Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[8ball]

It doesn't work the other way round, clearly.

Everyone race and see who's fastest means no women doing well in any top race ever. Hence the need for women-only competitions and the need for some set of rules to decide who qualifies for those races.

I honestly don't much care. Have men only races, men with women who want to be there races, women only races, whatever.
Trying to make elite/professional sports make sense or be "fair" is a fools' errand imo.

The list of rules just gets longer and longer and more intricate and the main beneficiaries are armies of bureaucrats and the shareholders of private testing labs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I honestly don't much care. Have men only races, men with women who want to be there races, women only races, whatever.
Trying to make elite/professional sports make sense or be "fair" is a fools' errand imo.

The list of rules just gets longer and longer and more intricate and the main beneficiaries are armies of bureaucrats and the shareholders of private testing labs.

Is it a fool's errand to try to have women-only competitions, though? Surely it's essential in order to allow women a space to compete and excel in sports. That applies at all levels, not only at elite level, but it's at elite level that the issue of unfair advantage, and how to quantify it, becomes an urgent one.

 

[weepiper]

'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.

 

[8ball]

Is it a fool's errand to try to have women-only competitions, though? Surely it's essential in order to allow women a space to compete and excel in sports. That applies at all levels, not only at elite level, but it's at elite level that the issue of unfair advantage, and how to quantify it, becomes an urgent one.

I think there should be spaces for unfit, uncoordinated people to compete and excel in sports.

 

[8ball]

'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.

I feel cases of potential unfairness in sports are given a priority they are not really due, but then I don't think sports are really about logic.
No one has said that men should be able to partake in women's competitions.

We have weight classes and separation of the sexes in, say, boxing, because sport doesn't fulfil its purpose of creating narratives without it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there should be spaces for unfit, uncoordinated people to compete and excel in sports.

You don't give a shit about sport. Fine. But you didn't answer my question, and presumably you acknowledge that there are plenty of people who do give a shit about sport and want the opportunity to take part.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We have weight classes and separation of the sexes in, say, boxing, because sport doesn't fulfil its purpose of creating narratives without it.

Is that sport's purpose? Maybe if you're talking about how elite sport is marketed, but at grass-roots level, those 'narratives' are actually an essential part of ensuring the widest possible inclusion.

 

[8ball]

You don't give a shit about sport. Fine. But you didn't answer my question, and presumably you acknowledge that there are plenty of people who do give a shit about sport and want the opportunity to take part.

Well, not so far as completely not giving a shit (I have a weakness for a couple of sports), but I think the fretting over 'purity' can go a bit far considering how dirty these industries seem to be. The idea of letting anyone who identifies as a woman enter men's competitions seems pretty reasonable to me.

Is the proportion of trans women winning women's competitions quite high? And is it substantially changing?

 

[MochaSoul]

Firstly there's a big difference between a woman only shortlist and someone fleeing a violent partner. Whilst I don't think anyone would go on a woman only shortlst to validate there gender either to suggest someone escaping from domestic violence might is really pretty nasty.

But realistically how many people would end up on a trans shortlist in the Labour Party? Probably so few that just being trans would be enough to get someone selected. To narrow a pool down to less than 1% of the population doesn't strike me as a great strategy for selecting parliamentry candidates. And until women make up 50% of Labour MPs and candidates then wouldn't this just start a new row about trans shortlists being used in places where women's shortlists might have been used?

This is just like the 'why not set up your own trans refuges like women did' argument. Fine in theory, completely unworkable and in many cases impossble in practice.

Firstly, I didn't say the difference was in the individual cases of TWs fleeing violence. It's been happening already and one of the reasons was that there was no bruhaha about it was that women's orgs have been able to do their own gatekeeping. It could change and no amount of arguing there is nothing to worry about while dismissing, misrepresenting and slandering those talking about is going to change that.
Second... Look at the Jo Cox programme, look at the percentage of women in the country compare it with the percentage of TWs and look at how the compare to the numbers in the school. Moreover, if the grapevine is right and Peto has been politically active for some time and had already stood for election as Warren then how many other girls/women without skills or experience in political activities could have attended instead? Can you wonder why we smell rats when resources may be wasted like this? Now tell me suspicions of highjacking resources and women's representation are wholly unfounded.

Third, trans refuges and such may well be inevitable anyway. Refuges can be as chaotic place as they come (I've been in one). Now imagine India Willoughby in one or even our Stella here. Totally different set of needs/challenges smack bang among already traumatised women now also at risk of being fingerpointed at with accusations of wrong-think.

 

[8ball]

Is that sport's purpose?

It feels like there's an increasing separation between the 'participation' sphere and the 'spectacle' sphere with sports, generally. It's always been there, though. You get sports equipment marketed at big sporting events, but you also get McDonald's.

And there is a problem with girls' take-up of sports and physical activity generally, though in the UK it doesn't seem like lack of role models is at the root of that.

