Of course your position on this issue is obviously the rational one. And I think your point that we would not be even having this conversation 10 years ago is an insightful and important observation. It really does show just how far over the edge we have gone as a society. It is valid fodder for conservatives to use in dismissing any …
Of course your position on this issue is obviously the rational one. And I think your point that we would not be even having this conversation 10 years ago is an insightful and important observation. It really does show just how far over the edge we have gone as a society. It is valid fodder for conservatives to use in dismissing any and all progressives on all topics. It is quite toxic.
Still I am not sure about this back and forth. I am not convinced it served to shift anyones thinking. (A high bar, I will admit in this case. Still this should be our aim.)
I feel the key observation is to notice that anytime there is a dramatic delta in expect performance we split groups up. Male / Female. 5 year old soccer from 15 year old soccer, from collegiate, from professional. Different weight classes in wrestling, etc.
Seems one should ignore all stuff about race (even if she brings it up), and just notice that we do this splitting, and it is good that we do.
If you did want to discuss race, it occurs to me that society WOULD have separated sports if the physiologies of different races were as incompatible as the physiologies. (but I would not bring the up, it would just get twisted.)
The other observation to make is that if one really are going to allow any person to join into either gender's sports, then one MUST simply abolish gendered sports all together. That is a logical position to take on this issue. It is just not a position that many who are pushing for self determination are taking.
~~~~
Part of me just wants to allow liberal rules to be applied at this highest most visible levels of sports. Increasingly it would be used by tier two athletes to become world champions to the collective outrage of the majority of the population. This policy would destroy itself, and would also help pull the left just a bit back from its ludicrous position. But I don't wish this, because it would also do large damage to the reputation of the left and many important issues that espouses. The question is how can we constructively demonstrate the defeating aspects of these ideas, without ourselves becoming destructive. (no ideas from the peanut gallery)
"I am not convinced it served to shift anyones thinking. (A high bar, I will admit in this case. Still this should be our aim.)"
Yeah, it's not that I disagree, it's that, as I've said once or twice before, I'm mainly working through the logic on these issues for the sake of other readers who haven't had the time, or the masochistic tendencies, to research them as thoroughly as I have.
I find that, particularly on trans issues, most of the people I come across aren't the least bit interested in shifting their thinking. There's not even a vague attempt at good-faith conversation. And as she used racial segregation as the lynchpin of her argument regarding trans "segregation" in sport, I couldn't really ignore it.
So I simply pointed out how and why the conflation of "race" and. transgender identity is incredibly racist. Again, this is more for the benefit of anybody else reading. Perhaps I could shift *their* thinking.
That 99.98% I quoted? I didn't pull that out of thin air. Those are genuinely the odds that you can't tell, at a glance, whether a person is male or female (coincidentally, those are also nearly the same odds that a flipped coin will land on its edge). If the person I'm talking to is going to pretend that this 0.02% chance means that unless I've had my sex confirmed in a lab I can't tell what it is, I don't have much hope of an honest discussion.
This issue is entirely ideological. I have only slightly more hope of having a trans "ally" admit that they're wrong than I would of having a flat-earther admit that the Earth is a globe. So I'm not convinced that allowing these rules to be applied at the most visible levels would pull the left back from this ludicrous position. Some people really have embraced the that there's nothing about being a woman that isn't simply in people's heads.
I see, your writing is a leave behind for other readers. Got it. In that case, restating the central argument: humanity has chosen performance-based groupings to try to ensure that all peoples have an ok shot of winning within their performance-based groups. and this is a good thing. the complexity of the back and forth makes the messaging difficult. Still I understand you cannot leave a challenge unanswered.
I agree allies will not have their minds changed. but both the left and right have a "momentum" to ways of thinking. by showing the silly-ness of a position to the broader community it can shift the balance away from certain ideas. I expect you agree with this, and indeed AIM to do this. Having the majority of all female world records being held by trans women would certainly demonstrate in action, what you strive to express in words. Sadly it would ALSO demonstrate the irrationality of the left for all the right to see. That would be a great loss.
"Having the majority of all female world records being held by trans women would certainly demonstrate in action, what you strive to express in words. "
Again, my suspicion is that this really wouldn't be the case.
Trans women and elite athletes are both tiny categories. Their overlap is miniscule. It'll be a long time before trans women hold a majority of records. But in the mean time, lots of female athletes will lose medals or places in finals. Girls will lose scholarships or just confidence. The damage is insidious.
Plus, self ID (I'm a woman because I say I'm a woman) is already the standard in Olympic guidelines. How do you undo that? Who, pardon the pun, will have the balls to say, "Actually, trans women *aren't* exactly women are they?" after 10 years of normalisation have gone by?
