Is Caitlyn Jenner An Authority On Trans Sports?
The political side of the Trans debate, is rather messy, and awaits further scientific clarification... I'm not interested in discussing the trans politics here.
But Caitlyn Jenner made a statement about trans woman in sports. Saying that it just isn't fair if we have trans woman (biological boys) in girls sports.
Sports are usually segregated by gender, to make it fair for woman. At the elite level, men will always win. By having a woman's devision, this allows woman to become champions and lower the risk of injury in combat sports.
Because of Caitlyns comments, Caitlyn has been labelled as trans phobic, by the loudest voices in the trans community.
Caitlyn is a gold medalist olympian, And a trans woman who went all the way and had surgery. Regardless, cancel culture rears its ugly head and seeks to end Caitlyn.
When the question is, should we allow biological men to compete against woman, I would have thought that the best person to ask is a trans who played sports at an elite level. It seems this isn't the case..
Do you consider Caitlyn to be an authority on this question. Why/not?
But Caitlyn Jenner made a statement about trans woman in sports. Saying that it just isn't fair if we have trans woman (biological boys) in girls sports.
Sports are usually segregated by gender, to make it fair for woman. At the elite level, men will always win. By having a woman's devision, this allows woman to become champions and lower the risk of injury in combat sports.
Because of Caitlyns comments, Caitlyn has been labelled as trans phobic, by the loudest voices in the trans community.
Caitlyn is a gold medalist olympian, And a trans woman who went all the way and had surgery. Regardless, cancel culture rears its ugly head and seeks to end Caitlyn.
When the question is, should we allow biological men to compete against woman, I would have thought that the best person to ask is a trans who played sports at an elite level. It seems this isn't the case..
Do you consider Caitlyn to be an authority on this question. Why/not?
Comments (66)
It's weird to use the term "authority" here, because it specifically invokes the argument from authority fallacy. Now it's only a fallacy in a deductive context, which this is not. But in the context it seems more apt to ask whether Caitlyn Jenner has relevant knowledge or experience for the topic at hand.
Depending on the way you frame the debate, being an olympic gold medalist might constitute relevant experience. The question is how fairness is resolved here. Is fairness about average muscle mass, about the experience of the athletes or about the experience of the spectators? Caitlyn Jenner has relevant experience for (at least) one of these dimensions.
P.S.: This is unrelated, but the plural of "woman" is "women".
Well Caitlyn Jenner is a narcissistic meathead, not sure why anyone would want to listen to her regardless of topic. She would be an authority on winning gold medals and being a champion perhaps but trans issues? No.
I’m got a better question, why would you need to be a gold medalist in order to be an “authority” on whether or not trans men should compete in women leagues?
Anyone not blinded by ideology can see the problem. All you have to do is look at how badly women’s world records are being shattered every time a trans male competes in women’s leagues of any and all sports. All you have to do is talk to some of these women who have worked their whole lives to achieve peek performance only to have less skilled and less dedicated trans men come in and use their huge physical advantage to take a dump on the women’s sport/league and every woman in it. All you need to do is look at the numbers...mediocre competitors become champions when they switch to a woman’s league.
If a trans male actually cares about women then they should stay out of the women’s leagues. To do otherwise is an affront.
If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. Time to reevaluate.
I remember the 1976 Olympic Games vividly, how much I admired Jenner. I always saw her, he then, as the epitome of what a good athlete should be. My beef with her is not her transition, it's that she has commodified it, celebritized it, and used it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. She's a fucking Kardashian for God's sake.
Fail.
Right?! She is clueless on trans, ignorant. You just have to listen to one of the god awful interviews celebrating her to realize it’s more about celebrity, spotlight and attention seeking than anything else.
