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.

 

[faible]

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.

eh, for me if someone has repeatedly demonstrated they're a bad faith contributor then they should be treated as such.

If you want to be taken seriously and in good faith, then act in good faith. If you don't, then don't. Don't act in bad faith and then demand to be treated like a special and unique snowflake. Don't get upset about the consequences of your own behaviour.

If you (not necessarily 'you' but the generalised form) spend all your time posting in bad faith, and want to be taken in good faith, then you'll quite fairly have a far higher level of expectation placed upon you to demonstrate that what you're arguing deserves to be taken seriously and considered in good faith.

 

[faible]

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

Just because he's lied a thousand times before, doesn't mean he's lying now on this one specific thing. So we have to take each and every single thing he says in good faith.

/s

 

[Gralin]

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.

this is the issue right here

this is also how they get you

Andrew Tate says plenty of things that are valid points, they get used to defend him or justify his invalid points

making valid points when you are a bad faith actor serves two purposes

lends credence to your bad faith points

gives people a way to defend you against valid criticism of those points

to go back to the good post on this from SnakeMan86 if we were talking about race issues in the US you are arguing that the grand wizard of the KKK should be listened to incase he says something valid and that its naive to dismiss his position on the topic before he's presented it, when we know what his position is on the topic because he is the grand wizard of the KKK

 

[Gralin]

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.

OK I'm not talking about gender here.
HRT makes physical changes to the body
whether someone went through puberty before starting HRT also makes a difference

regardless of all of that those baselines are cross population averages and we also know there is more to athletic performance than just height or weight

we also have plenty of examples of women beating men in competition but we run from a baseline of that never happens in these discussions

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.

yes there are a lot of differences at a macro level but the biggest one is the actual question of what is fairness in sport

sport is a competition, its not actually fair, the idea of grades, weight classes etc it to approximate fairness based on things like talent levels and physical size (where physical size is relevant, eg weightlifting yes, chess no) and the closer to the elite level you get the less its about fairness

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?

what is acceptable limits is the big one

because some would say the only acceptable limit is not competitive

 

[faible]

this is the issue right here

this is also how they get you

Andrew Tate says plenty of things that are valid points, they get used to defend him or justify his invalid points

making valid points when you are a bad faith actor serves two purposes

lends credence to your bad faith points

gives people a way to defend you against valid criticism of those points

to go back to the good post on this from SnakeMan86 if we were talking about race issues in the US you are arguing that the grand wizard of the KKK should be listened to incase he says something valid and that its naive to dismiss his position on the topic before he's presented it, when we know what his position is on the topic because he is the grand wizard of the KKK

Also, whilst I'm sure the Grand Wizard of the KKK might have once had something valid to say about race issues, I'm also pretty certain someone else would have said the same thing and be a far better source for a discussion on said issues.

 

[Chief]

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.

"Who they are" is made up of "what they have stated" and "what they have done".

As I said, in the past she has spread anti-trans crud (the "what she has done"). She has made these sorts of statements (the "what she has stated"). This means that "who she is" (on this topic) is in my opinion an anti-trans bigot who makes dishonest and misleading claims.

If you do not trust me on that point, go look for yourself instead of making out that it is wrong to make assumptions based on a person's past behaviour. Go look. You will agree with me if you do.

 

[faible]

OK I'm not talking about gender here.
HRT makes physical changes to the body
whether someone went through puberty before starting HRT also makes a difference

Definitely, but HRT is changing the biology that's already in-place. The big one is pre or post puberty, since AFAIK a whole heap of the male biological advantages don't happen if they don't go through male puberty.

regardless of all of that those baselines are cross population averages and we also know there is more to athletic performance than just height or weight

Agree, but you can't take the view of each and every single trans-athlete has to have an individualised solution when you're talking sporting leagues as a whole. There needs to be some level of guidance.

