Dismissing someone's pov before they even provide it, is IMO naive, and in part a reason why debate is sometimes never settled or compromised to a resolution.

You do you mate.

 

[Carringbush2010]

going to ask you this again

Face value?

No.

No, would rather listen to the whatever it is he's got to say and >then< discredit his argument / point.

Let the bigots make their claims, >then< discredit their argument / point.

NOT beforehand, like so many on here and all walks of life are too quick to do.

 

[faible]

You want to act like the discussion about sport is separate from and not influenced by everything else going on.

which you start with sport then that is the argument for change rooms, then whatever is next, and that is where you will say I'm shifting focus from sport again and I'll point you to where I say nothing happens in isolation

I've never argued it's completely separate, there's no doubt some corners are taking a valid discussion point and using it for other purposes. There's also plenty of people that are only interested in sport because they have women in their lives who participate in sport, which is what I would expect to find on a sporting forum - this is still a sporting forum and I suspect most people find their way to SRP after finding their way to BF to discuss football.

I agree with this, when they're banning trans women from chess clearly we've moved past the argument of safety or fairness in sport though

You cannot act like this issue has not been politicised out of all proportion or that this isn't impacting the actions being taken by various sporting codes around the world

I agree, it has been politicised. There's no doubt about that. I'd argue that's across the board too though, some are arguing they should be excluded simply because they're trans and really don't care about anything else, whilst others are arguing they should be included and don't really care about anything else.

when we have posters in here who pop in to do the same thing every month or two as if the last time they did that never happened

at what point do we not humor them as acting in good faith

they don't engage with kirsti or anything, they just pop in to post the latest outrage piece and often their posting gets further from fairness in sport into i really want to post slurs but not get banned

the accounts on socials they get this info from generally tend to be actual documented bigots

we've had a couple of pages of discussion on a few of those just recently

I agree, there's a number of obvious bad faith posters who have no real interest whatsoever in women's sport. That doesn't mean everyone who comes in to post about women's sport is a bad faith actor, or is anti-trans.

that trans women getting to compete takes agency away from cis women is basically saying that the cis women should get to choose whether to exclude the trans women or not

I'd say men (you, me, largely the administrators in control of sporting bodies) lecturing women on who should be able to compete in women's competitions is taking a fair bit of agency away from those women and is pretty ironic given how hard women have had to fight to have their voices heard.

I'd have thought engaging the athletes in a category restricted competition, whether it be women's, para-sport, or other, is a pretty important part of finding a long-term solution for everyone. I wouldn't say it's unfair for women to be concerned about what impact - if any - it will have on the sporting competition.

Here's the thing with this baseline though, this baseline is not applicable for trans athletes, and using it as the starting point of the conversation leads to the situation where people treat trans women as men

Disagree, the baseline is the baseline for biological men or women. Gender has no real impact on sporting performance (though I would agree with you when I guess you'll argue that yes there's cultural expectations around gender that probably does influence it to a degree), but biology does massively. By far the biggest performance advantage an athlete can have in most sports is being a biological male. A trans-athlete then experiences a number of changes depending on which way they're going, and I imagine, their own individual circumstance. But the baseline gives us a starting point and therefore what to expect. Transgender athletes are still subject to biology the same as anyone else. If you're a trans-man you're likely going to undersized compared to the average cismale athlete, and vice versa.

You're also talking about sporting bodies and competitions as over-all groups of athletes. Obviously, there's individual considerations following that where a transgender athlete whose 5'6" or 6'6" would have very different outcomes in terms of expected performance based on the sport they're playing. I imagine swimming, athletics, basketball or weightlifting (for example) would have very different considerations for example. Then you have contact versus non-contact sport.

the baseline should be trans women vs cis women

IMO this is a secondary level of research, and it's ongoing. How much of the original difference between a biological male or female is retained post-transition, for how long, in what sport? At what point does that advantage disappear? At what point does it diminish to be within 'acceptable' limits? Does it ever?

 

[SnakeMan86]

Face value?

No.

No, would rather listen to the whatever it is he's got to say and >then< discredit his argument / point.

Let the bigots make their claims, >then< discredit their argument / point.

NOT beforehand, like so many on here and all walks of life are too quick to do.

There is merit in the argument of "X person spews hate speech, therefore anything they say on the topic should be doscredited"

If a KKK member started speaking on black rights, regardless of a position they are taking, they are going to be rightly discredited. You dedicate your life to hate speech, you live with the consequences.

I have also never heard of the pollie in question, nor even heard the clip in question. But if that's her track record then that's reprocussions she has to live with.

The real issue in this specific forum is, and forever will be, all of us who are specifically discussing certain topics such as fairness in women's sports, being tarnished with the same brush and therefore discredited.
In addition, the claims that we are speaking up for friends and family directly affected as lies to push our own "agenda"

 

[Gralin]

Face value?

No.

No, would rather listen to the whatever it is he's got to say and >then< discredit his argument / point.

Let the bigots make their claims, >then< discredit their argument / point.

NOT beforehand, like so many on here and all walks of life are too quick to do.

So if someone says Trump is a liar you'd start defending him unless they proved he was on every single thing he says?