My initial response to this issue was to agree with you, but I was surprised to see that the issue was contested even within the Republican Party. To me, that means it isn't necessarily a knee-jerk issue. This is from a recent Washington Post article:
[i]Before 2010, few college or high school athletic associations had policies on transgender athletes, according to a report published that year by the Women’s Sports Foundation and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Noting that “an increasing number of high school and college-aged young people are identifying as transgender,” the report proposed a set of policies: In college sports, transgender women should undergo one year of hormone therapy before competing against other women, a rule rooted in scientific research that suggested such an approach would mitigate any athletic benefits. The NCAA quickly adopted the policy.
For high schools, the report recommended letting transgender girls compete in sports as soon as they transition socially and begin dressing and acting in accordance with their gender identity. Requiring hormone therapy for adolescents is potentially harmful[/i]
This makes a lot of sense to me.
That's where the problem lies. Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. So the issue seems to be political. Politics decides how science is applied.
You have to look closer at that research. I understand they are trying to make policy but a year of hormone therapy doesn’t even the playing field by a long shot.
The data just doesn’t support that research, it’s politically driven research.
What makes sense to me would be a trans league, or an open league of some kind.
It came from women athletes supportive of women's sports trying to find a compromise. I don't see a political agenda beyond trying to figure out the best thing to do. As for the scientific answer to the question, I don't know and I don't intend to spend more time figuring it out. It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.
A!!!
Indeed. Kind of like climate change. I've always said we need to have both far-right and far-left/ wing scientists engage in town hall debates, and duke it out until some consensus is reached. Kind of like the jury system. :smile:
That said, gosh, knowing that he/she is now running (no pun intended) for Governor of CA., if I had a choice between politics or trans-gender stuff, I see the latter as being more relevant and in her wheelhouse. Mainly because based on a recent TV interview, his/her knowledge of politics (or lack thereof)…. well let's just say that there really wasn't any knowledge there....I was astounded. I don't know, I guess in politics stranger things have happened.
All that aside, I agree, that basically the biology should be the criterion.
https://golf.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-holes-out-for-eagle-at-ana-inspiration-pro-am/
Trying to find a compromise IS a political agenda in this case. They are trying to defend their sports from the total compromise of fairness and integrity. If it wasn’t political then they would just keep things the way they are and trans men wouldn’t be competing with women. It’s only because they are responding to a political agenda that they need to compromise in the first place. Know what I mean? The best thing to do would be to keep trans men out, and only by indulging political pressure would you consider not doing that.
If you still have doubts and don’t have the energy for a deep dive then just look at combat sports and what’s been going on there with trans athletes. Mediocre male league fighters become champions in the women’s league. It would be a joke except it’s horrifying to watch a trans male beat the shit out of a woman like a domestic abuse victim. Like I said (not directed at you but in general btw) if you disagree that trans men have a huge physical advantage then you’ve lost your mind and need to rethink.
One day science may help change that when the natural biology can truly be be evened out with treatments but we aren’t there yet and as far as I can tell the research has more political basis than science.
“It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.“
I’m not so sure there is a rational compromise for the reasons stated above...what did you think of the idea of a trans league?
Every once in a while you need to be reminded not to bother addressing me. I have nothing to say to you, I consider you a bad actor (dishonest and foolish) with whom it is pointless to engage. Stop wasting your time.
Well, that seems to be the direction society is taking or is pushed these days. "Government by celebrity activists" who, having achieved fame in their own field, feel that the White House should be their next job for which they posses more than enough qualifications ....
Quoting tim wood
I don't dispute that. But maybe she was training harder or her hormones allowed her to grow more muscle mass or something. There could be all kinds of explanations. But it does sound like an exception.
Authority is a strong word I guess. At the very least, I mean, someone worth listening too.
But I used the term purposely, to consider and compare, who does have authority on the issue.
Science or scientists have nothing to do with fairness in sports. Thus have no authority, in comparison to Caitlyn. Although, we have enough trans examples to make scientific statements like, trans athletes dominate female sports. We have Biologists, but we don't have sportologists.
Politicians have nothing to do with fairness in sports either. We have sports commissions, run by people who are experienced in most elite sports. Luckily most of them like to segregate by sex.