For an example; Do you allow a newly transitioned athlete to compete unrestricted? Do you require a time period and hormone level testing? Is there something else?

we also have plenty of examples of women beating men in competition but we run from a baseline of that never happens in these discussions

This is why I very specifically said we have to control for talent and training levels, which usually means looking at elite athletes.

The below is an older article (2010) but I assume it's relatively similar today still:

Women and Men in Sport Performance: The Gender Gap has not Evolved since 1983

Sex is a major factor influencing best performances and world records. Here the evolution of the difference between men and women’s best performances is characterized through the analysis of 82 quantifiable events since the beginning of the Olympic ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The gender gap ranges from 5.5% (800-m freestyle, swimming) to 18.8% (long jump). The mean gap is 10.7% for running performances, 17.5% for jumps, 8.9% for swimming races, 7.0% for speed skating and 8.7% in cycling. The top ten performers’ analysis reveals a similar gender gap trend with a stabilization in 1982 at 11.7%, despite the large growth in participation of women from eastern and western countries, that coincided with later- published evidence of state-institutionalized or individual doping. These results suggest that women will not run, jump, swim or ride as fast as men.

FWIW in 2010 the 800m for Men was an uncommon event. Until the 2020 Olympics the women did 800 and the men did 1500, only since then do they do both.

Yes, an elite woman will beat an average man at most sports, but when you control for similar levels of training and talent there's a significant gap in most sports.

yes there are a lot of differences at a macro level but the biggest one is the actual question of what is fairness in sport

sport is a competition, its not actually fair, the idea of grades, weight classes etc it to approximate fairness based on things like talent levels and physical size (where physical size is relevant, eg weightlifting yes, chess no) and the closer to the elite level you get the less its about fairness

Of course, we arbitrarily make up categories; female, weight, gradings, para-categories to try to provide as best as possible a fair and level playing field. The hard part for trans athletes is that they're dealing with probably the single largest performance enhancing factor in sport; the limitations and advantages of male biology versus the limitations and advantages of female biology.

what is acceptable limits is the big one

because some would say the only acceptable limit is not competitive

Agree there's a point at which sporting bodies need to decide whether the gap is sufficient that 'normal' levels of performance variance can account for it, or simply say at a certain level of competition - State, National, International? - that there's a performance difference that's too much to be 'fairly' accounted for.

 

[Gralin]

Definitely, but HRT is changing the biology that's already in-place. The big one is pre or post puberty, since AFAIK a whole heap of the male biological advantages don't happen if they don't go through male puberty.

Yes male puberty is a big one, some competitions have said that is the line they will draw, which currently is largely a full ban on trans participation

some have been even worse with their language stating anyone who has been exposed to testosterone will be banned (which would technically be everyone) and shows either a real lack of understanding of science or contempt for it

its hard to know

Agree, but you can't take the view of each and every single trans-athlete has to have an individualised solution when you're talking sporting leagues as a whole. There needs to be some level of guidance.

agreed

For an example; Do you allow a newly transitioned athlete to compete unrestricted? Do you require a time period and hormone level testing? Is there something else?

this also goes to what is transition, because for sport its generally so far involved setting out medical transition requirements in some case including surgical requirements

and then this gets conflated in other discussions on here with social transition

This is why I very specifically said we have to control for talent and training levels, which usually means looking at elite athletes.

The below is an older article (2010) but I assume it's relatively similar today still:

Women and Men in Sport Performance: The Gender Gap has not Evolved since 1983

Sex is a major factor influencing best performances and world records. Here the evolution of the difference between men and women’s best performances is characterized through the analysis of 82 quantifiable events since the beginning of the Olympic ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

FWIW in 2010 the 800m for Men was an uncommon event. Until the 2020 Olympics the women did 800 and the men did 1500, only since then do they do both.

Yes, an elite woman will beat an average man at most sports, but when you control for similar levels of training and talent there's a significant gap in most sports.