BUT, in terms of the issues trans people face, and the intersections and differences with the issues women face generally, I think this is given too much emphasis, personally, and is often over-simplified as a case of men invading women's spaces.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is the proportion of trans women winning women's competitions quite high?

I don't think that's the right question, tbh. Closer to the right question would be to ask whether there are people who competed pre-transition as men who are now substantially more successful competing as women, because that is a telltale sign that all might not be right.

 

[8ball]

I don't think that's the right question, tbh. Closer to the right question would be to ask whether there are people who competed pre-transition as men who are now substantially more successful competing as women, because that is a telltale sign that all might not be right.

Hmmm. Can you elaborate on why that specifically means "all might not be right"?

 

[8ball]

'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.

In every case I can think of, the history of men's reactions to such things is not to shrug indifferently; rather, it is to claim that really it *is* fair, usually followed up with a bunch of spurious reasons why (such as every reason given as to why it was not necessary for women to have a vote).

And then to go back to ignoring things as far as possible.

 

[elbows]

The corrective genital surgery figures quoted there are a better guide imo, and still that includes various developmental glitches.

But that would then excludes intersex conditions that dont manifest in obvious external genital ambiguities. Not on.

 

[bimble]

Hmmm. Can you elaborate on why that specifically means "all might not be right"?

When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room. You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.

 

[Athos]

To even suggest that someone so terrified of violence they would leave their homes and go live in a house full of strangers at a secret address would be in the slightest bit motivated by validating their gender identity once again reveals what underlies your pretend support for trans people.

The question isn't whether they'd do those things to validate their belief, but whether the insistence that they be done in a way that doesn't acknowledge a difference between trans and non-trans women (or the latter's concerns) is so motivated.

 

[8ball]

But that would then excludes intersex conditions that dont manifest in obvious external genital ambiguities. Not on.

Not on in some cases, sure, and many of those should be included, but the definition offered includes into the "intersex" bracket things that would be better understood as enzymatic deficiency conditions (these skew the figures greatly, which was my main point) and also the kinds of cellular mosaicism conditions that have no effect whatsoever on someone's life besides showing up if you take enough DNA samples from various tissues (in which case for practical reasons we can just consider these people "male" or "female").

I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really. Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?

 

[8ball]

When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room. You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.

I see what you mean about "making room", but I wasn't sure whether that was specifically what lbj meant in terms of "all might not be right". There were a couple of other interpretations and I didn't want to make any uncharitable assumptions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room. You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.

I've been trying to find detailed records of Hubbard's career as a man, but can't find anything beyond that they set a NZ junior record in 1998 in a newly established division (record since beaten by some distance). I can't find records of Hubbard's personal best as a man (beyond that Hubbard never held the senior men's NZ record), but her current NZ record as a woman is below the junior men's record of 1998. So she's not as good as a woman as she was as a man. Just as well, otherwise there'd be no contest at all - men's performance in weightlifting is as much as 50 % higher than women's performance at the same weight (various NZ national records here). But that doesn't mean it's a level playing field. And looking at those records, Hubbard is the oldest record-holder of all by more than four years: 39 is clearly not normally peak lifting age.

 

[Athos]

This is just like the 'why not set up your own trans refuges like women did' argument. Fine in theory, completely unworkable and in many cases impossble in practice.

Is it fine in theory? Because I suspect that, even if there were adequate facilities for trans women, many of them would still insist they should be allowed into non-trans women's spaces. Do you accept that non-trans women have the right to their own spaces if trans women's needs can be met elsewhere?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I see what you mean about "making room", but I wasn't sure whether that was specifically what lbj meant in terms of "all might not be right". There were a couple of other interpretations and I didn't want to make any uncharitable assumptions.

Simply to do with fairness, and whether or not there is an unfair advantage for trans women over cis women in women-only sports events.

 

[8ball]

Simply to do with fairness, and whether or not there is an unfair advantage for trans women over cis women in women-only sports events.

Thanks - that clarifies things. I think there is going to be a pretty clear advantage too.
I suppose with a lot of transgender cases its (at least for now) a bit simpler than intersex cases, where each case can be really unique.

Though as more hormonal interventions are done with gender dysphoric children and teens, that's going to get way more complicated too.

The concept of "fairness" is nebulous enough even when none of these issues are present,

 

[smokedout]

Firstly, I didn't say the difference was in the individual cases of TWs fleeing violence. It's been happening already and one of the reasons was that there was no bruhaha about it was that women's orgs have been able to do their own gatekeeping. It could change and no amount of arguing there is nothing to worry about while dismissing, misrepresenting and slandering those talking about is going to change that.
Second... Look at the Jo Cox programme, look at the percentage of women in the country compare it with the percentage of TWs and look at how the compare to the numbers in the school. Moreover, if the grapevine is right and Peto has been politically active for some time and had already stood for election as Warren then how many other girls/women without skills or experience in political activities could have attended instead? Can you wonder why we smell rats when resources may be wasted like this? Now tell me suspicions of highjacking resources and women's representation are wholly unfounded.

