254
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
254 points (94.1% liked)
News
23296 readers
1123 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Economist looked at and has a perfectly reasonable solution.
The short version is that gender may be fluid, but biological sex isn’t.
They propose two categories, biological female by sex and Open.
Kinda like it used to be.
It literally is (since people change sex everyday), and even if we pretend it isn't, it's blatantly not binary either, but a spectrum, and a socially constructed one at that.
All this "perfectly reasonable" solution is, is more of the same old ignorant transphobia, with some added misogyny for good measure.
How many times today did you change your Y chromosome to X or vice versa?
the same number of times that was the deciding factor on their physiology (zero)
That's not reasonable it's just a new form of segregation. Stating that we (trans women) are both equal to women but seperate which has been ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory.
How is that solving the problem at all?
To be fair, the problem was equal but separate
But the problem with thus line of thinking is it opens a massive can of worms. Like for example all of the best long distance runners in the world come from a handful of tribes in Kenya, where they have thinner calves and ankles than other people. And this is statistically a much bigger advantage than the advantage trans women get. So should we ban Kenyans from competing since they have a biological advantage too?
Or even simpler stuff like height. Tall people have advantages in so many sports. So if you're only 150cm because of your biology, you're never going to be a pro basketball player for example. Does that mean we need to do something about this, since it's so unfair?
I think you've nailed it here. There is so much focus on the genetic advantage a trans woman has in women's sports, but at the elite level genetics already plays a determinative role. It's in every sport. I saw a video the other day on powerlifting. Sure, we all know that weight classes are important, but this video was about femur length. The guy with the world record for squat, in his weight class, has very short femurs, and the video showed the physics of how this gives him a purely genetic advantage in the squat over others who have trained just as hard and are just as strong. At the elite level where everyone is training hard and has good diet and coaching, the difference between winning and losing often comes down to genetic variation. It's not just purely physical advantages either. At the elite level, psychological fitness is also critical to success and psychology is also profoundly influenced by both genetics and early childhood development, which are not under the individual athlete's control. On top of that there are economic disparities. On average, a person from a very poor family is much less likely to end up as an elite level skier or hockey player.
There are so many genetic and social factors that contribute to success in elite sports that I don't think the women who are complaining about trans athletes have much credibility.
This is why I've felt that if we are going to stop trans women from competing with women, it's time to do away with the gender aspect of sport where possible. The Paralymics maintain ratings for the severity of disability that an athlete is overcoming. Why couldn't we do similar for natural ability in other sport, not unlike weight classes?
It's all very hypothetical, but with a perfect system we'd be seeing ability bands of athletes with a high confidence that the only difference between competitors is the effort and strategy that they put into their sport, rather than any kind of natural advantage. Men and women would occasionally compete together and it'd be great.
So just get rid of women’s sports?
In my hypothetical setup, I guess so? Are you concerned that no one would engage with anything less than the 'top class' of ability which would mean in many sports women would mostly be marginalised? Because it's a fair concern
I think the first step needs to be asking why we do this and what we want. We have women's sports because (cis) women generally cannot compete sufficiently with (cis) men. But what are we trying to accomplish? I would say in middle school and high school our goal should be inclusivity. So trans men and women should be able to compete in their identified genders.
On the other hand in college and the Olympics inclusivity is probably not as important for adults competing at some of the highest levels. So I am more willing to accept some limits, but I'm certainly not well versed enough to know where to draw that line.
It's very easy to resolve, most kids that participate in sports are themselves (shockingly) also kids and will not have gained any advantage if allowed to transition early enough. Even a year or two of puberty is going to shed away very quickly.
(And leave us older trans people who are no longer teenagers who might have gone through a full puberty to have that advantage not participate in sports, and leave kids alone to transition and participate in their chosen gender.)
Either way this is a problem that resolves itself if trans people are allowed to accept and be themselves when they figure it out, which would be a lot more possible if people actually took the time to understand us.
