4 ms·

> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone disagrees with that, I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that th

by umvi 2y ago

> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone disagrees with that, I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc).

yawpitch 2y ago
> sports, etc Just going to keep pointing out that human beings have very little sexual dimorphism compared to the other great apes, and that any difference is any sport that does not actually employ the genitals is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  > probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. I'm not really going to defend the other side here because sports are (by definition) fundamentally arbitrary, but is this really borne out by reality? To use an easy comparison, elite adult womens' track and field athletes might be competitive against high school boys, but not at any higher level. Compare, for example, the international womens' records [0] to the records from this random high school nationals track meet [1]. What food access and/or training advantage are high school kids going to have over the most capable athletes in their sport? [0] https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ [1] https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records
  - yawpitch 2y ago
    You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. Looking for support for your confirmation bias in stats that already are influenced by thousands of years of your confirmation bias doesn’t exactly make decent scientific inquiry. Again, when compared with the other great apes (never mind less closely related primates) we humans have relatively minimal sexual dimorphism, and no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics, especially across a wide range of sports.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      > You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism. > no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training. The effects of hormones are not assumptions. What is your explanation for trans men gaining athletic advantages and trans women losing athletic advantages during transition?
      - yawpitch 2y ago
        > The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism. No, it’s potential evidence for sexual dimorphism. It’s also potential evidence for systemic dietary sexism. You’d need to establish that the latter doesn’t exist to establish that the former does. > Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training. At that point we’d have shown that sexual dimorphism was not at play and that gendered sports were inherently discriminatory, so that hypothetical person would now be an idiot arguing against reality. The obvious solution would be to redirect better training at the now know equally capable athletes. > The effects of hormones are not assumptions. Actually they largely are… we really don’t have more than minimal and crude knowledge of precisely how hormones work or what their actual effects are.
- Chris2048 2y ago
  > any difference is any sport ... is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. Citation definitely needed. The gap is large, and consistent, across different nations and sports.
- poszlem 2y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is demonstrably not true. We would not have this in the year 2024 otherwise: https://boysvswomen.com/ https://boysvswomen.com/
  - yawpitch 2y ago
    Of course we would have and expect exactly that same (extremely cherry-picked, confirmation bias serving) result if it were true that female athletes had similar innate physical capacities — and they do, sexual dimorphism in humans is quite minimal compared to the other great apes, especially the gorilla and the orangutan — but were neither as well fed nor as well trained as male athletes. In other words the (very circular reasoning) chart your source provides doesn’t obviously show sexual dimorphism when confounding variables of food and training (and the funding and social incentives that provide both) exist.
cararemixed 2y ago
The sports claim still deserves a lot of research. People seem to continue to parrot this "impossible" view point but it really doesn't seem to be the reality. Instead organizations get pressured into making choices based on political views rather than data. For an example of results see https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586. A lot of the papers I see trying to support the opposing views try to use data of cis men which have not undergone hormone therapy to stand-in for trans women as if there was no difference but again it's quite apparent that this is not the case. For many other areas, often people will use one incident to collectively label an entire group as deviant. This happened the same way with gay rights over the years and I've got many friends who got labelled all sorts of things because of it. As far as that's concerned, people love to arm-chair what is and isn't an effective course. None of these things are new, just American, or ignoring biological factors but it seems like those who would like to restrict acceptance of transgender people like to paint it as such. Many of my friends have taught me a lot just by being bold enough to be seen as themselves. I don't think it's actually unreasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt to how trans people choose to affirm themselves.
valanha 2y ago
>I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". Here we see that the term 'illusion' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the background, and implies some kind of bias or preconceived notion of "real" vs "fake" or "imaginary". If this is what you get from advocates and activists, then I think you either receive this through a filter of some kind, or carry said filter within. >That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc). This is the treatment method that has consistently demonstrated the best outcomes for the people concerned over time. It is not uniquely American, as it was pioneered in Europe before taken to the next level in the US, among other countries/regions. Again, furtherance of the idea there is an 'illusion that must be completed'. This is not the case. Trans people are very aware just how much they do or do not fit in compared to the average population at large. No one needs to point this out to them, nor does anyone need to coddle them. By far, just being treated as how one wishes to be treated goes a long, long way. In regards to sports, if the person in question has medically transitioned and has done so with HRT for some year(s) (I think 2 is the baseline minimum from studies?), then their overall performance in sports will be measurably less then their peers of the same gender in most instances. The few that excel are not statistically more significant than the few natural athletes who excel due to some developmental advantage (larger heart/lung capacity, etc) due to early or sustained training, genetic factors, etc. At least this is what the preliminary data is showing us so far. On average, the distribution remains about the same and on par with other athletes. This is almost always a talking point/dog whistle that is, once you peel the onion, much ado about nothing. Just like most all other contentious talking points about transgender folks, which do not vary significantly from the same points about gay rights, marriage equality, racial segregation/integration debates, or equality in voting and women's rights, etc, etc.

by umvi 2y ago

yawpitch 2y ago

> sports, etc Just going to keep pointing out that human beings have very little sexual dimorphism compared to the other great apes, and that any difference is any sport that does not actually employ the genitals is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.