Of course, we arbitrarily make up categories; female, weight, gradings, para-categories to try to provide as best as possible a fair and level playing field. The hard part for trans athletes is that they're dealing with probably the single largest performance enhancing factor in sport; the limitations and advantages of male biology versus the limitations and advantages of female biology.



Agree there's a point at which sporting bodies need to decide whether the gap is sufficient that 'normal' levels of performance variance can account for it, or simply say at a certain level of competition - State, National, International? - that there's a performance difference that's too much to be 'fairly' accounted for.

I think currently what we have seen is that if you were a good athlete pre transition you are going to continue to be a good athlete post transition, because the things that made you a good athelete are not all going to disappear when you transition

you're still going to have the training you had, the work ethic you had, the experience etc

but we've also seen that performance levels do change, we've seen cis women beat trans women, who prior to transitioning where faster than they are now

what we've also seen is a negative focus on any success the trans women have, coming fifth is still treated as if they "won"

winning one race is highlighted even if they didn't win the event

breaking a record is highlighted even if they were beaten by a cis athlete who is now the record holder

so yes while more data is needed I think we need to acknowledge that we don't currently have an epidemic of trans women dominating sports despite what media coverage would have us believe

 

[faible]

some have been even worse with their language stating anyone who has been exposed to testosterone will be banned (which would technically be everyone) and shows either a real lack of understanding of science or contempt for it

Ah yes, Netball wasn't it? I suspect that shows they're making not based on any actual advice from anyone medical and don't realise that biological females still have testosterone, just at significantly lower levels.

this also goes to what is transition, because for sport its generally so far involved setting out medical transition requirements in some case including surgical requirements

and then this gets conflated in other discussions on here with social transition

It also looks different for everyone I assume. There was that case in I think it was Canada where a weightlifting coach 'identified' as female for a meet and won. Maybe they're anti-trans, but it did demonstrate that the organisation really hadn't thought through their requirements.

what we've also seen is a negative focus on any success the trans women have, coming fifth is still treated as if they "won"

winning one race is highlighted even if they didn't win the event

breaking a record is highlighted even if they were beaten by a cis athlete who is now the record holder

I suspect at the elite level it'll always be viewed with skepticism. Did they win because they're better, or because they had male puberty and the others didn't?

That's where there's a massive difference between community sport where participation is the key metric, and elite sport where it's about performance.

so yes while more data is needed I think we need to acknowledge that we don't currently have an epidemic of trans women dominating sports despite what media coverage would have us believe

We don't as yet, we probably never will even if there's a performance difference simply because of the hurdles required for trans athletes to participate in most sports requires some pretty serious hormone therapy which I can't imagine most people would do on a whim or be willing to do to game the system.

That said, a lot of sporting rules are based around what 'could' happen, not what does happen.

 

[Gralin]

Ah yes, Netball wasn't it? I suspect that shows they're making not based on any actual advice from anyone medical and don't realise that biological females still have testosterone, just at significantly lower levels.

yeah netball australia with their whole our position is backed by science thing

It also looks different for everyone I assume. There was that case in I think it was Canada where a weightlifting coach 'identified' as female for a meet and won. Maybe they're anti-trans, but it did demonstrate that the organisation really hadn't thought through their requirements.

yeah one of those stories you find on the internet being boosted by terfs and shitty media outlets from over a year ago

was a power lifting comp he rocked up and broke all the records, clearly was not in any way trans

the full conservative meme of I identify as in action

I suspect at the elite level it'll always be viewed with skepticism. Did they win because they're better, or because they had male puberty and the others didn't?

That's where there's a massive difference between community sport where participation is the key metric, and elite sport where it's about performance.



We don't as yet, we probably never will even if there's a performance difference simply because of the hurdles required for trans athletes to participate in most sports requires some pretty serious hormone therapy which I can't imagine most people would do on a whim or be willing to do to game the system.