Then there's Sarah Silverman, who went on a big rant about Caitlyns statement. She's leading the cancel culture front, and criticises Caitlyn, saying things like, trans woman are real woman and Caitlyn should know that. Sarah, an actor and comedian who knows absolutely nothing about elite athletes or trans peoples oppression.
Between Richard Dawkins, Sarah Silverman and Caitlyn Jenner, I ask, who has authority when discussing trans sports. For me it's a no brainer. But it's interesting to see peoples ignorance when considering this question... As if Sarah is the authority here.
Can trans activists think of a higher authority. Or is their agenda fuelled solely on feelings.
Why would anyone possibly watch? Why watch former "mediocre male league fighters?"
If you're arguing about whether, eg, testosterone level and natal sex are in any way determinative of sports performance and the relationship of that to whether trans women should be in the women's division in elite sports... That's one thing.
If you're arguing that, say, trans women shouldn't be in the women's division in elite sport because "trans women aren't real women", that's transphobia.
The problem isn't the inference or the conclusion of segregation by natal sex[hide=*] (to a first approximation, it might better be a contrast of which puberty you went through? I don't really know)[/hide], the problem is... "trans women aren't real women", level up your nuance people, or be moderated accordingly.
Are we allowed to talk about what it means to say “trans women are not real women”?
Not being snide.
Yes, in the same manner you're allowed to talk about and reference sexism or racism. :D
Well there are already well watched sports that feature mediocre athletes (compared to the top ones) right? Different divisions get different viewerships with the most elite athletes getting the most viewership. I’m not sure why it would be different with a new open league or trans league. Friends, family etc...all the people that fill the bleachers at non-trans, non-top pro sports games.
Ok, so what does it mean to say that? If someone is trying to make a distinction between biological women and trans men/women it can be semantically confusing, Calling the biological woman a “real” woman is one way of doing that. I understand that a transphobic person would use that term in a derogatory sense but surely intention matters here?
Why are you asking me to clarify the distinction, which you seem to understand, rather than those present whose intentions matter more?
I'm gonna step out, now.
Your views are the ones that matter to my inquiry because you are the one who will decide which such distinctions will result in being banned.
If someone won't show the due nuance-fu to say something like: "Going through the puberty associated with male natal sex might render an unfair advantage to trans women in elite competitive sports" vs "trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's divisions because they're not real women", then I don't see why I should interpret something which is indistinguishable from transphobia as if it had good intent.
I can't chart out necessary and sufficient conditions, or contexts, for phrases to be prejudicial for you. A rule of thumb might be - does the post deny that trans women are women or rely upon that in the argument?
I will be much more suspicious of claims that don't articulate the issue precisely, if you're going to make a hot take which I can't easily distinguish from transphobia - and that's a low bar - expect it to be deleted. If you want to have this kind of discussion, get your nuance on.
I can’t see where anyone said that, or made that argument. Is lack of nuance bigotry? Again, doesn’t intention matter? It doesn’t seem like it’s that difficult to ask some probing questions before determining whether someone is a bigot or not. Maybe if it’s so so easy for phrasing to be indistinguishable from transphobia there is a problem with how loosely you define transphobia?
Quoting fdrake
Well it gets really important for you to chart things out a bit when “lack of nuance” and poor phrasing will get someone banned.
I mean...you do realize the irony of moderating someone for lack of nuance while explicitly refusing to use nuance in determining whether or not they are transphobic, right?
I’m not trying to be difficult but that’s a bit rich.
Quoting fdrake
Ya that’s not a very nuanced approach, I don’t think it’s that low a bar if what’s been said so far qualifies. I haven’t detected any transphobia, have you? (Again, not a snide comment)
At least it’s deleted comments, I thought you were about to drop the ban hammer.
Thanks for responding, I do appreciate your efforts.