Also genetic advantages like Micheal Phelp's lungs and body have always been a part of sports. So if we happen to want to play sports we're still women playing sports with a genetic disadvantage in every way that matters to us like having babies. (sports are the last thing on most of our minds)
Either way stop making trans people the center of your political battles. We just want to live without you fucking up our lives. We aren't anything that matters to the vast majority of instances. We are the rare exception. Go figure out that they'd rather you argue about us than about the actual issues like health care, abortion, union rights, civil rights, etc.
But the thing is, it’s the actual athletes that make up the league that have a problem with this.
You’re only looking at it from your side and not from theirs
The vast majority of women don't mind. And you don't speak for us or get to decide if women and trans women are on different sides about anything. Because we literally are women.
I agree the vast majority don’t.
These ones do, the problem could be solved easily enough with separate locker rooms.
And I’m not trying to speak for anyone, so watch your fucking self it’s right there in the article.
If tomorrow the separate locker was build then it would be another thing. It's not about seeing a penis (and maybe not even that) but "that is not a woman". And that is the only problem. In their minds a trans woman is not a woman.
There is already another room. The men’s locker room.
How often are men and women competing at the same time, so that might change something.
Maybe just use shifts then?
I don’t care about what the reason is.
The people asking for it are the ones isolating themselves, and honestly I just see that as a good thing.
Our lives would all be way better if bigots isolated themselves.
Edit: better gots to bigots
But why seperate, why differentiate just to alienate a kid trying to live out their lives?
First of all, the person in question was in their 20’s at the time. She is 25 now and it happened 2 years ago.
Secondly, I never said to alienate anyone. Give the women that are uncomfortable their own locker room.
I do not see the issue here.
The only place would not be allowed is that locker room and that does not affect her in any meaningful way.
Yes, she has to deal with the fact that those people are uncomfortable around her, but that is just part of life.
Let’s try this another way, if the way to make the problem go away is just to allow someone else to have another locker room and not share it, why shouldn’t we do that with how easy it is?
I buy that if it's not a "trans locker" but a "TERF locker". Women that don't have a problem can go to the "normal" women locker.
That’s what I keep saying, everyone wants to take it the wrong way.
I even said the people with a problem could just use the men’s locker room.
If that is a problem then they can just go in shifts. There are so many easy ways to let these people isolate themselves if they are uncomfortable or bigoted.
Either way everyone wins.
Because it's insisting on a distinction when there is none. Anatomy doesn't make the woman dude.
You keep looking at this like I have ever said that.
Here are the simple facts: you have one person who makes some of the group uncomfortable changing around them, you give the group that is uncomfortable, their own changing area.
Why they are uncomfortable does not matter at all maybe it could be just because they don’t want to change around a different competitor. I really don’t give a shit. There’s an easy solution.
Would we be having this issue if it was a group that didn’t want to change around certain competitors for any other reason?
Maybe they’re from nationalities that clash next time, the same solution works.
Maybe it’s just redheads that do not want to change around people with blue eyes.
You already have two locker rooms, and room and the women’s room have the ones that are uncomfortable use the men’s room there’s not gonna be anyone in there anyway
That's a whole lot of words to use to say just to say use the men's room and the answer is no. We are women we're entitled to be with women. We need the same or more protection from men that other women do.
My suggestion was that the people with the problem can use the men’s locker room since it is already built.
Everyone without a problem can use the women’s.
If the people with a problem are uncomfortable being isolated then oh fucking well.
Either they are truly uncomfortable in which case they can be comfortable now, or they are bigots that are self isolating.
Fucking win win
Learn to put proper antecedents in if you don't want to be misunderstood.
"These ones do, the problem could be solved easily enough with separate locker rooms."
That could just have been as left vague as you could word it to both insult while maintaining plausible deniability that you didn't intend to insult.
You already have two locker rooms, and room and the women’s room have the ones that are uncomfortable use the men’s room there’s not gonna be anyone in there anyway.