That said, a lot of sporting rules are based around what 'could' happen, not what does happen.

there's a long history of discrimination in sport too and rules that were designed to uphold discrimination

but yes I understand what you mean

 

[Carringbush2010]

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"

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Those who oppose the integrity argument are doing it because

A/ Because a bigot has said the same thing, 'a bigot said that so we can immediately dismiss the argument as invalid'

B/ There's a genuine belief that the integrity is not susceptible to inequity.

As for the rest of your post I agree, deride away, that doesn't equate to don't listen to what the bigoted ahole has to say, then discredit after. However, there is a slight chance that the bigoted ahole will claim the integrity argument, which has nothing to do with bigotry even though the bigots end game is discrimination.

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

Why would I defend that Trump isn't a liar? A lot more nuanced than what you've put here.

 

[Gralin]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Those who oppose the integrity argument are doing it because

A/ Because a bigot has said the same thing, 'a bigot said that so we can immediately dismiss the argument as invalid'

B/ There's a genuine belief that the integrity is not susceptible to inequity.

As for the rest of your post I agree, deride away, that doesn't equate to don't listen to what the bigoted ahole has to say, then discredit after. However, there is a slight chance that the bigoted ahole will claim the integrity argument, which has nothing to do with bigotry even though the bigots end game is discrimination.

Why would I defend that Trump isn't a liar? A lot more nuanced than what you've put here.

again you seem to think we owe bigots our attention

that you should listen to what the known bigot says before forming an opinion

why?

they are a known bigot, anything they are saying on the topic is in aide of their bigotry and their end goals

 

[Carringbush2010]

"Who they are" is made up of "what they have stated" and "what they have done".

As I said, in the past she has spread anti-trans crud (the "what she has done"). She has made these sorts of statements (the "what she has stated"). This means that "who she is" (on this topic) is in my opinion an anti-trans bigot who makes dishonest and misleading claims.

If you do not trust me on that point, go look for yourself instead of making out that it is wrong to make assumptions based on a person's past behaviour. Go look. You will agree with me if you do.

Like I said, I'm not talking about her specifically, ok a little off topic, but the context is relevant.

If I viewed it, yes I'd probably agree with you.

But that's not what I'm talking about is it.

You've already conceded you will NOT take anything she says into consideration because of what she's done in the past (who she is), and that's my point.

Park 'her' aside for a minute (whoever she is).

Regardless of how distasteful you find anyone because of who they are (what they've done or said) does not automatically equate that what they're going to say is invalid, because you don't know what they're about to say or say in the future.

It's the reason fringe minded people from spectrum ends can't find resolution or compromise in debate. Because they immediately dismiss any point because of the person before that person has said x on y topic. They're blinded by their view of the other person rather than the topic at hand.

 

[Gralin]

Like I said, I'm not talking about her specifically, ok a little off topic, but the context is relevant.

If I viewed it, yes I'd probably agree with you.

But that's not what I'm talking about is it.

You've already conceded you will NOT take anything she says into consideration because of what she's done in the past (who she is), and that's my point.

Park 'her' aside for a minute (whoever she is).

Regardless of how distasteful you find anyone because of who they are (what they've done or said) does not automatically equate that what they're going to say is invalid, because you don't know what they're about to say or say in the future.

It's the reason fringe minded people from spectrum ends can't find resolution or compromise in debate. Because they immediately dismiss any point because of the person before that person has said x on y topic. They're blinded by their view of the other person rather than the topic at hand.

compromise in debate

anti-trans person - trans people shouldn't exist

trans person - i do exist

carrie, we need to compromise you're both too extreme in your position, trans person you need to sit down with this person who says you are not real and find some common ground, I'm sure they have some good points, don't hold who they are against them, stop being blinded

 

[Carringbush2010]

again you seem to think we owe bigots our attention

that you should listen to what the known bigot says before forming an opinion

why?

they are a known bigot, anything they are saying on the topic is in aide of their bigotry and their end goals

From this post, it is clear you can't get past that A and B are the same statement, but you view them differently because of who said it.

As expected.

