4 ms·

In my opinion people often speak incoherently on this topic because they are trying to be politically correct. Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should

In my opinion people often speak incoherently on this topic because they are trying to be politically correct. Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? It is as if "I am not questioning your identity" is a magic spell that must be chanted prior to doing exactly that so you don't get in trouble. If Hubbard is a woman, then it is completely appropriate for Hubbard to compete as a woman, and if not, then not. It is also incorrect to describe sex as a continuum. On a continuum we can increase or decrease a value. The number line, for example, is a continuum. We can find the integer immediately larger or smaller than a given integer. It would be incoherent to pick a woman and ask who is incrementally more feminine than her or incrementally less. We can't sort people by how male they are. I think "bimodal distribution" is a more apt description than continuous or continuum.

Zababa 5y ago
> In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? Not all women are allowed to participate in powerlifting competitions. For example, people not qualified couldn't. People that are known steroids abusers couldn't. That doesn't make them less women.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Sure, but Vanbellinghen is not claiming Hubbard should be disqualified on those grounds. The issue is that Hubbard is a biological male and has an innate advantage when it comes to lifting things.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Vanbellinghen, 27, whose qualifying efforts were disrupted by injury, pointed out that the retained benefit of taking steroids, even years earlier, is widely known. > "So why is it still a question whether two decades, from puberty to the age of 35, with the hormonal system of a man also would give an advantage [in competing against women]? The issue would be the same with a long term steroid user consider how it was worded.
greyman 5y ago
> In my opinion people often speak incoherently on this topic because they are trying to be politically correct. Yes, they are trying to be politically correct, since you are basically forced to talk about it only in a politically correct way. Her statement reads to me like she is not allowed to tell directly what she thinks about it, so needs to describe it in a roundabout way. And that worries me more than the women's weightlifting itself.
rocqua 5y ago
> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. Not quite. Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete in the women's league. That is different from asserting she should not compete as a woman. She then continues to argue this is not because her identity is not female, but because of biological reasons. This is coherent because the point of a Women's league (in weight-lifting at least) isn't to segregate women from men, but to give women a place to compete without being crippled by biologically determined dis-advantages. Things get complicated because the reason for a Women's league existing, and the actual written rules around it do not quite line up. It might even be the case that for Hubbard to compete as women means she could not enter the men's league. That would then probably be a moral mistake in the rules.
Veen 5y ago
> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? Women who take performance enhancing drugs are also disqualified from competing. No one is challenging their identity as a woman, just the fairness of their competing against women without that advantage. It is not a moral prohibition against consuming certain substances, but a practical prohibition because it makes competing on a level playing field impossible. The same is true of trans atheletes. They have an advantage other women do not. Women's sports were invented precisely for that reason: natal males have an advantage that means most natal females are not competetive against them in most sports.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Vanbellinghen is not saying Hubbard used steroids. Physical differences or biological advantages between competitors aren't ever considered reasons to exclude a competitor. People who are gifted with strong and healthy bodies can become world class competitors with enough training and dedication. A swimmer isn't disqualified for being unusually tall, a sprinter unusually lean, a gymnast petite, etc. Imagine a woman born with only one arm complaining that Vanbellinghen had an insurmountable natural advantage in weight lifting. The one armed woman would be correct. There is a Special Olympics where disabled people can compete and it would be incredibly unfair for fully-abled competitors to enter the Special Olympics. Analogously there is an Olympic division where Hubbard could fairly compete (the men's) and another division where Hubbard has an unfair advantage (the women's). If Hubbard is a woman then Hubbard has a distinct natural advantage. To wit, Hubbard was born and developed physiologically as a man. Hubbard didn't attain this advantage unfairly by using steroids. We don't disqualify any other competitor because of the physiological advantages of their natural bodies. Why should Hubbard be disqualified? The only coherent argument is that Hubbard is not actually a woman and should compete in the men's division. This is a denial of Hubbard's identity.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    It feels like you are deliberately trying to conflate issues that don't need to be conflated. Not even taking transgenderism into account, I think it is a very difficult problem of how to handle people have been born with intersex characteristics in sports. On the one hand, the argument can be made "how is this different than other natural variation that makes someone good at sports", but on the other hand, since testosterone has such a powerful effect, it means that women sports can only be won by those with a genetic abnormality that causes high testosterone (a couple of years ago all three of the top finishers at an international track and field competition were intersex - I'm blanking on the competition but Caster Semenya was one of them). No one needs to deny their identity as woman to also question whether, in one example, internal testes gives someone an unfair advantage in women's sports.