I hope I'm wrong, but what I think we're seeing is a legitimate breakdown in people's ability to admit what a woman is. Younger generations will grow up not understanding they're even missing anything. If we don't stop this while there are enough of us who still know what a woman *is*, I think it's going to be a very long time before anything changes.
QJ, dont feel the need to respond... I just could not help but to respond:
WILL TRANS WOMEN WIN MANY SPORTS??
As I understand it, there are 1000+ biological-men who can run faster than the fastest biological-woman, so was imagining a future where it becomes normal for a tiny fraction (0.1% to 1%) of non-trans elite athletes to adjust their self determination specifically to BECOME a world champion. It would not take many folks to decided they had a bit of room in their life for a bit of ambiguity. The stakes would be high... millions in advertising etc. and the gold medal title. And just 0.1% would be enough.... dont know what will happen.
ON THE MEANING OF WOMEN
I think both this generation and next generation know what a biological-women and self-declared-women are. The difference will be which of these definitions is given primacy when one simply uses the generic term "woman."
I think the next generation will not be troubled. I think they will have SWITCHED the default meaning to the latter, but since they all collectively understand that "woman" now means "a person who self-ascribes a collection of stereotypical behaviors" there will be no issue. They will simply have a separate term like "biologically female" or such to refer to the physical state of a person. I think this is a fine situation, and no one will be upset that the definitions are "wrong". (those upset people will be dead)
But I also predict no one will try to connecting physiologically-female attributes to "women" any longer since it will then be understood that woman no longer means biologically female. So elite sport designations won't be tied in this way, also maternity related, and health related issues will not be tied to the term "woman" but instead will be tied to the more cumbersome biologically-female term... or maybe they will invent a distinct term for the bio case. whatever, I bet it will work out.
We are just in this weird present state where we have rules tied to the generic term "woman" which need to be tied to the "biologically female" category instead. I predict reality will eventually force this to happen.
Not so sure it would be a great loss. I think there are more left-leaning people than you might suppose who oppose the extreme thinking and who still care about fair play over orthodoxy. And it appears that more and more are coming out of the woodwork all the time. I am actually heartened by recent movements. We are far from having won, but people are starting to pay attention. The SF recall was particularly instructive. California is unabashedly liberal—particularly the urban areas—so the recall was significant.
I like the way you describe splittings and performance-based groups, though. I think these are useful terms when trying to understand this phenomenon. I will be adding them to my vocab bag for discussing this issue. Thanks!
It will not be men who bring down trans competing as women because our ox is not being gored. It will be women, athletes missing out on hard earned scholarships and professional women's sports. It's their fight and I'm uncertain that male allies are helpful.
"It's their fight and I'm uncertain that male allies are helpful."
Hmm, I couldn't disagree more strongly here. I've made this point many times in various forms, but there are vanishingly few (if any) issues that are just the concern of one group. Nor should they be thought of that way.
White allies were helpful in the fight against slavery and segregation, male allies were helpful in the fight for women's voting and workplace and abortion based rights. Straight people were helpful in the fight for the recognition of gay marriage.
It can't really be put any better than Martin Niemöller did in "First They Came..."
Perhaps my poor wording. I have always agreed with what you wrote, but I read Medium and have started to question the idea. It is a sea of expressed hatred for "allies" from within the offended tribe. They deny that it is hate and I can't read minds, but that seems to be modern thought. When someone says something to the effect of, "You are irredeemably a racist, sexist, x-phobe because you are a straight white male" aimed at me for membership in a group they despise, and then say I should join them in tearing down that group, what am I to think? Do they want my help, or do they just want to rant and criticize?
I realize that in many ways, Medium is the most toxic platform on the internet, perhaps because it goes beyond the short attention span, fits on a bumper sticker platforms like twitter so I shouldn't let that make me think it is representative of people in general. I also realize that I'm as guilty as anyone about seeing many so-called allies as disingenuous virtue signalers, so I have my issues too. I don't need the appreciation of those I wish to help, but in this day in age am I actually helpful if that is how I am viewed?
"so I shouldn't let that make me think it is representative of people in general"
Yeah, I think this rule should be applied to the internet in general.😅 It's a natural signal booster for outrage and liars. I don't worry about how I'm viewed if I'm genuinely telling the truth to the best of my ability. Often you just don't get to find out if you were helpful. As I've said before, people rarely change their minds in real time. But maybe something you say will flip a switch at some future point. I've found that numerous times.
