> The biological issue is that men competing against women will cause very real biological injuries. Uh... this is quite a bizarre statement, given that you pr

> The biological issue is that men competing against women will cause very real biological injuries. Uh... this is quite a bizarre statement, given that you previously brought up boxing, in which the entire point is to cause very real biological injuries to your opponent. If you hadn't noticed, in all sports, men competing against men causes very real biological injuries, as does women competing against women. > Saying that women shouldn't get to compete in the Olympics is fine, you should just be honest about it. I wasn't making any suggestions, merely pointing out that the current divisions are arbitrary social conventions that could be changed. I honestly have no strong opinions about sporting rules, and I was joking about the need for a basketball league to accommodate me. I've played tennis but not basketball. > I admire your innocence. Search for "genital preference transphobic" or the like to see an example You can always find examples of any opinion in the world on any subject, but if they're not commonly propounded or representative of the public debate, then they're largely irrelevant. You can't validly repudiate a position by pointing out the most extreme advocates of the position, otherwise you would repudiate every position. [EDIT:] It was probably a mistake for me to get sidetracked arguing about sports. The weirdest thing about your "motte and bailey" argument is the implication that the worst thing about acknowledging the self-identity of transgender women would be its effect on sporting competition. Whereas transgender people themselves appear to be much more worried about things like violence against them, discrimination against them in the workplace, housing, and health care, and general social disrespect, refusal to accept their very existence. I think that sports is largely a red herring.