This is the problem with the politically charged trans movement. Science should be the reliable authority, but it's taken a back seat. Richard Dawkins has been cancelled, and he didn't even say anything trans phobic. He merely stated that we should discuss the relevance of biology when considering what makes a real woman. Now he's been stripped of his humanist award from over 20 years ago. The scientists are silenced, if they disagree with the trans truths.
Now, Caitlyn is being cancelled. I'd wager, that both Dawkins and Caitlyn are immune to cancel culture at this point. But 99 percent of other scientists are not immune. Their reputation and lively hood relies on them playing along.
This is why I wonder, who has authority on the subject. Because it seems that, Biologists and trans woman have none.
Everyone's opinions are influenced by feelings, and everything that affects real people is political. I'm not a fan of casting your own view as a-political and thoroughly rational. At best it demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.
This is a general statement, that's not aimed at you personally.
If the issue is just about whether or not there is an athletic advantage then an authority would be any scientist who has conducted a peer-review study or has an academic qualification on the subject matter.
A trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth and later identifies as/transitions to being a man. Did you mean to be referring to trans women (those who are assigned male at birth and later identify as/transition to being a woman)?
But on the topic of trans men, should they compete in women's or men's sports?
Quoting DingoJones
This is true. According to this study it takes at least two years of hormone therapy for transgender women to match cisgender women in push ups and sit ups, although they still have an advantage in the 1.5 mile run.
Quoting DingoJones
Using the study above you'll see that trans men have a significant advantage over trans women. So should there be both a transgender men's league and a transgender women's league? Perhaps also an intersex league for those with ambiguous genitalia/other sex chromosome disorders?
Quoting DingoJones
Do you have examples? I've found two: Mary Gregory in powerlifting (after just a year of hormone therapy) and Veronica Ivy in track cycling.
Should it? Or rather, should it be the only authority? I think there might be more to the matter than just athletic ability. If trans women are forced to compete in men's sport and trans men are forced to compete in women's sport then is that not a denial of their gender identity? There's an ethical matter beyond that of just athletic fairness.
It might be unfair for cisgender women to compete against transgender women, but isn't it also unfair for transgender women to be treated as men?
A woman's skull was shattered. A trans named Falcon Fox entered MMA as a woman, without telling the organisation about being born a male. They were in the same weight class, but it still looks like Jake The Muss smashing his girlfriend. It's not pretty. As a fan of combat sports, I like a good bloody war, like Robbie Lawler vs Rory Mcdonald. But the trans Falcon Fox vs cis female was the most disturbing fight I've ever seen. Fractured orbitals are quite common but men don't usually break other mens skulls. Nor do woman break other woman's skulls.
New Zealand weight lifting champion Laural Hubbard has won multiple events. Not sure if Laural has had surgery, though I'm told that doesn't matter. Then there's the rapper Zuby, who smashed the woman's deadlifting record, while he briefly identified as a woman. The truth is, not many organisations are willing to allow trans competing in woman's events. And for good reason. Just compare the top 100 male athletes in any organisation. They'd all beat the woman's record.
Quoting Echarmion
We used to be able to turn to factual scientific research. Apparently, science is still trying to figure out the trans equation. I have my reservations, until the science is clear. When it comes to sport however, I'm concerned for the safety of woman who compete against trans, as well as the fairness.
The politics are not my concern, I care not for the trouble with getting involved. I have an issue with woman missing out on championships, careers, scholarships and being role models. All these are compromised in any sport that allows trans to compete against cis. As a father of 4 daughters, this is rather an important topic. At least one of my girls has potential and interest in martial arts, and the idea that she'd be competing against someone who could break her skull, is absolutely disturbing.
So trans men should compete in women's tournaments?
