203
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 30 Mar 2024
203 points (100.0% liked)
News
23311 readers
3694 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
Believe me when I say that I support my LGBTQ+ peeps.
And I concede that I don't know much about the subject of trans people in sports and physical capabilities.
But in my view, trans women have higher probability to be stronger than most cis female athletes. I'm not saying it happens all the time. But it happens. There is a reason there are competition categories. Even in the same gender, for example, in boxing, there are weight divisions.
So, I don't know what the solution is. Measure the amount of strength and categorize accordingly? Having an extra "transgender" category? I tell you - I would watch this! Not in a morbid way, but a genuine one, no different from watching women's soccer or men's tennis, for example.
No, I don't believe you.
Because you literally admitted that you don't know much about this topic, but still came out to argue for the exclusion of one of the most marginalised parts of the LGBTQ community.
Your understanding is one that comes from the talking points of people trying to use sports as a wedge tactic to further ostracise trans folk, and you completely disregard or simply fail to look for the experiences of trans people and the impact these exclusions have on them.
So if you genuinely do support LGBTQ folk, and that sentence wasn't just a salve for your own conscience, it might be time to stop stepping on the people you claim to support. If you don't know enough to form a supportive opinion, that's fine, but stop adding to the voices trying to pull us down...
Friend, I understand your struggle. I'm also part of a marginalized group. I'll stand schooled and say that I must inform myself more, sure. But don't characterize me as someone who is trying to put you down.
You're speaking in absolutes, though. To "completely disregard or fail to look for the experiences of trans people" would mean to say bullshit like "I fail to see how they're suffering for not being women because trans women are NOT women" - that is to completely disregard it, like you put it. And friend, you don't know how many heated discussions I've had with people, even childhood friends, to defend trans rights, simply because it's the natural and right thing to do.
So, I'm here to discuss, to be taught, to learn, to gather tools and help to continue defending everyone's rights, yours and mine.
I'm not talking about excluding anyone. I'm discussing different options that allow inclusion. Are they right or wrong? I don't know, that's why I'm asking! But again, don't accuse me of doing something I'm not doing.
Can you share your knowledge now?
Don't characterise you as someone trying to put me down?
You're quite literally arguing to take away my rights from a position of self confessed ignorance.
And when called on it, you ignored literally everything I said to highlight how the biggest problem that needs addressing is about the way you're being treated.
If you were here to learn, you'd be asking questions, and you'd be listening to what I, a sports playing trans woman has to say. But you're not asking questions, you're arguing, and volunteering to exclude folk like me, without even knowing enough to understand why, let alone the impact it has.
Trans people have no track record of consistently out performing cis people in any sport at any level. Literally every example you can think of is a misrepresentation by a media more interested in controversy than fact. Those are your facts.
If your response to that is to argue about it so as to validate the position you've already staked out, rather than listening, asking more questions, or simply backing off, then you know what you can do with your support. People calling themselves allies but then arguing to take away our rights hurt more than bigots ever can...
Girl, you're just too angry to see beyond what you want to see. I'm a good listener, and I know I'm not perfect. Being "hurt" and telling me to "show your support up yours" because we're not 100% aligned just tells me that you and I could not be friends in real life - not that you care. But that's okay. Plenty of other friends more open to educate me out there, and I'll gladly stand corrected before them without being called "worse than a bigot" without knowing my full story (the irony.)
Again, you've acknowledged literally nothing that I've said, to focus on how you are the hard done by one.
You also mispresented me. I didn't say you were worse than a bigot, I said people like you hurt more than bigots do. A bigot can't let me down, because all they know is hate. But when the people that are meant to be allies call for you to lose rights? It hits harder than bigots do.
I could give a shit whether we would get on in real life. Us getting on should have nothing to do with your support. What I care about is that you're arguing for exclusion of trans folk. The fact that your support relies on education from trans folk that you perceive as more reasonable simply means that your support is conditional. And conditional support isn't really support
I disagree with you when you say you didn't imply that I was worse than a bigot. Because if bigots hurt on purpose, and I hurt more than bigots, then what does that make me? "I'm not saying you're a killer, I'm just saying that your actions murder people." Semantics.