I strongly agree. Coalitions are very much needed to turn the tide on some of these toxic ideas. Plus, it humanizes us to reach across the aisle. Helps us to understand one another better.
Of course your position on this issue is obviously the rational one. And I think your point that we would not be even having this conversation 10 years ago is an insightful and important observation. It really does show just how far over the edge we have gone as a society. It is valid fodder for conservatives to use in dismissing any and all progressives on all topics. It is quite toxic.
Still I am not sure about this back and forth. I am not convinced it served to shift anyones thinking. (A high bar, I will admit in this case. Still this should be our aim.)
I feel the key observation is to notice that anytime there is a dramatic delta in expect performance we split groups up. Male / Female. 5 year old soccer from 15 year old soccer, from collegiate, from professional. Different weight classes in wrestling, etc.
Seems one should ignore all stuff about race (even if she brings it up), and just notice that we do this splitting, and it is good that we do.
If you did want to discuss race, it occurs to me that society WOULD have separated sports if the physiologies of different races were as incompatible as the physiologies. (but I would not bring the up, it would just get twisted.)
The other observation to make is that if one really are going to allow any person to join into either gender's sports, then one MUST simply abolish gendered sports all together. That is a logical position to take on this issue. It is just not a position that many who are pushing for self determination are taking.
~~~~
Part of me just wants to allow liberal rules to be applied at this highest most visible levels of sports. Increasingly it would be used by tier two athletes to become world champions to the collective outrage of the majority of the population. This policy would destroy itself, and would also help pull the left just a bit back from its ludicrous position. But I don't wish this, because it would also do large damage to the reputation of the left and many important issues that espouses. The question is how can we constructively demonstrate the defeating aspects of these ideas, without ourselves becoming destructive. (no ideas from the peanut gallery)
"I am not convinced it served to shift anyones thinking. (A high bar, I will admit in this case. Still this should be our aim.)"
Yeah, it's not that I disagree, it's that, as I've said once or twice before, I'm mainly working through the logic on these issues for the sake of other readers who haven't had the time, or the masochistic tendencies, to research them as thoroughly as I have.
I find that, particularly on trans issues, most of the people I come across aren't the least bit interested in shifting their thinking. There's not even a vague attempt at good-faith conversation. And as she used racial segregation as the lynchpin of her argument regarding trans "segregation" in sport, I couldn't really ignore it.
So I simply pointed out how and why the conflation of "race" and. transgender identity is incredibly racist. Again, this is more for the benefit of anybody else reading. Perhaps I could shift *their* thinking.
That 99.98% I quoted? I didn't pull that out of thin air. Those are genuinely the odds that you can't tell, at a glance, whether a person is male or female (coincidentally, those are also nearly the same odds that a flipped coin will land on its edge). If the person I'm talking to is going to pretend that this 0.02% chance means that unless I've had my sex confirmed in a lab I can't tell what it is, I don't have much hope of an honest discussion.
This issue is entirely ideological. I have only slightly more hope of having a trans "ally" admit that they're wrong than I would of having a flat-earther admit that the Earth is a globe. So I'm not convinced that allowing these rules to be applied at the most visible levels would pull the left back from this ludicrous position. Some people really have embraced the that there's nothing about being a woman that isn't simply in people's heads.
Good points. Two separate responses.
I see, your writing is a leave behind for other readers. Got it. In that case, restating the central argument: humanity has chosen performance-based groupings to try to ensure that all peoples have an ok shot of winning within their performance-based groups. and this is a good thing. the complexity of the back and forth makes the messaging difficult. Still I understand you cannot leave a challenge unanswered.
I agree allies will not have their minds changed. but both the left and right have a "momentum" to ways of thinking. by showing the silly-ness of a position to the broader community it can shift the balance away from certain ideas. I expect you agree with this, and indeed AIM to do this. Having the majority of all female world records being held by trans women would certainly demonstrate in action, what you strive to express in words. Sadly it would ALSO demonstrate the irrationality of the left for all the right to see. That would be a great loss.
"Having the majority of all female world records being held by trans women would certainly demonstrate in action, what you strive to express in words. "
Again, my suspicion is that this really wouldn't be the case.
Trans women and elite athletes are both tiny categories. Their overlap is miniscule. It'll be a long time before trans women hold a majority of records. But in the mean time, lots of female athletes will lose medals or places in finals. Girls will lose scholarships or just confidence. The damage is insidious.
Plus, self ID (I'm a woman because I say I'm a woman) is already the standard in Olympic guidelines. How do you undo that? Who, pardon the pun, will have the balls to say, "Actually, trans women *aren't* exactly women are they?" after 10 years of normalisation have gone by?