According to mumsnet there have been three trans women on the Jo Cox leadership programme out of an intake of around 150 (I suspect it might be a bit higherthan that but can't find exact figures. That is higher than the estimated number of trans women in the population, although possibly not by an amount that is statistically significant. It may be representative of the percentage of Labour Party members who are trans though, it's impossible to say. In any event given the under representation of trans people in leadership positions in the party, it seems to make pragmatic sense to allow them to access this rather than set up a whole new programme for three people.

Third, trans refuges and such may well be inevitable anyway. Refuges can be as chaotic place as they come (I've been in one). Now imagine India Willoughby in one or even our Stella here. Totally different set of needs/challenges smack bang among already traumatised women now also at risk of being fingerpointed at with accusations of wrong-think.

They are not inevitable. The chances of two trans women or more needing access to a refuge at the same time in smaller cities are tiny. It might just about work somewhere like Birmingham or London but in general it's not practical. And given the immense amount of funding pressure women's refuges are under then how long would half empty trans refuges be tolerated if they were seen as competing for funds? Trans women can't win, they will be attacked by some trans critical feminists whatever they do.

 

[elbows]

Not on in some cases, sure, and many of those should be included, but the definition offered includes into the "intersex" bracket things that would be better understood as enzymatic deficiency conditions (these skew the figures greatly, which was my main point) and also the kinds of cellular mosaicism conditions that have no effect whatsoever on someone's life besides showing up if you take enough DNA samples from various tissues (in which case for practical reasons we can just consider these people "male" or "female").

I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really. Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?

I dont really see a need to try to find some kind of end to the argument. The destination you mention there is certainly not the destination I seek on this one. I'm mostly just interested in accommodating nuances properly, and I understand that if certain nuances are being used to make an ideological point, people with opposing views are going to challenge them. But too often for my liking there is a race to dismiss very real examples of humans that are present in small but still notable numbers.

The erosion of certainties is one of the factors at work here, an issue humans have faced all along as our understanding of things deepen. Yes, it is possible to get too carried away with some of this stuff and there are examples of things being said that it is hard not to treat as somewhat absurd at times. A couple of recent comments about sports have been a bit odd. So I understand that the timing of me mentioning this intersex stuff again may imply an attempt to shoehorn the beginnings of a greater scientific understanding on some particular fronts into other claims. Thats not my intent, but I am trying to keep things a fair bit looser and more flexible than some seem comfortable with.

 

[elbows]

I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really. Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?

Sorry I'm having a second attempt at replying, from a slightly different angle.

Rather than trying to claim that biological sex does not exist, I'd be thinking more along the lines of people still being left with some sense of biological sex, but with nice, soft, flexible borders that can properly accommodate all humans. It ought to be possible, but I can appreciate why there are challenges here and why the red lines of different groups show up almost straight away. I do expect science to keep discovering details that could have an impact, but I havent read anything myself yet that would cause me to push very far beyond the rather wishy-washy position I am taking now. And I know that whatever the underlying realities and future discoveries, perceptions form from many other ingredients too and some possibilities will remain largely unthinkable even if the science points in that direction.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thanks - that clarifies things. I think there is going to be a pretty clear advantage too.
I suppose with a lot of transgender cases its (at least for now) a bit simpler than intersex cases, where each case can be really unique.

Though as more hormonal interventions are done with gender dysphoric children and teens, that's going to get way more complicated too.

The concept of "fairness" is nebulous enough even when none of these issues are present,

I guess things will get more complicated.

But at the very least, imo the Hubbard case shows that the current rules aren't right. She hasn't broken any rules, yet after an average career as a male lifter, she's become a medal-winning, record-breaking female lifter at an age way beyond a lifter's usual physical peak - checking other medallists at the last World Championships, she was a full nine years older than any of the dozen or so that I randomly chose.

I think this is difficult stuff, but my initial thought on it is that nobody who previously competed as a man ought to be allowed to compete later as a woman. There is no fair way for that to happen. This may be harsh on late-transitioning trans women, but giving up a previous competitive sports career may be a necessary price they have to pay for transitioning. Whatever decision is made on that, one thing I don't think is valid is to treat this as a human rights issue - the right of a trans woman who grew up as a man to compete must be balanced against the rights of those they will be competing against who did not grow up as men. Their past is relevant to their present in this particular case.

 

[elbows]

It's also possible I might end up with a far more radical view on sex and gender than my recent copout posts, but the minimum requirement for that is for me to have way more of a bloody clue what the fuck I'm talking about before seriously setting up camp on such territory.

 

[Crispy]

Maybe sports should be competed in weight/height classes rather than just two genders.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe sports should be competed in weight/height classes rather than just two genders.

In weightlifting, there are lots of weight divisions to allow smaller people to compete. But men can lift way more than women of the same weight - between 30 and 50 per cent more.

 

[pengaleng]

I hope yer all enjoying yer 'peaktransing' love in