What should I acknowledge? That I am arguing for the exclusion of trans people? Did I say "hey, trans folks must be banned because of this or that"? I stated my views and I said I'm open to being schooled. But you're acting like when Trump says "that was a nasty question" to reporters who ask questions, instead of freaking answering the question. Or what did I miss?
And hopefully you'll hear out my reasons when I say this, but yes my support for trans folks is conditional, just like with the support I give to everyone else. Here is why: I support the inclusion of gay people. But some gay people think that trans people are not part of the community (TERFs, they are called?) So my support ends there. If someone says "I can't believe your support for gay rights is conditional" I'll just tell them to pound sand - because I won't tolerate anybody who tells me that trans people should not exist, not even gay people.
So you have my full support. But that supports ends where the right of others to peacefully co-exist is threatened. If you don't think this is okay, that's your problem.
Your inclusion ends where others are excluded. I think cis women may be excluded from a sport if some trans folks participate in it. Where are their rights? That's the argument. Let's discuss. Is that bigotry? Absolutely not. Is it ignorance? Possibly! Am I wrong? Tell me so without berating me! Others have done the same and provided me with study materials in this very thread, and I've been reading.
That's conditional support for their ideas, not for their rights.
My point wasn't that your support for the ideas of trans folk is condition. My point was that your support for our rights is conditional, based on your own personal assessment of whether we deserve some particular rights that everyone else has...
This is an example of what I'm talking about. "I want to exclude the super vulnerable people from sports, so that the more privileged, and less vulnerable folk don't feel uncomfortable".
It's text book bigotry... You don't mean it to be bigotry, because your position isn't shaped from hate. But it still hurts vulnerable folk, and empowers the people who do hate us. All whilst you smile and tell us that you support us, and worst of all, genuinely believe it...
And yet here you are, still arguing for our exclusion... Even if you haven't read it yet, and may change your mind in the future, the fact that you're willing to frame exclusion of trans folk as acceptable until convinced otherwise should make you question your biases. It doubt it will, but it should...
Oh my god. Please stop saying this, because it's not true.
Do I want to exclude trans people you from a women's sports? NO! Let's start from there. Yes? Let's just say that I am (or was) misinformed. And let's say that I really want to learn (which I've already said several times.) Now, if I say "now, what if..." and then you're like "Oh you're still a bigot! Exclusionist!" then how can we have a healthy exchange of ideas? It's not like I'm some religious fundamentalist, covid denier, or flat Earther, claiming that I'm demanding equal attention to some absurd idea. I'm telling you "hey, I want to learn" and you're like "no, you're not, and you won't change!" Is that your idea of a healthy debate?
Weak argument, sorry. That's like saying "oh beating a trans person for being trans is worse than beating a cis woman for being a cis woman, because cis women are less vulnerable!" My position before knowing better was (and again, was), all trans women are stronger than cis women because they benefited from having inherently more muscle mass before transitioning. And you must concede in this hypothetical scenario, again, hypothetical, that that's NOT fair to cis women.
And you instead of saying "bro, no, wait, here's what you need to know," you say "BIGOT!! EXCLUSIONIST! YOU WILL NEVER LEARN!" (per your last sentence), and that's, frankly, bullshit and I'm glad that you don't speak for everyone, because this conversation is becoming insufferable and you don't help with gaining support from others who are really on the fence.
Leaving aside the fact I have never once call you a bigot, then yeah, I'd still call you out for this, because "what if..." is still empowering bigots who want to exclude us, based on made up scenarios.
Rather than "what if", default to inclusion in the here and now, and worry about the "what ifs" if they ever actually appear. And point of note, most of the "what if" scenarios will never eventuate, because the whole point of most of them is as a wedge tactic,, to open the door on the topic of exclusion, rather than a genuine exploration of the nuanced topic of co-existing but distinct needs for inclusion of vulnerable groups.
