4 ms·

Fair enough, but the reason they are being excluded from women's sport is because they are not seen as truly women. If they were indistinguishable from women,

by tux1968 6y ago

Fair enough, but the reason they are being excluded from women's sport is because they are not seen as truly women. If they were indistinguishable from women, there would be no way to exclude them without excluding all women. So as soon as we have this discussion, we have to admit there is a difference between a transgender woman and a woman. It may be a bit clumsy to refer to them as men, but that is actually the basis of why they are being excluded, because of their "man-ness". That's the underlying reason. I don't think it's transphobic to discuss that openly or to invent an explanation relying on "testosterone".

cmeacham98 6y ago
What about someone with breasts, genitals, and other traits of a woman, but also the muscles and testosterone of a man? (I believe the common term for people like this is "intersex".) I think most people would agree they are a women, but also almost all people making the "trans women should play men's sports" argument would also think this person should play men's sports. That's because the actual dividing line is a biological advantage. For cisgendered people this line is relatively cleanly drawn along gender, which leads to the names "men's sports" and "women's sports". However, there are groups of people for which this doesn't apply. Using it as an opportunity to call trans women men is needlessly insensitive in my opinion.
- tux1968 6y ago
  I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. When someone is excluded from women's sport because they are not a woman, it's because of their biological background, not because of their avowed gender.
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    > I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. Sorry, I shouldn't have used a bad hypothetical about muscles and should have just explicitly said "intersex people". Regardless, here's a page that documents examples of what I mean, including in high-profile events like the Olympics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports I would like to especially draw attention to this case: > In 1986, Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was dismissed and publicly shamed after failing a chromosomal test. She fought the ruling against her, arguing that she could not have a competitive advantage because her intersex variation resulted in her having no functional testosterone. Two years later, the IAAF gave Martínez-Patiño the green light to compete again. Note how although she has traits unambiguously associated with the male biological sex, she was still allowed to compete as a women, and as a matter of fact the argument she made was that those traits did not give her an advantage. The point I am trying to make is that the lines in sports are not as cleanly drawn between "men" and "women" as commonly assumed. There are people who are almost universally accepted as cis women banned from women's sports for reasons similar to arguments made about trans athletes. Humans just generally do not fit easily into binary categories when looked at as a whole. EDIT: Actually, I think this page makes my point even cleaner, without the associated baggage of "well intersex people are partially men": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperandrogenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperandrogenism > In 2011 the International Association of Athletics Federations (now World Athletics), and IOC released statements restricting the eligibility of female athletes with high testosterone, whether through hyperandrogenism, or as a result of a disorder of sex development (DSD). These people are unambiguously women, both by gender and biological sex, and are excluded from women's sports. </EDIT> > As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. That is basically exactly my point. I understand, at this point, that you are referring to biological sex. However, the word "man" can refer to either, and _usually_ refers to gender. Therefore, using the term with no clarification can easily accidentally mislead people into thinking you intend the opposite interpretation that you do. It's not a big deal, but it's worth avoiding in my opinion.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Since they are not biologically male or female, the correct thing to do might be to create a third division instead of trying to force them into one of the existing options. There is no shame in being of non-binary biology, so why do we only have competitive divisions for men and women when that doesn't properly accommodate the spectrum of people who actually exist? While some provisions have previously been made for people who are not biologically female to compete in woman's sport, it is not particularly scalable. There will be continual difficulty deciding when it is appropriate to admit someone or not -- deciding biological sex in the vast majority of cases is much simpler. And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22.
      - cmeacham98 6y ago
        > Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Re-read my above edit about hyperandrogenous women. These are biological women who simply have a medical condition that makes their body produce more hormones than normal, and major sports organizations like the IOC have banned them. My point is that insisting we draw the lines across biological sex results in special cases like that, because the actual group of people we are trying to exclude is those with a certain biological advantage, and that group does not match up exactly with "biological men". > And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22. Here's my answer: stop pretending they are "(biological) women's sports" and actually define the rules in relation to what you are trying to prevent (ex: set a max testosterone level). This instantly closes all loopholes because it directly addresses the problem rather than attempts to indirectly address it via the imprecise measurement of bio sex. At least at the top level, this entirely solves the problem in my opinion. A bigger problem I don't have an immediate solution for is lower level of competition - it is obviously unrealistic to expect someone to get a testosterone test to play intermural basketball at their local high school.
Dylan16807 6y ago
> So as soon as we have this discussion, we have to admit there is a difference between a transgender woman and a woman. No we don't. If the criteria to compete is "you can have high testosterone or testicles but not both", that's not drawing a line between transgender women and cis women.
- tux1968 6y ago
  Sure, any biological woman can participate. And if everyone is cool with it, weaker biological men can participate too if they're not capable of competing in the male divisions. Maybe we need a third league for non-binary biology, or with divisions by level of proficiency rather than paying any attention to biological sex at all.
  - Minor49er 6y ago
    What exactly is "non-binary biology"?
    - tux1968 6y ago
      Well, as an example, hermaphrodites.