Quoting Apollodorus
It's less about politics and more about ethics. If we just consider trans women for the moment, there seem to be 4 possibilities:
1. Transgender women compete against cisgender women
2. Transgender women compete against cisgender men
3. Transgender women compete against each other
4. Transgender women can't compete
Which is fairest? If we consider this study then after two years of hormone therapy transgender women perform closer to cisgender women than cisgender men in push ups and sit ups. If fairness is determined by athletic ability then even though it might be unfair for cisgender women to compete against transgender women in strength-based sports, it's even less fair for transgender women to compete against cisgender men. Not allowing transgender women to compete at all also seems very unfair. So we have to decide between having transgender women competing against cisgender women or having transgender women only compete against each other. Are transgender women only tournaments even feasible?
You're referring to this? Because I'm referring to actual transgender women, and in particular those who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1100348562041462784[/tweet]
According to the trans movement, hormone therapy has nothing to do with it. They believe in gender fluidity. Someone can change their identity from day to day. And if you don't agree, then you are a bigot. That's what Zuby was referring too.
Either biology has relevance, or it does not. If you agree with the trans movement, then you agree with Zuby. Are you willing to argue that Zuby wasn't a real woman when he broke that record? That's dangerous territory.
But alas, this is the political discussion I was trying to avoid...
Well, there are men or women only tournaments, so why not?
I think the root of the problem is that there are some men who want to be considered women.
However, it should be for society, not for those men/women to decide how society sees them. Otherwise, you have a small minority dictating to the vast majority what to think. Additionally, governments may select to side with those men/women and try to impose their views on the whole population, etc. So, I would say that politics does come into it.
Correct. There seems to be a growing number of minority groups that try to impose their views on the rest of society. And if you disagree for any reason you are instantly branded "bigot", "Fascist", "Nazi", "racist", "capitalist", "Christian", reactionary", "enemy", etc. and you are lucky to come out alive from any "discussion" or "debate". There is zero dialogue, just pure fanaticism and hatred.
Because there are far, far fewer transgender athletes than cisgender athletes. According to this "less than 1 percent of the NCAA’s student-athlete population is transgender."
Can you make a competitive rugby tournament with only transgender men? Can you make a competitive tennis tournament with only transgender women? Can you make a competitive 400m relay race for the Olympics with only transgender athletes? I don't think so. And is it fair to say that transgender athletes aren't allowed to compete at all? I don't think so. So either transgender women compete against cisgender women or they compete against cisgender men, and as I explained here, in some activities transgender women perform closer to cisgender women than to cisgender men, and so if athletic ability is the measure of fairness then for these activities it's fairer for cisgender women to compete against transgender women than for transgender women to compete against cisgender men. And it's fairer for transgender men to compete against cisgender men than for cisgender women to compete against transgender men.
I don't think cis woman's broken skulls agree with your research.
But that seems to be the transgenderists' problem not society's.
For the sake of argument, suppose someone decides to be a horse and successfully undergoes surgery to become as horselike as possible. Which tournaments should we allow them to compete in?
Horse racing. :roll:
Whereas according to you it should be determined by their birth biology and so women's 100m?
Well, opponents might protest and say that their human brain puts the rest of the competing horses to an unfair disadvantage, etc.
What I'm saying is that society can't always accommodate those who deliberately choose to be different yet at the same time insist on being equal.
Are you referring to Tamikka Brents' orbital fracture after fighting Fallon Fox? She's not the only woman to suffer an orbital fracture in MMA. See Miesha Tate vs Sara McMann.
And one example of a transgender woman beating a cisgender woman doesn't undermine a study that shows the strength difference between transgender women and cisgender women is smaller than the strength difference between transgender women and cisgender men. Have Fallon Fox fight Conor McGregor and the beatdown will be even more one-sided.
People don't choose to be transgender. They choose to transition, but not to be transgender.
You could be right there. I don't know much about transgenderism to be honest, but I've read articles about normal people undergoing surgery or taking medication to transform them into the opposite sex because they were encouraged by their school teachers or activist groups to do so. In any case, I think it should be for society to decide not for minority or special interest groups to dictate to the rest of us. But that's just my opinion.
Yes, thank you. I meant a trans woman.
Quoting Michael
Not sure, there are complications either way, that’s why I thought an open league of some kind might work.