I hope I'm wrong, but what I think we're seeing is a legitimate breakdown in people's ability to admit what a woman is. Younger generations will grow up not understanding they're even missing anything. If we don't stop this while there are enough of us who still know what a woman *is*, I think it's going to be a very long time before anything changes.
QJ, dont feel the need to respond... I just could not help but to respond:
WILL TRANS WOMEN WIN MANY SPORTS??
As I understand it, there are 1000+ biological-men who can run faster than the fastest biological-woman, so was imagining a future where it becomes normal for a tiny fraction (0.1% to 1%) of non-trans elite athletes to adjust their self determination specifically to BECOME a world champion. It would not take many folks to decided they had a bit of room in their life for a bit of ambiguity. The stakes would be high... millions in advertising etc. and the gold medal title. And just 0.1% would be enough.... dont know what will happen.
ON THE MEANING OF WOMEN
I think both this generation and next generation know what a biological-women and self-declared-women are. The difference will be which of these definitions is given primacy when one simply uses the generic term "woman."
I think the next generation will not be troubled. I think they will have SWITCHED the default meaning to the latter, but since they all collectively understand that "woman" now means "a person who self-ascribes a collection of stereotypical behaviors" there will be no issue. They will simply have a separate term like "biologically female" or such to refer to the physical state of a person. I think this is a fine situation, and no one will be upset that the definitions are "wrong". (those upset people will be dead)
But I also predict no one will try to connecting physiologically-female attributes to "women" any longer since it will then be understood that woman no longer means biologically female. So elite sport designations won't be tied in this way, also maternity related, and health related issues will not be tied to the term "woman" but instead will be tied to the more cumbersome biologically-female term... or maybe they will invent a distinct term for the bio case. whatever, I bet it will work out.
We are just in this weird present state where we have rules tied to the generic term "woman" which need to be tied to the "biologically female" category instead. I predict reality will eventually force this to happen.
Not so sure it would be a great loss. I think there are more left-leaning people than you might suppose who oppose the extreme thinking and who still care about fair play over orthodoxy. And it appears that more and more are coming out of the woodwork all the time. I am actually heartened by recent movements. We are far from having won, but people are starting to pay attention. The SF recall was particularly instructive. California is unabashedly liberal—particularly the urban areas—so the recall was significant.
I like the way you describe splittings and performance-based groups, though. I think these are useful terms when trying to understand this phenomenon. I will be adding them to my vocab bag for discussing this issue. Thanks!
It will not be men who bring down trans competing as women because our ox is not being gored. It will be women, athletes missing out on hard earned scholarships and professional women's sports. It's their fight and I'm uncertain that male allies are helpful.
"It's their fight and I'm uncertain that male allies are helpful."
Hmm, I couldn't disagree more strongly here. I've made this point many times in various forms, but there are vanishingly few (if any) issues that are just the concern of one group. Nor should they be thought of that way.
White allies were helpful in the fight against slavery and segregation, male allies were helpful in the fight for women's voting and workplace and abortion based rights. Straight people were helpful in the fight for the recognition of gay marriage.
It can't really be put any better than Martin Niemöller did in "First They Came..."
Perhaps my poor wording. I have always agreed with what you wrote, but I read Medium and have started to question the idea. It is a sea of expressed hatred for "allies" from within the offended tribe. They deny that it is hate and I can't read minds, but that seems to be modern thought. When someone says something to the effect of, "You are irredeemably a racist, sexist, x-phobe because you are a straight white male" aimed at me for membership in a group they despise, and then say I should join them in tearing down that group, what am I to think? Do they want my help, or do they just want to rant and criticize?
I realize that in many ways, Medium is the most toxic platform on the internet, perhaps because it goes beyond the short attention span, fits on a bumper sticker platforms like twitter so I shouldn't let that make me think it is representative of people in general. I also realize that I'm as guilty as anyone about seeing many so-called allies as disingenuous virtue signalers, so I have my issues too. I don't need the appreciation of those I wish to help, but in this day in age am I actually helpful if that is how I am viewed?
"so I shouldn't let that make me think it is representative of people in general"
Yeah, I think this rule should be applied to the internet in general.😅 It's a natural signal booster for outrage and liars. I don't worry about how I'm viewed if I'm genuinely telling the truth to the best of my ability. Often you just don't get to find out if you were helpful. As I've said before, people rarely change their minds in real time. But maybe something you say will flip a switch at some future point. I've found that numerous times.
I strongly agree. Coalitions are very much needed to turn the tide on some of these toxic ideas. Plus, it humanizes us to reach across the aisle. Helps us to understand one another better.