4 ms·

They're using trans people's participation in sports (once uncontroversial) as a wedge to drive in the larger wedge of trans existence. They can do this becaus

They're using trans people's participation in sports (once uncontroversial) as a wedge to drive in the larger wedge of trans existence. They can do this because, intuitively, many people think there's an advantage to be had. If there were such advantages, then we'd have to consider the thorny topic of what constitutes an "unfair" advantage, and whether the social implications of excluding a marginalised population outweigh the (perhaps disproportionate) impact of yada yada. But we don't have to consider any of this, because scientific research suggests trans women do not have such advantages over cis women: medical transition does not lead to a body configuration optimised for sports. Quoth, for instance, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.04.004: > This study highlights substantial ventilatory inefficiencies in transgender women, likely associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy This whole moral panic is an artificially-constructed wedge issue: they found something persuasive, and (by presenting trans people as something dangerous and new) side-stepped the need for evidence of harm, and positioned their reactionary bans as conservative. I think, when arguing about this topic, more attention needs to be paid to the fact that feminising hormone therapy (as a treatment for trans women) is older than insulin (as a treatment for diabetics). Any harmful consequences of trans existence (resp. participation in sports, etc) already happened, and nobody alive noticed.

drankl 1y ago
[flagged]
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  And FIDE "disagrees with me on the question of male physiological advantage" in… chess. https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf There's clearly more to this "ban trans people from sports" phenomenon than dispassionate assessment of the evidence. dang has asked you to stop commenting like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108551. If you're explaining your position, I'd consider that fine (though dang might not), but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion.
  - drankl 1y ago
    The reason for a separate women's category in FIDE's chess competitions is different to athletic sports - it was introduced to encourage female participation in what was an overwhelmingly male-dominated field. As an example, here's what women in chess have to deal with: https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/ https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/ That statement makes the point that FIDE are well aware this is a problem, and is one they're trying to solve: "FIDE not only strives to increase women’s representation in professional sports and official positions but also to change the perception of chess as purely a men’s world. Our community has to be a place where women feel safe and respected. Therefore, any action that carries disrespect, sexism or physical, verbal or emotional assault is unacceptable." Now, some people might argue that if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is, then that player should be permitted to compete alongside women. Given their aim of increasing female participation in chess, FIDE have been somewhat more skeptical of this argument, as you can see in the policy you linked. > but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion. I made a comment about the perspective of World Athletics on this, and linked to their statement as evidence. Why would you feel the need to rebut this? Instead of considering it thoughtfully.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it. > if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is And I understand that from this perspective, the things you're saying might make internal sense; but if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview.¹ This FIDE initiative makes no sense, if its intent is as stated. > Why would you feel the need to rebut this? For the same reason you felt the need to bring it up, I assume. The arguments you've made to defend the FIDE decisions don't hold up, and you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up, so there is nothing for me to rebut. Placing the burden of rebuttal on the opponent, when you make many comments in a short space of time, is known as the "Gish gallop": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop. If you want to enter something into discussion, you put in the work to do so. I'm not here to participate in no-rules debate club. (The main reason I'm engaging here is that I'm trying to practice de-escalation strategies.) > Instead of considering it thoughtfully. I have half a literature review devoted to this perspective. What I haven't done is written an essay with numerous citations in response to your one sentence and a link. Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before. So: you first. (If this is because you haven't had access to a trans person's perspective, let me know. I don't collect such articles, but I've probably got a link lying around somewhere.) --- ¹: There are similar world-views which I strongly disagree with, but which nonetheless are valid, in the particular sense that I just called yours invalid. I sometimes learn things from talking to such people, so I make an effort to be friendly to them, even if they're not friendly to me.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Once again, the minor concern and discussion of trans participation in sports is a wedge issue used largely by conservatives to rile up people and keep them from voting for liberal parties (in the US). This is undeniable IMO. Perhaps it is a liberal failure to discuss the sports issue more, since doing so would disarm the disingenuousness of the "I only care about sports" excuse of conservatives.
  - drankl 1y ago
    It is being used as a wedge issue by conservatives in the US, but I feel that liberal politicians made a rod for their own backs on this one. An unforced error that their opponents were happy to take advantage of. This article has an interesting viewpoint, from the perspective of a feminist liberal who had been trying to warn Democrats about this for years: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/ https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/

drankl 1y ago

[flagged]

wizzwizz4 1y ago
And FIDE "disagrees with me on the question of male physiological advantage" in… chess. https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf There's clearly more to this "ban trans people from sports" phenomenon than dispassionate assessment of the evidence. dang has asked you to stop commenting like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108551. If you're explaining your position, I'd consider that fine (though dang might not), but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion.
- drankl 1y ago
  The reason for a separate women's category in FIDE's chess competitions is different to athletic sports - it was introduced to encourage female participation in what was an overwhelmingly male-dominated field. As an example, here's what women in chess have to deal with: https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/ https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/ That statement makes the point that FIDE are well aware this is a problem, and is one they're trying to solve: "FIDE not only strives to increase women’s representation in professional sports and official positions but also to change the perception of chess as purely a men’s world. Our community has to be a place where women feel safe and respected. Therefore, any action that carries disrespect, sexism or physical, verbal or emotional assault is unacceptable." Now, some people might argue that if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is, then that player should be permitted to compete alongside women. Given their aim of increasing female participation in chess, FIDE have been somewhat more skeptical of this argument, as you can see in the policy you linked. > but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion. I made a comment about the perspective of World Athletics on this, and linked to their statement as evidence. Why would you feel the need to rebut this? Instead of considering it thoughtfully.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it. > if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is And I understand that from this perspective, the things you're saying might make internal sense; but if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview.¹ This FIDE initiative makes no sense, if its intent is as stated. > Why would you feel the need to rebut this? For the same reason you felt the need to bring it up, I assume. The arguments you've made to defend the FIDE decisions don't hold up, and you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up, so there is nothing for me to rebut. Placing the burden of rebuttal on the opponent, when you make many comments in a short space of time, is known as the "Gish gallop": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop. If you want to enter something into discussion, you put in the work to do so. I'm not here to participate in no-rules debate club. (The main reason I'm engaging here is that I'm trying to practice de-escalation strategies.) > Instead of considering it thoughtfully. I have half a literature review devoted to this perspective. What I haven't done is written an essay with numerous citations in response to your one sentence and a link. Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before. So: you first. (If this is because you haven't had access to a trans person's perspective, let me know. I don't collect such articles, but I've probably got a link lying around somewhere.) --- ¹: There are similar world-views which I strongly disagree with, but which nonetheless are valid, in the particular sense that I just called yours invalid. I sometimes learn things from talking to such people, so I make an effort to be friendly to them, even if they're not friendly to me.
unethical_ban 1y ago
Once again, the minor concern and discussion of trans participation in sports is a wedge issue used largely by conservatives to rile up people and keep them from voting for liberal parties (in the US). This is undeniable IMO. Perhaps it is a liberal failure to discuss the sports issue more, since doing so would disarm the disingenuousness of the "I only care about sports" excuse of conservatives.
- drankl 1y ago
  It is being used as a wedge issue by conservatives in the US, but I feel that liberal politicians made a rod for their own backs on this one. An unforced error that their opponents were happy to take advantage of. This article has an interesting viewpoint, from the perspective of a feminist liberal who had been trying to warn Democrats about this for years: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/ https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/