No... It's saying that addressing the active exclusion of trans folk from community is more relevant than the discomfort of a more privileged group of people, whose discomfort arises from misinformation and deliberately stoked fear.
Why must I concede that? At the community sports level, inclusion is more important.
At at the elite level? Unfairness can never be assessed by looking at one attribute in isolation. Trans women typically have larger frames, but reduced muscle mass to move it around. What does increased strength even mean in that scenario? At this level, the thing that matters is real world outcomes specifically in the sport in question to the extent that meaningful competition is impossible. And so far, there zero sports where this is actually an issue. Trans folk hold zero world records, very few national records, and on average, under perform compared to cis folk of their gender.
In my second comment to you, I said "Trans people have no track record of consistently out performing cis people in any sport at any level. Literally every example you can think of is a misrepresentation by a media more interested in controversy than fact. Those are your facts"
That's what you need to know, and that's what I told you.
You skimmed right over it to continue arguing with me, because you were indignant that I'd made you feel called out
And there is that conditional support.
You are telling me that your opinion, and the opinion of others on whether we should have the same basic rights to inclusion as everyone else, is dependent on how politely I raise my points with you?
Which is to say, my rights are contingent not on the issue at hand, but on how I present myself to you?
That should make you question things...
I disagree with you on this. I have no problem answering "what if" questions regarding misinformation about my own circumstances.
Cool beans. I missed that. Thanks.
No, because I would have reacted the same way if you said the same things politely. "Excuse me, my young lemming, but with the utmost respect I'm afraid to tell you that you are nothing but an exclusionist, and I hope you accept my declaration that everything points out towards your person never being capable of changing your position." I would have preferred you to say "hey you stupid misinformed bozo, are you ready for some schooling can of whoop-ass?"
You don't accept hypothetical scenarios in a discussion, and I do. We will never align. And that's okay. I'm done with this discussion. Continue being a happy, dense mod and yes, feel free to keep thinking whatever you want to think about me. Peace and happiness to you.
That's cool for you, but you're not trans and don't face exclusion based on the misguided assumptions people have about you. You don't have bigots actively generating "what if" debates to try and normalise exclusion towards you.
To you, it's just a sometimes thing. For me, it's an active part of a campaign driven by people trying to remove our rights, and it's explicitly designed to sound reasonable, and be repeated innocently by people who don't know any better.
This is all hypothetical to you. To me, it's a tool used to hurt me and my community.
Nah, not true. Your characterization of me is incorrect, and your insistence on it makes you dense and surprisingly narrow-minded. I'll keep responding as long as you continue, but I'm done with this conversation. Have a nice life.
Given this belief, is there a reason trans women have never taken Olympic medals despite having nearly 20 years to do so? That would seem to be evidence against that perspective. If any trans women are more capable at sport than cis women shouldn't at least one have been world class?
Theres a trans female weightlifter Laurel Hubbard who made it to the Olympics in 2020. Passed every Olympic requirement for trans women to compete. Big hubbub about biological advantage and all that from the critics. She was in the competition one would most expect dominance from someone assigned male at birth. She had three lifts. She failed three lifts. Placed last in her group. So much for that.
Yup. Quietly dismissed by so-called "skeptics" tho
How many trans women compete in olympic sports in women's categories? Genuine question.
Really very few, I think it's only in the last few years that any have qualified. Which, again, is a pretty solid argument against, "Trans women are driving cis women out of sport!".
That's a good point, but for the sake of the argument, can trans women compete in women's Olympic sports? As in, are they really allowed? Given your previous comment, I'm going to say yes, but I'd like to be sure..
Yes, since the early 2000s.
Thanks. Today I learned.
They are allowed. As Stern@lemmy.world pointed out, Laurel Hubbard competed in weight lifting and failed all three lifts and placed last in her category. She was expected to medal.
