Trans Issue Question

Post Reply New Topic

Women beat men at swimming. Seem to be at least equal in marksmanship with guns in both show and in anger (Annie Oakley's rivals were other women, the Soviet Red Army seems to have had as many female snipers as male, and you hear about female snipers in the Syrian civil war)

But so far in every other sport men beat out women by a large margin because men are just bigger, faster, and stronger.

So should individuals born male, but who transition to female be allowed to compete as women against other women in sports?

Even if you agree that M2F trans individuals are fine in every other walk of life (teachers, brain surgeons, and can even be allowed to hold the highest office in the land is it fair for them to compete against women in most sports?

Why would anyone think gender matters for POTUS?

For sports, I don't care.

A person's right to identity and gender expression is far more important than the outcome of any sport.
I don't think sport should be gendered in the first place.

The subject is transgender. Not gender. Conceivably someone who might vote for a woman for president might be horrified if a M2F Trans became POTUS because they think that Trans folks are insane, or think that are all scammers or whatever. Twenty years ago I think that most American voters would have been in exactly that category.

I am using "President of the United States" as a kind of stand-in for "everything in universe that is not sports".

Someone hostile to Trans folks in general, and perhaps thinks that "the whole trans thing is a hoax" might descriminate against "these folks who claim to be Trans" in hiring in general- ergo- would presumably not want Trans folks running for office.

But who knows? Maybe it breaks down in more complex ways like "Bruce Jenner can be POTUS, but I dont wanna him teaching my kids in school!".

I have no problem with a possible trans president. We've very likely had a gay president (James Buchanan).

As for sports, I don't think we should have separate men's and women's sports. Women (both cis and trans) are adept and agile enough to compete with men.

And whose problem would that be, then, assuming the trans person was best suited to the job?
If people are so pinheaded they won't vote for the person they want, then tough titties.

There is a whole load of subtlety in this question that I think knee-jerk responses tend to overlook.

Firstly, empirically we can see that trans women do not outcompete cis women in those non-contact sports where they have competed together. Swimming, cycling, tennis, Ultimate, even weightlifting - all have had trans women compete, and yet all remain dominated by cis women.

Secondly, there is no definition of "women" that includes all women and no men, other than variations upon "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman". Attempts by sporting bodies to police women's gender have led to women like Caster Semenya being excluded from their sport, or forced to alter their body to be allowed to compete. If Semenya was a man with increased sensitivity to testosterone, she would be a world champion - but because she's a woman, she's excluded altogether? That is misogyny, pure and simple - men are allowed to excel, but women have to stay within a small box of acceptable feminity. Even at grassroots level, women who are particularly strong or fast are increasingly being accused of being trans

Thirdly, what is "women's sport"? It is common for pre-pubescent children to compete against each other in sport. This should be encouraged, but the "trans panic" is leading to some places attempting to ban it altogether! There is no justification for that. Similarly, there's no justification for banning a trans woman who has undergone little or no male puberty... but certain people are contradicting that by wanting to make it harder for trans children to access puberty blockers. Go figure! These people also want to allow "genital inspections" of athletes, including children, which is just horrific.

Fourthly, what is the point of sport? Most sport is not really about the competition. Elite sport is a tiny fraction of all sport. If a trans woman runs as a woman in the local park run, who cares? We should be encouraging more people to participate in sport, not banning it. In an educational setting or a amateur one, then whether or not trans inclusion is "fair" is not the sole consideration, and arguably shouldn't be a particularly pressing consideration at all. It isn't fair that I have to run against people who have longer legs than me, faster reflexes than me, and so on... but so what?

Fifthly, there are certain situations where safety may be an issue. Rugby is the obvious one, and football is probably another. But even here, you run into issues. Is it safe for a weedy guy like me to play against someone like Will Carrick-Smith, who is over 40cm taller than me? Is it safe for Maz Reilly (6 foot 4) to play against women like Mo Hunt, who is 30cm shorter than her? If I played women's rugby tomorrow then I'd probably be stronger than the women my height, but I don't think I'd be able to beat Reilly in a ruck. Sex is a convenient option - is it necessarily the right option? Is there a "right" option?

Sixthly (continuing the Walrus's post): If we continue having men's and women's sports, how are non-binary, genderfluid, etc athletes factored in?

You can't tell me there aren't women hockey or football (soccer) players who aren't better than some men. Put them all together. Elite teams will still be elite teams, since sport levels are always done by ability or body mass anyway (thinking of weightlifting, etc.) Like always competes with like.

All sports should be gender-neutral. In a sport where muscle and/or body mass are important, athletes should compete against other athletes by weight class (as they already do in some sports)

As to the POTUS, gender isn't a qualification now, and it doesn't need to be considered in the future.

I remember some controversy with Caster Semenya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

I'm indifferent to sports, so I don't care.

Very simple. The way they already factor it in. By going with person's birth gender.

^^This!

It might be something that different sports have to consider individually.

For some sports (like equestrian sports, the sliding sports, motorsports, etc) it probably shouldn't be relevant. I don't imagine it would be relevant for gymnastics, although I'm pretty uninformed about the details.

I feel like for combat sports you might be able to test using exhibition matches to see how significant it is. They seem uniquely able to experiment without imposing a hard ruling on the entire sport.

With team sports, it might depend on the specific rules.

I know with ice hockey the rules for women's competition differ, in particular with regard to physical contact. At the NHL Skills Competition in 2019, Coyne Schofield from the US National Women's Team was a last minute replacement for an NHL player in the Fastest Skater event, she finished 7th overall. Her teammate Brianna Decker was the demonstrator for the Premier Passer event, had she been competing her time would have been 1'12", the winner was 1'09" and none of the other times I've seen quoted were under 1'18".

Give that women's hockey doesn't include the same level of physical contact and that one player out of a dozen or two isn't likely to make a big difference, I don't see why transwomen would need to be excluded from that sport.

In general with team sports whatever impact it might have would be watered down unless suddenly entire rosters are filled, and if that's the concern perhaps limits rather than bans would be appropriate.

I believe at the recreational level discrimination isn't appropriate and only might be reasonable to consider in professional and high level amateur competitions. I don't think it matters what team a 9 year old plays for.

For what it's worth, when the IIHF still allowed bodychecking in women's competition there was a really high rate of injury so they removed it; I think for ice hockey a mixed league would need to follow the women's rules.

That doesn't mean that women shouldn't be allowed to play in men's leagues, only that it wouldn't be good for the sport to suddenly get rid of the one code. It's likely that not many women would persist in men's leagues even if they're just as skilled, simply because they don't want to accumulate injuries.

Having a separate set of rules ultimately helps encourage participation and builds the overall talent pool.

what happens with sports is that once something (many things) deviate(s) from the norm, people will define it out of existence, intentionally or not. what is woman? what is sport? what is love? baby don't hurt me? etc.

I think that athletes should be competing with their birth gender. That way, no Olympic dreams can be broken.