I’ve heard some people suggest transitioning to no leagues and no restrictions on performance enhancements. A free for all. Not sure that works either.
To me the answers to this question are not nearly as obvious as the trans woman competing against biological women.
Quoting Michael
Right but we are talking competitive sports. General athletics as opposed to a very specific physical activity as you’ve referenced. For combat sport bone density and structure are important and hormone treatments only reduce those things so far. A biological woman might outdo a trans woman at push ups, sit ups and even the run but still be at an unfair advantage at specific sports.
But anyway, eventually the hormone treatments will be so good none of this would be an issue. The treatments will keep getting g better till the differences are no longer significant.
Quoting Michael
There is no link to the study. Maybe two leagues sure.
Genitalia and most chromosome disorders do not confer advantages or disadvantages of performance as far as I know, so none issue.
Quoting Michael
A few have been mentioned, but no I don’t have references on hand. I found them pretty easily when I searched though.
You can also compare records to get data on this as well. I’ve read articles (which in the news media of today is always to be taken with a grain of salt) that say high school boys do as good or better than biological women pro level athletes. That’s telling as well.
While the chromosome biology is under reconsideration, a part of biology that isn't controversial, is the fact that hormone therapy has little to no affect on bone density. I can state, without being a bigot, that males have a denser bone structure than females. If you've watched any of Fox's fights, it's clear, in the way that Fox walks through punches without caring.
I'm no fan of Conor. But he used to have the record for fastest KO. Fox would be out cold in less than 30 seconds. I enjoy watching Khabib maul Conor for 25 min as if he were a beginner. But I struggle watching Fox beat down woman, knowing Fox has an unfair advantage. There's a difference.
Id be all for a separate, open devision. Anyone can enter. But it would just be run by the current male champion, so what's the point.
I believe so. A trans man, being assigned female at birth (so-called biological birthright), who wants to compete with other women would have a better argument... .
I think that a lot of women would have a big problem if a transman wished to take part in a female tournament, but of course, it depends on whether the transman looked male or female. What this thread also ignores is that there is some overlap between transgender people and intersex. Each trans person has their own story. I think that it is a big mistake to focus on one celebrity, who really lived as a man for so many years, rather than look at the wider picture.
Trans men, after hormone therapy, are stronger and faster than trans women, after hormone therapy. If the concern with trans women competing against cis women is that cis women are at an athletic disadvantage then it would be an even greater concern for trans men to compete against cis women.
It certainly may be true in that some women may feel it's an unfair advantage. But my reasoning relates to biology. As such, if the trans man were say, blood tested for things like steroids, then in theory the women competition should not take exception if the test was negative.
Quoting Michael
But do they have to continue with hormone therapy? If so, it should be a non-starter. And if that's the case, then the whole notion of competition in certain kinds of sports may be prohibited for biological reasons. Though not an exact analogy, let's say a publicly funded college precluded women from enrolment. And, say another publicly funded college precluded men from enrolment. I see equity and fairness in that scenario.
It begs other political and ethical (not moral) kinds of questions relative to whether say girl scouts should be for girls only, and boy scouts for boys only. Feel free to poke holes in my argument...this is an interesting topic...
I just think the reality is so much more complex than it is being portrayed in this thread. For example, if someone identifies as a transman they may or not be taking testosterone. However, they may even have elevated t levels in the first place due to underlying endocrine disorders. The situation of transmen is so less understood than of transwomen generally, but of course, even some transwomen have underlying forms of intersex.
But, I think that the danger of most of the debates on transgender on this forum is that they make such sweeping generalisations about trans issues. I keep seeing this flash up today, and someone even comparing a person who wishes to transition with someone wishing to become a horse. I don't think it was written with any particular transphobia but with a complete lack of any knowledge of the experiences of transwomen or transmen.
Indeed. I think that's yet another argument for precluding certain kinds of sports from this gender phenomenon. Perhaps the next question(s) could be what kinds of sports lend themselves to or are better suited for trans-humans?
