6 ms·

> However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, Trans women have been able to compete for years in Olympic level sport, and they haven't wiped the

> However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, Trans women have been able to compete for years in Olympic level sport, and they haven't wiped the floor with cis women. I fail to see evidence of the problem - I see a lot more evidence of it being a culture war and TERF talking point. It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's?

woodruffw 5y ago
> It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? I appreciate that you’ve said this so concisely and clearly. The Olympics are, overwhelmingly, a show of extraordinary human abilities. Singling out transwomen for scrutiny and prejudice amounts to special pleading.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  here is a thought experiment for you: no more genders in sports. at all. everyone competes under the same rules. we bother with quirks like gender? i mean, we want equality right? everyone competes under the same rules /s
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Your snideness is noted, but this is precisely the stoic mindset: athleticism is most virtuously practiced when we only compare current selves to our best possible versions of ourselves. We can’t change anything about how others are; we can only better ourselves. Telling transwomen that they can’t perform athletic excellence on their own terms is myopic and inconsistent with our own praise for factors outside of our control. Worry less about them, and more about yourself.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      nah. if you’re working on yourself that’s fine. if you’re working a lifetime to be the best at something only to be cheated out of it, we’re talking about something else. to nail this point home: if you are training to ride a bike and you’re the best in the world at it and after that someone comes along with an electric bike and wants to “compete” with you you’re gonna have a problem. nothing wrong if everyone has an electric one and the sport involves electric bikes. something is wrong if someone brings an electric bike and claims the bike is the same as the others.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        I don't think they like to be referred to as "electric" anymore.
    - meowkit 5y ago
      We are talking about competition between others. You have worry about yourself compared to other people - that's the whole point. We are not arguing the virtues of athleticism I don't understand why you wrote that.
    - tomp 5y ago
      Nobody is telling transwomen that they cannot perform/compete. Just that they shouldn’t compete with women.
- yerwhat01010 5y ago
  So you admit you want to abolish women's sports?
- seunosewa 5y ago
  Cis women are 50% of the population while transgender women are less than 1% of the population. Excluding 50% of the population from sports is obviously more problematic than excluding less than 1%, even if both are not ideal.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    More than 99.9% are excluded from Olympic-level sports anyway.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      But all have some at least theoretically plausible hope, say as a child, to aspire to them. Back when sports were only for men, ~50 % -- women -- were excluded even from that. Allowing trans women to compete as women will again remove that hope from ~50 %: Non-trans women. Yours is a non-argument.
bostonsre 5y ago
What percentage of the population are Olympians? And what percentage of the population are trans? Being openly trans is more accepted in lots of the world now, but not everywhere. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to say whether or not trans people could have an advantage in some Olympic sports for some genders. Either side of the argument seems plausible to me and it will be incredibly difficult for everyone to agree to one stance when there are so many intangible parts to this argument.
Zababa 5y ago
> It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? These are not the same thing. Michael Phelps dominated the sport as a whole, males and females. A genetic quirk to be the best of the world vs a genetic quirk to be a big fish in a small pond (with all respect to females powerlifters, but males just have better records) is not the same at all. I think a better comparison is one made in the article, to steroids. Steroids are just testosterone after all. Imagine someone put steroids in the food of a powerlifter for 20 years (I'm using this metaphor because I don't want to insinuate that the powerlifter did it on purpose). Do you think it would be fair to let them compete? Stopping them from competing is unfair to them, but allowing them is unfair to all other powerlifters.
tiahura 5y ago
It’s not a quirk that makes it unfair for them to compete in women’s sports, it’s the fact that they’re not women. If I’m a 240lb judoka, it would be unfair for me to compete in the 160lb weight class just because I feel thin on the inside.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vore 5y ago
  First of all, I suggest you refrain from calling trans women "not women" – this is, whether you intend it to be or not, quite disrespectful. You can talk about the biological implications of being transgender without erasing their identities like that. Second of all, there are physical changes from hormone replacement therapy. associated with transitioning. This is absolutely not "240lb judoka feeling thin on the inside" and not absurdly cut and dry like you suggest.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    I would like to suggest that you resist the urge to police other’s use of language, especially when their use of terms is well established and reasonable. Whether you intend it or not, this is quite disrespectful.
    - vore 5y ago
      How is calling transgender women "not women" "well established and reasonable"? Whether you intended to parrot what I said to be so snide, this is quite disrespectful.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Well established: a woman is an adult human female. Try a dictionary, biology textbook, etc. You might not like it, but you can’t reasonably say that it’s not well established. I hope you agree that a “transgender woman”, or, to use more neutral language, a trans identified man, is not female. That’s the entire issue here. Reasonable: see the above. Also, implied by the users of the term itself. If a T.W. is a W., why do they say T.W.?