I feel like that is very clear
It wasn't in the pertinent message when you could be misconstrued. You only clarified your position after you started getting downvotes
Also, I’m on kbin I can’t see Lemmy downvotes so idk what they are at.
Feel free to sign up on a cabin account and check.
We don’t do anonymous down votes here, or up votes for that matter
I didn’t think I was gonna have to defend a fucking dissertation here.
Letting kids transition before they even reach puberty is a great way to potentially ruin their lives forever. Kids are so impressionable and change faster than the wind. They instantly succumb to peer pressure and 99% of the cases have no clue what they want because they are kids. They don't have a lot of life experience.
I know only one case where I knew that transition would have been normal at any age for him. When we were kids it would have been 100% impossible. Now we are older farts and he still didn't transition, he doesn't want and would have regretted the decision if he would have had the possibility to do it as a kid.
Transition as a kid should be nearly impossible and you should be put through an infinite amount of tests and visits to the doctor. Reach an age where you can be considered an adult, go ahead and schedule an appointment and transition away. Do as you please.
It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to compete, I think there needs to be a greater restriction on who and how they compete.
This whole thing started because of Lia Thomas who was a competetive male swimmer from the age of 5 until they completed hormone treatment at the age of 22.
They had the benefit of male puberty and trained as a male. That's going to make a difference.
Now if you take a child who has not yet hit puberty, put them on blockers, then allow them to transition with hormones and surgery, you're going to end up with a completely different athelete.
It's good that the sports organization recognizes that trans atheletes need to be on hormones for a set period of time before being allowed to compete, but there needs to be a policy addressing WHEN they started the hormone treatment.
Starting after puberty has completed should be a non-starter, or at the very least a different category of competition.
I have a name you should look up: Caster Semenya. She has too much natural strogens but she was born a girl. And the same kind of claims were made against her. "She is not a real woman", "she is actually a man", ...
My understanding is that if the athlete is correctly undergoing Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) the biological advantage is significantly reduced if not removed. I am sure there are exceptions though.
Edit: Everything below
After looking through some studies it seems like Trans fem athletes do maintain some advantage, or atleast the current wait time is not enough for the edge to be eliminated.
Best example I could find https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/current-treatment-period-may-be-too-short-to-remove-competitive-advantage-of-transgender-athletes/
I mean, the question is what's fair both to trans women and cis women. Competing against competitors with an advantage and being excluded are both unfair. Absolutely eliminating advantage isn't the standard that minimizes unfairness, it's a balancing act between competing interests.
I'm not sure sports have found exactly the perfect balance, and it may vary a bit by sport, but it doesn't seem to be wildly off in favor of trans women.
I'm not sure what the difference is in this headline versus the one i made the exact same argument in, but i was down voted for it like 3-4 months ago. I wonder what changed everyone's mind.
Vote inertia and dog piling. I've seen it happen so many times. If you are voted to the negatives, it's less likely you'll receive many positive votes unless you receive enough to tip you back into positive numbers or someone points out that other, similar comments aren't being down voted. The converse is also true, although the follow up comment phenomena seems not to hold.
I've even experimented with it on Reddit, way back. I'd leave a comment I know would be well received, then edit it to make it poorly received, but not so awful that it'd get mobbed. It'd usually keep going up, albeit less quickly, or sit stagnant.
On the flip side, I'd leave a shitty comment, then change it to a paraphrasing of a different, very well received sentiment once it was around -3 to -5. Despite the notion being well received elsewhere, the negative votes kept rolling in unless someone pointed out the collective hypocrisy in a follow up comment.
Tl;dr: Lemmy is run by bipedal, social apes whose behavior and opinions are biased by the perceived opinions of their fellow apes. This bias can sometimes be overcome by pointing it out.
Lemmy is bipolar.
The issue to me is, that trans woman do not perform sufficiently well to displace people from the Sport in the high level. If you are shit at the sport and lose to a trans woman you may rage at her for being not "normal" but that's a you issue.
Here's the thing: who cares? Like okay, lots of people care, but why? Why cant trans athletes compete? What wound does anyone suffer?