Zababa 5y ago

> In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? Not all women are allowed to participate in powerlifting competitions. For example, people not qualified couldn't. People that are known steroids abusers couldn't. That doesn't make them less women.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Sure, but Vanbellinghen is not claiming Hubbard should be disqualified on those grounds. The issue is that Hubbard is a biological male and has an innate advantage when it comes to lifting things.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Vanbellinghen, 27, whose qualifying efforts were disrupted by injury, pointed out that the retained benefit of taking steroids, even years earlier, is widely known. > "So why is it still a question whether two decades, from puberty to the age of 35, with the hormonal system of a man also would give an advantage [in competing against women]? The issue would be the same with a long term steroid user consider how it was worded.

greyman 5y ago

> In my opinion people often speak incoherently on this topic because they are trying to be politically correct. Yes, they are trying to be politically correct, since you are basically forced to talk about it only in a politically correct way. Her statement reads to me like she is not allowed to tell directly what she thinks about it, so needs to describe it in a roundabout way. And that worries me more than the women's weightlifting itself.

rocqua 5y ago

> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. Not quite. Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete in the women's league. That is different from asserting she should not compete as a woman. She then continues to argue this is not because her identity is not female, but because of biological reasons. This is coherent because the point of a Women's league (in weight-lifting at least) isn't to segregate women from men, but to give women a place to compete without being crippled by biologically determined dis-advantages. Things get complicated because the reason for a Women's league existing, and the actual written rules around it do not quite line up. It might even be the case that for Hubbard to compete as women means she could not enter the men's league. That would then probably be a moral mistake in the rules.

Veen 5y ago

> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? Women who take performance enhancing drugs are also disqualified from competing. No one is challenging their identity as a woman, just the fairness of their competing against women without that advantage. It is not a moral prohibition against consuming certain substances, but a practical prohibition because it makes competing on a level playing field impossible. The same is true of trans atheletes. They have an advantage other women do not. Women's sports were invented precisely for that reason: natal males have an advantage that means most natal females are not competetive against them in most sports.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Vanbellinghen is not saying Hubbard used steroids. Physical differences or biological advantages between competitors aren't ever considered reasons to exclude a competitor. People who are gifted with strong and healthy bodies can become world class competitors with enough training and dedication. A swimmer isn't disqualified for being unusually tall, a sprinter unusually lean, a gymnast petite, etc. Imagine a woman born with only one arm complaining that Vanbellinghen had an insurmountable natural advantage in weight lifting. The one armed woman would be correct. There is a Special Olympics where disabled people can compete and it would be incredibly unfair for fully-abled competitors to enter the Special Olympics. Analogously there is an Olympic division where Hubbard could fairly compete (the men's) and another division where Hubbard has an unfair advantage (the women's). If Hubbard is a woman then Hubbard has a distinct natural advantage. To wit, Hubbard was born and developed physiologically as a man. Hubbard didn't attain this advantage unfairly by using steroids. We don't disqualify any other competitor because of the physiological advantages of their natural bodies. Why should Hubbard be disqualified? The only coherent argument is that Hubbard is not actually a woman and should compete in the men's division. This is a denial of Hubbard's identity.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  It feels like you are deliberately trying to conflate issues that don't need to be conflated. Not even taking transgenderism into account, I think it is a very difficult problem of how to handle people have been born with intersex characteristics in sports. On the one hand, the argument can be made "how is this different than other natural variation that makes someone good at sports", but on the other hand, since testosterone has such a powerful effect, it means that women sports can only be won by those with a genetic abnormality that causes high testosterone (a couple of years ago all three of the top finishers at an international track and field competition were intersex - I'm blanking on the competition but Caster Semenya was one of them). No one needs to deny their identity as woman to also question whether, in one example, internal testes gives someone an unfair advantage in women's sports.