 

[Chief]

Regardless of how distasteful you find anyone because of who they are (what they've done or said) does not automatically equate that what they're going to say is invalid, because you don't know what they're about to say or say in the future.

It does mean I won't bother wasting time sorting through their crud but for the odd clip or quote someone might supply.

The best guide to future actions is past actions.

 

[Chief]

From this post, it is clear you can't get past that A and B are the same statement, but you view them differently because of who said it.

As expected.

Huh?

Look at motivation.

She's motivated by hate, it looks to me.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It does mean I won't bother wasting time sorting through their crud but for the odd clip or quote someone might supply.

The best guide to future actions is past actions.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about wasting effort looking for info that is likely invalid, I was talking about if you're already in conversation / debate.

Sorry if not clear.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Huh?

Look at motivation.

She's motivated by hate, it looks to me.

That doesn't mean you should be emotionally motivated in debate just coz she is.

 

[Chief]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about wasting effort looking for info that is likely invalid, I was talking about if you're already in conversation / debate.

Sorry if not clear.

OK. I kind of see. No I'm not going to reject "water is wet" type statements in that case. I'd reject even debating them, given they would not argue in good faith.

 

[Carringbush2010]

OK. I kind of see. No I'm not going to reject "water is wet" type statements in that case. I'd reject even debating them, given they would not argue in good faith.

Most likely? Of course it is.

Absolutely? Definitely not.

Listen to their spiel and >then< you can discredit what was likely to be, almost zero effort to do this, and then there's no 'but he didn't listen' comeback either

Or they might surprise with salience, although very highly unlikely.

 

[Gralin]

the fact you think discrediting lies takes almost zero effort is the problem

have you heard of gish galloping?

trump did it in the debate where he spouted bullshit after bullshit as if it was fact

you cannot combat that in real time by debating it

 

[Chief]

Most likely? Of course it is.

Absolutely? Definitely not.

Listen to their spiel and >then< you can discredit what was likely to be, almost zero effort to do this, and then there's no 'but he didn't listen' comeback either

Or they might surprise with salience, although very highly unlikely.

As per Gralin's post.

They will knowingly tell falsehoods and then claim victory when you run out of resources to counter their falsehoods.

 

[faible]

the fact you think discrediting lies takes almost zero effort is the problem

have you heard of gish galloping?

trump did it in the debate where he spouted bullshit after bullshit as if it was fact

you cannot combat that in real time by debating it

This.

If someone has proven to be a bad faith actor that lies repeatedly, e.g. Trump, then everything they say should be assumed to be said in bad faith.

The bar is significantly higher for someone like Trump to prove he's speaking in good faith and that the statement he's making is credible and worthy of discussion than if it were someone who generally operated in good faith.

If someone is a proven KKK Grand Master, we're probably safe to ignore their views on things like race even if occasionally they might say something reasonable. Bad luck Mr. KKK if you don't like being ignored. Consequences.

Meanwhile, if someone controversial does say something you believe is worth sharing and discussing, probably find alternative sources for that view.

 

[Gralin]

This.

If someone has proven to be a bad faith actor that lies repeatedly, e.g. Trump, then everything they say should be assumed to be said in bad faith.

The bar is significantly higher for someone like Trump to prove he's speaking in good faith and that the statement he's making is credible and worthy of discussion than if it were someone who generally operated in good faith.

If someone is a proven KKK Grand Master, we're probably safe to ignore their views on things like race even if occasionally they might say something reasonable. Bad luck Mr. KKK if you don't like being ignored. Consequences.

Meanwhile, if someone controversial does say something you believe is worth sharing and discussing, probably find alternative sources for that view.

yep, especially the bold

But Jordan Peterson said make your bed! So? its not an original thought, my mum said to do that too and she doesn't spend here time on the internet complaining about woke
But Andrew Tate said exercising will make you feel better! Cool and there are plenty of people who aren't charged with sex trafficking that also say that