woodruffw 5y ago

> It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? I appreciate that you’ve said this so concisely and clearly. The Olympics are, overwhelmingly, a show of extraordinary human abilities. Singling out transwomen for scrutiny and prejudice amounts to special pleading.

rantwasp 5y ago
here is a thought experiment for you: no more genders in sports. at all. everyone competes under the same rules. we bother with quirks like gender? i mean, we want equality right? everyone competes under the same rules /s
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Your snideness is noted, but this is precisely the stoic mindset: athleticism is most virtuously practiced when we only compare current selves to our best possible versions of ourselves. We can’t change anything about how others are; we can only better ourselves. Telling transwomen that they can’t perform athletic excellence on their own terms is myopic and inconsistent with our own praise for factors outside of our control. Worry less about them, and more about yourself.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    nah. if you’re working on yourself that’s fine. if you’re working a lifetime to be the best at something only to be cheated out of it, we’re talking about something else. to nail this point home: if you are training to ride a bike and you’re the best in the world at it and after that someone comes along with an electric bike and wants to “compete” with you you’re gonna have a problem. nothing wrong if everyone has an electric one and the sport involves electric bikes. something is wrong if someone brings an electric bike and claims the bike is the same as the others.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I don't think they like to be referred to as "electric" anymore.
  - meowkit 5y ago
    We are talking about competition between others. You have worry about yourself compared to other people - that's the whole point. We are not arguing the virtues of athleticism I don't understand why you wrote that.
  - tomp 5y ago
    Nobody is telling transwomen that they cannot perform/compete. Just that they shouldn’t compete with women.
yerwhat01010 5y ago
So you admit you want to abolish women's sports?
seunosewa 5y ago
Cis women are 50% of the population while transgender women are less than 1% of the population. Excluding 50% of the population from sports is obviously more problematic than excluding less than 1%, even if both are not ideal.
- anoncake 5y ago
  More than 99.9% are excluded from Olympic-level sports anyway.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    But all have some at least theoretically plausible hope, say as a child, to aspire to them. Back when sports were only for men, ~50 % -- women -- were excluded even from that. Allowing trans women to compete as women will again remove that hope from ~50 %: Non-trans women. Yours is a non-argument.

bostonsre 5y ago

What percentage of the population are Olympians? And what percentage of the population are trans? Being openly trans is more accepted in lots of the world now, but not everywhere. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to say whether or not trans people could have an advantage in some Olympic sports for some genders. Either side of the argument seems plausible to me and it will be incredibly difficult for everyone to agree to one stance when there are so many intangible parts to this argument.

Zababa 5y ago

> It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? These are not the same thing. Michael Phelps dominated the sport as a whole, males and females. A genetic quirk to be the best of the world vs a genetic quirk to be a big fish in a small pond (with all respect to females powerlifters, but males just have better records) is not the same at all. I think a better comparison is one made in the article, to steroids. Steroids are just testosterone after all. Imagine someone put steroids in the food of a powerlifter for 20 years (I'm using this metaphor because I don't want to insinuate that the powerlifter did it on purpose). Do you think it would be fair to let them compete? Stopping them from competing is unfair to them, but allowing them is unfair to all other powerlifters.

tiahura 5y ago

It’s not a quirk that makes it unfair for them to compete in women’s sports, it’s the fact that they’re not women. If I’m a 240lb judoka, it would be unfair for me to compete in the 160lb weight class just because I feel thin on the inside.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vore 5y ago
First of all, I suggest you refrain from calling trans women "not women" – this is, whether you intend it to be or not, quite disrespectful. You can talk about the biological implications of being transgender without erasing their identities like that. Second of all, there are physical changes from hormone replacement therapy. associated with transitioning. This is absolutely not "240lb judoka feeling thin on the inside" and not absurdly cut and dry like you suggest.
- leephillips 5y ago
  I would like to suggest that you resist the urge to police other’s use of language, especially when their use of terms is well established and reasonable. Whether you intend it or not, this is quite disrespectful.
  - vore 5y ago
    How is calling transgender women "not women" "well established and reasonable"? Whether you intended to parrot what I said to be so snide, this is quite disrespectful.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Well established: a woman is an adult human female. Try a dictionary, biology textbook, etc. You might not like it, but you can’t reasonably say that it’s not well established. I hope you agree that a “transgender woman”, or, to use more neutral language, a trans identified man, is not female. That’s the entire issue here. Reasonable: see the above. Also, implied by the users of the term itself. If a T.W. is a W., why do they say T.W.?