Thanks. Good to know.
If they are on hormone blockers and HRT, they honestly do not have a higher probability. That said, it would be pretty fucking invasive to make sure they are taking those consistently.
But then, what's the solution? If an athlete says "hm, I'll stop taking this hormone to have a competitive advantage over everyone else," how's that different from doing the opposite? (e.g. taking hormones.)
I really don't have answers to these questions. It's an important topic, though.
Decades ago, when leg prosthetics started to improve to the point that amputees could beat non-amputees in races, I heard people say that athletes would chop off their legs to get prosthetics installed and dominate the competition. Obviously that has failed to happen, despite prosthetics getting better all the time.
In general, trans people don’t stop taking their meds for the same reason runners don’t chop off their legs even if it could theoretically give them an edge.
I'm sorry. I don't think this is a good analogy. (And I didn't downvote you.)
For your analogy to work, it has to be the other way around: Abled-body athletes wanting to participate in paralympics competitions and therefore they would "disable" themselves to do so.
Then, some of those athletes would say "you know what, perhaps I could still use one leg against these guys who have no legs from the waist down."
I’m on Blahaj, I don’t see downvotes and don’t particularly care if people downvote me. Especially if it’s because they’re mad that I do not compromise on trans inclusivity in sports and don’t entertain paranoid fantasies about trans athletes sabotaging their own medical care to allegedly get an edge in sports—something that has not happened. There simply are not many elite trans athletes and those that exist usually perform at a level below their cis competitors. Evidence: trans people have been eligible to compete in the Olympics since the 2000s, and it took until 2021 for a trans person to qualify.
IMO the analogy works when you come at it from the perspective of the hypothetical trans athlete in question. HRT isn’t a placebo, it has real effects and a lot of those effects vanish when you stop taking it. For a trans person that is on HRT for dysphoria, you are going to get all the negative effects of dysphoria anywhere within 24 hours to a week of stopping HRT, which is FAR too short a time for someone’s natal gonads (assuming they even still have them) to come back online and get your hormones back to a level that isn’t “currently in menopause.” It is going to take even more time after that (months, if not years) to get anything that could be considered an advantage. All while suffering from dysphoria.
It sucks. Nobody is going to do it for the same reason an athlete won’t cut off their fucking legs: it’s their body that they have to live in.
Indeed. I didn't want to suggest that that scenario was real - just a thought experiment. But of course you have a point. Thanks for the insight.
I don't have a solution and I doubt a perfect one exists but did want to add in info to make sure people are not under the assumption that people on HRT have done support of significant advantage.
For me to have an informed solution, I would have to know how long it takes for muscle to come back once HRT is stopped, what the side effects are of starting and stopping HRT repeatedly, and probably a host of other questions that I do not have the answer to. Trans people are not quick to simply stop taking their hormones and hormone blockers. Considering almost all of them went through years of struggle to transition, stopping them destroys years of progress and some of that can be irreversible. I do recognize that money can convince some people although there is not a ton of money in women's sports.
The Olympic Committee used to test testosterone levels but had to shelve that because, while rare, cis women occasionally have higher testosterone than the threshold that was set. So they went back to inspecting genitals for a while. They could go back to testosterone level testing for trans women but that is a little discriminatory since it targets them. I don't have a perfect solution and I'm not sure one exists that isn't going to piss at least one group off.
It is indeed a complicated subject.
Thank you for your insight.
On the other hand, if you put a transman with the women, he will have a clear advantage and it wouldn't be fair.
Anything you say followed by "but" is completely meaningless, know that all the "LGBTQ+ peeps" here you claim to support now know to avoid you like the plague
Jesus. What a weak, generalizing argument.
You're going to make me go full godwin. Imagine saying "I support my Jewish friends and what happened to them at the Holocaust was heinous. But what Israel is doing to Gazans is inexcusable" then someone telling you "anything after the 'but' is meaningless, and all the Jewish community here will avoid you like the plague."
I just hope you're a troll.