cmeacham98 6y ago

What about someone with breasts, genitals, and other traits of a woman, but also the muscles and testosterone of a man? (I believe the common term for people like this is "intersex".) I think most people would agree they are a women, but also almost all people making the "trans women should play men's sports" argument would also think this person should play men's sports. That's because the actual dividing line is a biological advantage. For cisgendered people this line is relatively cleanly drawn along gender, which leads to the names "men's sports" and "women's sports". However, there are groups of people for which this doesn't apply. Using it as an opportunity to call trans women men is needlessly insensitive in my opinion.

tux1968 6y ago
I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. When someone is excluded from women's sport because they are not a woman, it's because of their biological background, not because of their avowed gender.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  > I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. Sorry, I shouldn't have used a bad hypothetical about muscles and should have just explicitly said "intersex people". Regardless, here's a page that documents examples of what I mean, including in high-profile events like the Olympics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports I would like to especially draw attention to this case: > In 1986, Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was dismissed and publicly shamed after failing a chromosomal test. She fought the ruling against her, arguing that she could not have a competitive advantage because her intersex variation resulted in her having no functional testosterone. Two years later, the IAAF gave Martínez-Patiño the green light to compete again. Note how although she has traits unambiguously associated with the male biological sex, she was still allowed to compete as a women, and as a matter of fact the argument she made was that those traits did not give her an advantage. The point I am trying to make is that the lines in sports are not as cleanly drawn between "men" and "women" as commonly assumed. There are people who are almost universally accepted as cis women banned from women's sports for reasons similar to arguments made about trans athletes. Humans just generally do not fit easily into binary categories when looked at as a whole. EDIT: Actually, I think this page makes my point even cleaner, without the associated baggage of "well intersex people are partially men": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperandrogenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperandrogenism > In 2011 the International Association of Athletics Federations (now World Athletics), and IOC released statements restricting the eligibility of female athletes with high testosterone, whether through hyperandrogenism, or as a result of a disorder of sex development (DSD). These people are unambiguously women, both by gender and biological sex, and are excluded from women's sports. </EDIT> > As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. That is basically exactly my point. I understand, at this point, that you are referring to biological sex. However, the word "man" can refer to either, and _usually_ refers to gender. Therefore, using the term with no clarification can easily accidentally mislead people into thinking you intend the opposite interpretation that you do. It's not a big deal, but it's worth avoiding in my opinion.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Since they are not biologically male or female, the correct thing to do might be to create a third division instead of trying to force them into one of the existing options. There is no shame in being of non-binary biology, so why do we only have competitive divisions for men and women when that doesn't properly accommodate the spectrum of people who actually exist? While some provisions have previously been made for people who are not biologically female to compete in woman's sport, it is not particularly scalable. There will be continual difficulty deciding when it is appropriate to admit someone or not -- deciding biological sex in the vast majority of cases is much simpler. And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22.
    - cmeacham98 6y ago
      > Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Re-read my above edit about hyperandrogenous women. These are biological women who simply have a medical condition that makes their body produce more hormones than normal, and major sports organizations like the IOC have banned them. My point is that insisting we draw the lines across biological sex results in special cases like that, because the actual group of people we are trying to exclude is those with a certain biological advantage, and that group does not match up exactly with "biological men". > And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22. Here's my answer: stop pretending they are "(biological) women's sports" and actually define the rules in relation to what you are trying to prevent (ex: set a max testosterone level). This instantly closes all loopholes because it directly addresses the problem rather than attempts to indirectly address it via the imprecise measurement of bio sex. At least at the top level, this entirely solves the problem in my opinion. A bigger problem I don't have an immediate solution for is lower level of competition - it is obviously unrealistic to expect someone to get a testosterone test to play intermural basketball at their local high school.

Dylan16807 6y ago

> So as soon as we have this discussion, we have to admit there is a difference between a transgender woman and a woman. No we don't. If the criteria to compete is "you can have high testosterone or testicles but not both", that's not drawing a line between transgender women and cis women.

tux1968 6y ago
Sure, any biological woman can participate. And if everyone is cool with it, weaker biological men can participate too if they're not capable of competing in the male divisions. Maybe we need a third league for non-binary biology, or with divisions by level of proficiency rather than paying any attention to biological sex at all.
- Minor49er 6y ago
  What exactly is "non-binary biology"?
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Well, as an example, hermaphrodites.