InitialLastName 2y ago
> probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. I'm not really going to defend the other side here because sports are (by definition) fundamentally arbitrary, but is this really borne out by reality? To use an easy comparison, elite adult womens' track and field athletes might be competitive against high school boys, but not at any higher level. Compare, for example, the international womens' records [0] to the records from this random high school nationals track meet [1]. What food access and/or training advantage are high school kids going to have over the most capable athletes in their sport? [0] https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ [1] https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records
- yawpitch 2y ago
  You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. Looking for support for your confirmation bias in stats that already are influenced by thousands of years of your confirmation bias doesn’t exactly make decent scientific inquiry. Again, when compared with the other great apes (never mind less closely related primates) we humans have relatively minimal sexual dimorphism, and no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics, especially across a wide range of sports.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    > You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism. > no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training. The effects of hormones are not assumptions. What is your explanation for trans men gaining athletic advantages and trans women losing athletic advantages during transition?
    - yawpitch 2y ago
      > The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism. No, it’s potential evidence for sexual dimorphism. It’s also potential evidence for systemic dietary sexism. You’d need to establish that the latter doesn’t exist to establish that the former does. > Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training. At that point we’d have shown that sexual dimorphism was not at play and that gendered sports were inherently discriminatory, so that hypothetical person would now be an idiot arguing against reality. The obvious solution would be to redirect better training at the now know equally capable athletes. > The effects of hormones are not assumptions. Actually they largely are… we really don’t have more than minimal and crude knowledge of precisely how hormones work or what their actual effects are.
Chris2048 2y ago
> any difference is any sport ... is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. Citation definitely needed. The gap is large, and consistent, across different nations and sports.
poszlem 2y ago
I'm sorry, but this is demonstrably not true. We would not have this in the year 2024 otherwise: https://boysvswomen.com/ https://boysvswomen.com/
- yawpitch 2y ago
  Of course we would have and expect exactly that same (extremely cherry-picked, confirmation bias serving) result if it were true that female athletes had similar innate physical capacities — and they do, sexual dimorphism in humans is quite minimal compared to the other great apes, especially the gorilla and the orangutan — but were neither as well fed nor as well trained as male athletes. In other words the (very circular reasoning) chart your source provides doesn’t obviously show sexual dimorphism when confounding variables of food and training (and the funding and social incentives that provide both) exist.

cararemixed 2y ago

The sports claim still deserves a lot of research. People seem to continue to parrot this "impossible" view point but it really doesn't seem to be the reality. Instead organizations get pressured into making choices based on political views rather than data. For an example of results see https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586. A lot of the papers I see trying to support the opposing views try to use data of cis men which have not undergone hormone therapy to stand-in for trans women as if there was no difference but again it's quite apparent that this is not the case. For many other areas, often people will use one incident to collectively label an entire group as deviant. This happened the same way with gay rights over the years and I've got many friends who got labelled all sorts of things because of it. As far as that's concerned, people love to arm-chair what is and isn't an effective course. None of these things are new, just American, or ignoring biological factors but it seems like those who would like to restrict acceptance of transgender people like to paint it as such. Many of my friends have taught me a lot just by being bold enough to be seen as themselves. I don't think it's actually unreasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt to how trans people choose to affirm themselves.

valanha 2y ago

>I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". Here we see that the term 'illusion' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the background, and implies some kind of bias or preconceived notion of "real" vs "fake" or "imaginary". If this is what you get from advocates and activists, then I think you either receive this through a filter of some kind, or carry said filter within. >That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc). This is the treatment method that has consistently demonstrated the best outcomes for the people concerned over time. It is not uniquely American, as it was pioneered in Europe before taken to the next level in the US, among other countries/regions. Again, furtherance of the idea there is an 'illusion that must be completed'. This is not the case. Trans people are very aware just how much they do or do not fit in compared to the average population at large. No one needs to point this out to them, nor does anyone need to coddle them. By far, just being treated as how one wishes to be treated goes a long, long way. In regards to sports, if the person in question has medically transitioned and has done so with HRT for some year(s) (I think 2 is the baseline minimum from studies?), then their overall performance in sports will be measurably less then their peers of the same gender in most instances. The few that excel are not statistically more significant than the few natural athletes who excel due to some developmental advantage (larger heart/lung capacity, etc) due to early or sustained training, genetic factors, etc. At least this is what the preliminary data is showing us so far. On average, the distribution remains about the same and on par with other athletes. This is almost always a talking point/dog whistle that is, once you peel the onion, much ado about nothing. Just like most all other contentious talking points about transgender folks, which do not vary significantly from the same points about gay rights, marriage equality, racial segregation/integration debates, or equality in voting and women's rights, etc, etc.