Alternatively, I think Michael made some distinctions about trans men and trans men all competing together fairly... .
It's rather funny that I have even got into discussions on this thread because I don't like sports, playing or watching them, but I think that every trans person probably has to negotiate their place in sports and most aren't so good that they are competing in official tournaments. I don't know if there are any actual trans athletics as such and this probably varies across the world, but, of course, there are links between transgender and the gay community. However, there can be tensions here. In particular, there is a whole historical protest against transgender coming from radical lesbians.
Your point about segregation in children's groups, such as the girl guides and scouts is interesting but there is so much heated debate about children and transgender on this site and in the media in general. In England, it is fuelled by one particular individual, Kiera Bell, who transitioned from female to male as a teenager and regretted it, and is now transitioning back to being female.
But, even though trans issues weren't discussed so much until recently it is likely that many experienced them, even before physical treatment was available. I don't know if you ever read The Famous Five books, but I often wonder if George was a potential transgender person.
No I haven't, what's the jist of it?
The only thing I've experienced (besides getting hit-on by gay men) is dating women who've had either homosexual men or lesbian women offspring. The consistent story was that early on, they knew something was very different in/from each child's behavior. They gravitated away from typical gender based behaviors and interests, from say around year 2 onward. (The gay female liked cars; the gay male liked dolls... .)
Anyway, far from an expert in those areas...just sharing some experiences/stories... .
George was a girl in The Famous Five but used to dress as a boy and get really cross if treated as a girl. The books were written by Enid Blyton and I don't know much about her. They were written a long way back in the last century but they are still being read nowadays in England.
It's funny to hear that you get hit on by gay men too because I do too. I am bi, but I look really gay and sometimes get approached by strangers asking me to be a rent boy.
I think that transwomen often have the hardest time of most groups because they are often so visible. I know a transwomen, who was beaten up so badly in her early twenties that she will have to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. Even during my time working in healthcare I have come across so many staff members with really hostile attitudes. For example, there was a trainee doctor who was a transwomen and one care assistant remarked , 'If I had a relative in hospital I wouldn't want them touched by someone like that.' Fortunately, the manager told this person off, but many staff used to make all kinds of remarks. There was some transgender training, which was important because we had transgender patients.
Anyway, I had better stop myself from derailing the sports thread, but I have been so irritated by this thread, or more especially the protest thread against the moderators, which got closed last night.
Thank you for that. BTW, PM me on the protest thread. I never saw that.
And yes, I wont derail the OP subject matter either, only to say that it really disturbs me to see violence against those who are not considered mainstream or like themselves. Maybe there's a better word that captures the phenomenon... maybe it's 'different'. (Kind of reminds me of the ambiguous genatailia baby phenomenon.)
Anyway, maybe the only thing germane to the OP would be the emotional component/anger (people politics) that people have toward those who participate in trans gender events. Obviously, most of us would say if it's possible, let's try to do it. In the information age, we are too sophisticated not to at least try. Gee, that's probably too idealistic :smirk:
Science is also a social activity though, and as such when it's subject is relevant to an ongoing political conflict, the science itself is also political. It's quite easy to see this when you look at the discussion surrounding climate change. You can always level the charge that a certain study has been politically motivated and it's results are therefore questionable.
I'm not saying don't trust the science, or don't turn to scientific methods, but science is not immune to politics unfortunately.
Quoting Edy
It's a reasonable concern, imho. It requires us to look at what the rules ought to be for sport, and what principle leagues and divisions should be build on. It's not a bad discussion to have, and one where the science is definetly relevant, though I think it cannot make the final decision on its own. That's a political determination to make.
Thanks for your reply, and hopefully, the discussion we had on this thread will be useful for the topic here. So, I will get out of the discussion on sports because, really, I prefer philosophy...
Where?
Between these two poles, that of equality and that of segregation, the world must eternally turn.